Good, that will be 35 churches that will now have to pay taxes, instead of leeching off of society.

In the Bible these churches are told that they cannot serve two masters, for they will love one and forsake the other. This is a perfect example of them loving money more than they love their “God-given mission.”
Every one of these churches has the ability to contact the IRS and revoke their 501(3)c status with just a simple letter, signed by the congregational officers. Once they do that they can preach whatever they wish from their pulpits.
And, if God has truly given them this mission, then God will provide them with the money to pay the new tax bill they will receive. For the Bible says that God will provide for those who are doing his will.
Their problem, Mr. Sekulow, is that they love money more than God, and they trust the US government more than they trust God.
So much for saving faith. If these churches won’t trust God for a few bucks, why should any of us trust him for salvation?

Why should churches be tax-exempt if they wanna break the rules? Any other entity that wants to vote has to pay taxes, the church does not and should not be treated any differently, to do otherwise would be unfair and tantamount to cheating, plus its thanks partly to the churches who pushed for the republicans in these past few years that the USA is in its worst financial crisis for years, We cannot trust them and it is proof that they are not divinely ordered.

It is one thing to spend $44,000 on endorsing a candidate, as reported by Mr. Lynn. However, a church should NOT lose their tax exempt status because of a statement here and there, which has happened. The vast majority of churches are not-for-profit institutions that have community programs that help the less fortunate, and should not lose their tax-exempt status.
To address what the two previous comments said: I am a preacher and if the IRS said quit your preaching on certain subject or lose your tax-exempt status, I would definetly keep preaching and depend on the Lord, as would most churches.
Again, most churches do their community good and the tax status is appropriate. However, they should not be censored, as will be the case. Personally, if churches lose their tax-exempt status, then Planned Parenthood should lose their millions of dollars that the government gives to them out of our tax dollars, because the vast majority of conservative christians are 100% against the philosophy of Planned Parenthood. One is just as bad as the other.

“To address what the two previous comments said: I am a preacher and if the IRS said quit your preaching on certain subject or lose your tax-exempt status, I would definetly keep preaching and depend on the Lord, as would most churches.”
Then I assume you are advising your church board to send that letter to the IRS and give up your church’s tax exempt status so you can preach the message God has placed up on your heart.
A simple question for you, pastor. Do you trust God to provide what you and your church need to do the work he has given you?
“Again, most churches do their community good and the tax status is appropriate. However, they should not be censored, as will be the case. Personally, if churches lose their tax-exempt status, then Planned Parenthood should lose their millions of dollars that the government gives to them out of our tax dollars, because the vast majority of conservative christians are 100% against the philosophy of Planned Parenthood. One is just as bad as the other.”
Apples and oranges, pastor. Planned Parenthood does not claim a mandate from the almighty. You and your church do. YOU say that God is calling you to speak in such-and-such a way. YOU say that our country is placing churches a position of disobeying God.
Pastor, YOU and churches like you claim that God is supreme, and that he will provide. YOU tell us that God is the only one who can save us from an eternity in hell.
If YOU cannot trust him to pay the tax bill for your church so you can do the work he calls you to do, why should we trust him for something as weighty as eternal life?
Where have you placed your trust, Pastor? God or man?

“However, they should not be censored, as will be the case.”
No, pastor. They are not being censored. They are selling their prophetic voice for a tax subsidy from the government. They are trying to serve mammon and God, and God’s Word says that you cannot serve these two masters.

“My quarrel is with the government telling me what I can and cannot say from behind the pulpit of which God has given me charge. It is a matter of principle, NOT MONEY!!”
With all due respect, Pastor, no it isn’t a matter of principle. Your church, just like many others, made a choice to accept the conditions of section 501(c)3 of the IRS code. Your church saw the benefit of being exempt from paying taxes as worth accepting the conditions of that rule.
If you and your church now see it as a matter of principle, as a matter of the government controlling what you say from the pulpit, then do you not owe it to your congregation to recommend that they renounce the 501(c)3 status so that the government has no say in what you preach?
It is a matter of personal responsibility, Pastor. Your church has the choice to either accept the rules of the IRS and the benefits of tax exemption, or eschew them and preach what you feel God wants you to preach. The government has no power over you on this one other than the power your congregation has given them.
Your congregation, not Congress, has the ultimate power to end this control. And it is your congregational leadership, not Congress, who will answer to God for not using that power.

