A church is free to do whatever they like from their pulpit without TAX-FREE status.

I am just sick and tired of seeing religious leaders following after their own will and mind without any care about “What Would Jesus Do”. I find this all so disgusting, the fact that some church leaders are so willing to pervert the name of Christ and our Father God.

It really makes me wnat to cry, it truly hurts seeing how these leaders are so blind to how their actions and hypocrisy are turning non-believers and immature believers away from God.

I will do eveything in my little self to take a stand against these religious leaders who are perverting the name of our Lord and everyone else who truly love Christ and God should do the same because their actions and heart are leading people to slaughter.

[the end of the comment deleted because I deemed it out of line. -Scott]

Oh please let the churches do this. The tax windfall we could get for our schools just from property taxes alone would be almost be worth the abomination.

Kidding aside, this is not what Jesus intended for his church. Despite what the Republicans might think, there is no “perfect in Christ” candidate. For every candidate a church could agree with on one issue, they would probably see that same candidate was not following Christian doctrine on a few others.

But, if the churches can do this and win a point, I would like to see teachers fully endorsing candidates and political theories from the front of the classroom without interference from the school board. I would like to see Girls Scouts for Obama (or McCain) during cookie sales.

One more thing in light of this sentence:
“This right has never been ripped away from pulpits. Pastors are free to say whatever they feel compelled by God to say in their pulpits.”

So, basically what this comes down to is greed on behalf of houses of worship. Yes, Scott, you are right. Churches are free to say and endorse any issue or candidate from their pulpit. They are also free to “pay unto Caesar” like the rest of us, it is only greed that would make them think that one (tax exemption) is more important than the other (follow the rules to obtain a tax exemption).

suzy - The fact that you think that this is parallel to teachers endorsing candidates says quite a bit about how bad your analysis is.

Is it really greed when we are still talking about true, honest CHARITY? Just because you endorse a candidate shouldn’t mean that you’re not a charity. You call them to follow the rules. What if the rule fundamentally violates free exercise? The rule lumps religions in the same group as other charities, but what if part of that religion means that you are politically active? You haven’t become any less of a true charity - you still are non-profit, fit all the other charity guidelines -but you’re also practicing your religion. This is now an encroachment on religios freedom.

d.walker - what about other religions where it wouldn’t be an abomination to take part in politics? Making this about Christianity and whether you agree with what Christian teachers are doing is pretty narrow. Remember there is freedom to practice, even practice what some would see as false religion. It’s not up to the government to decide what or how you practice. I just don’t think that taking part in politics automatically makes you less charitable if that political action is part of your religious practice.

Let the

When clergy support political candidates from the pulpit they are misusing the power of the religious institution. Nothing stops clergy from having opinions and expressing them privately regarding political candidates.

Not only that but the tax exempt law that bars clergy from endorsing candidates from the pulpit helps prevent a purely political organization from posing as a religious institution.

This rule is good for everyone, hurts nobody. Please contact the ADF and let them know they are only causing harm.

Ok. Some thoughts.

I come from a religious tradition that says, above all, that the Pulpit is free. No one in the congregation, the leadership of the local church, or the hierarchy has the right to tell the Minister what to teach from the pulpit.

That being said, I do think there is a serious slippery slope when Ministers start endorsing particular political positions or (worse) particular politicians on election day.

It may be splitting hairs, but I see a significant difference between the Abolition example and today. My understanding of history was that Preachers started preaching against slavery long before it became a political issue. Further, recall that the major american churches all split geographically over slavery. I do think, again, if my understanding