** what would Luthor do? **
Too bad this isn’t a parody site, complete with parody responses. Amazing how fatuous the claims of the big-3 monotheisms sound. They are equally odious and totally dispensable as ethical or ideological guides.
Enough of bibliolators indulging in mere scripticism. — What they claim has no more intellectual integrity or moral value than disputes of drunken geeks parsing comix at a Superman convention.
What a fictionalized culture hero Jesus, or Moses, or Mohammed would do is irrelevant. As irrelevant as what Hercules, Sherlock Holmes, or Lex Luthor would do.
Despite offering ontological fictions and morally purblind ideology, religious fanatics exert unwholesome political power. McCain/Palin pray that fundies will back thier remake of Apocalypse Now. Sen. Obama reaches out to pet America’s theocrats in waiting. Casting pearls before America’s most swinish, he’s already carried obligatory religious hypocrisy too far.
As for moral monsters Dobson, Hagee and their disgusting epigones: declare their mega-xian-enterprises taxable. They are nothing more than fronts for the ultra-right ideology of dominionism.
Tax them all. Stop state support of religion. Let it wither like Jonah’s vine.
“God help me. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. Amen.”
bipolar2 ©2008

Continuing:
“As far as sending a letter to the IRS to give up our tax exempt status, after every law has been passed, and the courts rule in your opinion’s favor, then we will give up that status. Until then, we will fight to keep it, as a matter of principle.”
Which principle do you value more, Pastor? Do you value the principle of free speech from your pulpit, something you have given up voluntarily? Or do you value more the tax exemption you receive in exchange for surrendering it?
You remind me of the story of Esau and Jacob, Pastor. I’m sure you are familiar with it, so I won’t recount it here. You are Esau, hungering for the privilege of tax exemption. Jacob (the government) offers it, but asks that you surrender your freedom to speak openly from the pulpit. You agree, and take the bowl of pottage (tax exemption), and later you have remorse over what you lost.
Unlike Esau, you have the opportunity to regain what you and your congregation gave up, Pastor. You do not need government to help you. To go before them and ask them to give you BOTH the benefit of tax exemption AND your freedom of speech when you already have the power to take back that which you say you value more…makes it seem like you honor government more than God.
The ball is in your court, Pastor. You and your congregation have a leash restraining you, but you have the power to remove it yourself, without the help of government.
Why don’t you just go ahead and do it? What is it that you fear?

“There are other institutions, other than churches, that have tax exemption status, many of which make comments I do not believe in concerning government. Why are they not punished as well?”
Again, apples and oranges, Pastor. You and your congregation have made the choice to accept the benefit of tax exemption. Pointing to Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the NRA, or any other organization for justification doesn’t invalidate that. Your congregation made the choice. Your congregation voluntarily gave up a portion of its freedom of speech…your freedom of speech…in exchange for a government benefit.
If the cost of that benefit is now too great, you have the choice to renounce that benefit without penalty. The IRS will not come and ask for back taxes. Your congregation will simply begin paying taxes like any other organization in the country…and you will have regained what you clearly lament having given up.
You and your congregation have the power, the opportunity, and the responsibility to resolve your own situation, Pastor. Pull the log from your own collective eye before you complain about the speck in the eyes of others.

“The constitution was designed to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government.”
Indeed it was, Pastor. And clearly the divide as been breached inappropriately for you and your congregation.
So…what is stopping you from correcting the problem with the tools God has already given you? Why must you turn to man for more help when God has provided a way out of this oppression you clearly feel?

MarcM, your comments make sense. However, when we became tax exempt, we did not know we had to refrain from making the occasionial political comment. So, in essence, we did not CHOOSE the pottage, we were ignorant, which is our fault. If we had known, you can rest assured we would have nothing to do with it.
I see nothing with lobbying to change the rules, since laws are constantly changing. That’s the beauty of democratic government. If it doesn’t work then fine. We fear nothing at all. If the rules aren’t changed, then we will definetly forego the tax status. However, I believe that Christians must do what they can to get their voice heard. In the ever-growing anti-Christian society, we must do what we can to be involved in government, to have a Christian voice. Just read the comments on the blogs posted over the last two weeks. There is a anti-christian tone by many, many people. So please understand, we do not honor government more than God. We just see it as important to have our voice heard in government, so our rights aren’t trampled on.
Also, I realize that you don’t believe this, but it is a matter of principle, especially considering we were uninformed of the limitations when we first became tax exempt. I personally have had to say no to my secular job many times, at the risk of losing it, to do what’s right. You’re right, we can and are trying to break our own leash. But we feel our first tactic is to try for the rules to change. To reiterate, if the rules aren’t changed, then we will definetly give up our status. Thank you.

This is not censorship at all, any more than any other contractual arrangement is censorship. Both parties come to the agreement well aware of the conditions.
The government offers exemption from taxes.
The church and pastor offer to restrain their speech in certain areas.
The agreement is voluntary, not mandatory. Either party may terminate the agreement by giving written notice to the other party. There are no penalties for early termination, and no back pay or redress will be sought if the church seeks to leave the contractual arrangement.
This is by definition NOT censorship, Jeff. If you speak out for a candidate you will not go to jail. You will simply break the contract with the government and will no longer receive the benefit of the agreement.
Simple contract concepts. Not rocket science.
Now, certainly either party may petition for a change in the agreement, and you are well within your rights to do so. However, you are dishonest if you say the government is censoring you and therefore should change the terms of the agreement. They are not censoring you. You have censored yourself, for a price.
Call it what it is, Jeff. It is a contract you seek to amend. It is not censorship.

“MarcM, your comments make sense. However, when we became tax exempt, we did not know we had to refrain from making the occasionial political comment. So, in essence, we did not CHOOSE the pottage, we were ignorant, which is our fault. If we had known, you can rest assured we would have nothing to do with it.”
There is an old saying, Pastor. It may sound harsh, but it is appropriate here. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you did not seek competent legal counsel when you filed your Articles of Incorporation, you were foolish.
Now that you know, you still have the opportunity to void the agreement without penalty and return to “status quo ante.” Will you?

“Just read the comments on the blogs posted over the last two weeks. There is a anti-christian tone by many, many people. So please understand, we do not honor government more than God. We just see it as important to have our voice heard in government, so our rights aren’t trampled on.”
Pastor, your rights are not being trampled on. You surrendered them. Now, I accept that you and your congregation may not have understood that at the time you filed your Articles of Incorporation. However, if what you say is true, that had you known you would not have entered into the agreement, then it would seem to me the principled thing to do for you to leave the agreement of your own free will now that you have come to that understanding, rather than make a fuss over a situation that you can leave of your own free will.
Laws do change, Pastor…and sometimes the changes are not appropriate. Petitioning the government to redress these issues is a right guaranteed in the constitution, and it has been defended with the blood of many men and women over the years. I join you in being thankful that we have that right recognized and guaranteed in our foundational document.
However, as Christians, we answer to a higher power do we not? We answer ultimately to the Author of all law, not to the lawmakers in Washington DC. And we are to follow the example He gave us in His Word, the Bible.
When the Apostles were threatened with beatings by the authorities for preaching the Gospel, did they petition the government for a change in the law so they could preach? No! They preached boldly and accepted the punishment with joy and thanksgiving, for they knew that it was Jesus who was being hated, not them. They did not complain about anti-Christian prejudice, they rejoiced in it as evidence that they were doing the will of God. They sought to obey the calling of God regardless of the law of man.
Nowhere do I read of these early Christians going to Rome and seeking a change in law. Nowhere do I read of them publicly whining about anti-Christian prejudice stopping them from their ministry. Instead I see a church that was on fire for God, accepting whatever penalties and persecution came their way, thanking God for it, and ministering as He led them.
And what did God do? He did not change government. He changed the hearts of thousands of people who, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, accepted Christ as their personal savior.
Now, Pastor, I ask you this in all sincerity. Which do you think gives greater glory to God? The actions exemplified in Acts, or passing an act of Congress?

Reading MarcM’s comments reminded me of this story.
A flood threatens a town, forcing everyone to evacuate, But Joe thinks,
“I’m a devout man, God will save me,” and stays put. As the waters rise, Joe’s neighbor comes by and says, “Joe come with me, we’ve got to go.” Joe declines, “I’m a devout man, God will save me.”
The waters keep rising, Joe scrambles to his second floor. A firefighter in a rowboat comes by. “Get in the boat or you’ll drown,” he says. Joe again declines, saying, “God will save me. So this flood story goes.”
Finally, the flood waters force Joe to his roof. A police helicopter comes by and throws down a rope. “Climb up or you’ll drown,” the policeman yells. “No, I’m a devout man, God will save me,” Joe replies.
Soon, Joe drowns. He arrives in heaven and challenges God.
“Why didn’t you help me?”
“What do you mean?” God says. “I did help. I sent a neighbor, a firefighter and a helicopter.”
I have to wonder if sometimes, those of us who are the church forget that we have God on our side. To the world we look weak, like a tamed elephant staked to the ground by a small chain. The elephant could easily remove the chain and walk away, but because of past conditioning he has forgotten that, and stays tied to the chain in spite of being able to leave it easily.
Maybe we need to remember who we are and simply walk away from the stake that seems to bind us. The only power it has is the power we give it.

The separation of Church and State as it were does not separate faith communities from the public arena. Faith, of course, is personal, but it is not private; and neither Judaism nor Christianity – or any other faith tradition – can be fully, spiritually renewing or redemptive without being socially responsible. Our biblical faith states that God is One and God is sovereign – Sovereign of all creation, Sovereign of our personal and family lives, and the Sovereign of society and all its institutions, be they social, political, economic as well as religious. The role of communities of faith is: to call attention to the ethical dimensions of all issues; to keep alive theologically informed values as a norm for social, economic and political life; and to point out the demands of our faith for a just transformation of society. Having said this, we need to remind ourselves that as we attempt to apply spiritual values to our public life, that our faith tradition is not about imposing sectarian doctrines on others’ lives. Nor is it about becoming a religious interest group or single-issue voting block. In fact, religious communities – as communities of conscience within our pluralistic public arena – are called to offer an alternative to ideological religion (whether from right, left or center). We are called to be value-driven but not ideological, political but not narrowly partisan, civil but not soft – and involved but not used.

The complete fact of the matter is this. A 501 c3 religious tax exemption is not a right. It is something applied for and possibly granted. When a church applies for a 501 c3 status they go into it knowing what the rules are. Therefore, either accept the rules of that for which you are applying or do not have it. If you cannot agree to the rules of a 501c3 then you shall not have the exemption.
IRS, please do your duty, uphold the law, and if these churches preach politics from the pulpit, PLEASE revoke their tax exempt status immediately!

“If you cannot agree to the rules of a 501c3 then you shall not have the exemption.”
Yep…that sums it up pretty clearly. There is no consitutional right to a tax exemption. It is offered by the government to churches under a set of conditions.
Nobody is forcing these churches to remain as 501(c)3 organizations. They do so of their own free will. If they don’t like the rules, they can surrender their exemption and preach whatever they wish.
God is really going to be ticked off at them for honoring the government more than him.

You cannot keep the government out of religion WITHOUT keeping religion out of the government.
To use churches as political machines serves politicians, not god.
This is nothing more than another warped attempt by the zealous right wing to make this more a nation based on religious tyranny.

It should be well noted that JUDAS ISCARIOT tried to use Jesus’ ministry as a platform for political and military uprise.
He was in extreme error to say the least.
Jesus rebuked Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane for trying to use force on Jesus’ captors putting to rest any misconceived notions that this was some uprising.
There are many other examples where Jesus went to great lengths to distance himself and his ministry from being considered political or military.
I am sickened by many things in the pulpit and find this “vain revolution for political freedom of speech” particularly irreprehensible and contrary to the teachings and overall impetus of Jesus’ ministry.
As a sideline note I would also like to point out that none of the candidates are running for office of priest or pastor.
To criticize one politician for being “pro choice” or in favor of stem cell research while giving full support to a candidate who advocates fully the use of war, torture, and nuclear armament not only for defense but also as a ” first strike” option, is garbage and contradicts all that Jesus came to establish as his message and legacy.
I would like to add another thought that sacrificing a church’s tax exempt status is extremely irresponsible when considering that the minister is being entrusted with money that did not come from him nor belongs to him.
(see all the biblical listings for stewardship).
I would like to charge and challenge all elders and/ or board members to challenge and rebuke your pastor if you feel he is abusing his post of shepherd for the sake of spewing politically in a place that should bring respite from all of this rather than becoming a platform for it.

Just because a law was passed in 1954 that religious groups are prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code from using their resources–including preaching time on Saturday or Sunday–to “endorse or oppose candidates for public office” does not necessarily mean this law is “settled” law. Nonetheless, I do not think ADF should encourage preachers to endorse a political candidate in violation of this law since this law is currently the law of the land. Since a church’s 501(c)3 status was yanked in 1995, one is certainly pushing the limits by encouraging pastors to violate this law, thus decreasing ministry funds for themselves and other ministries within the church. There is a right way and wrong way to attempt to obtain a reversal of the law. This is clearly a wrong way.

Just because a law was passed in 1954 that religious groups are prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code from using their resources–including preaching time on Saturday or Sunday–to “endorse or oppose candidates for public office” does not necessarily mean this law is “settled” law. Nonetheless, I do not think ADF should encourage preachers to endorse a political candidate in violation of this law since this law is currently the law of the land. Since a church’s 501(c)3 status was yanked in 1995, one is certainly pushing the limits by encouraging pastors to violate this law, thus decreasing ministry funds for themselves and other ministries within the church. There is a right way and wrong way to attempt to obtain a reversal of the law. This is clearly a wrong way.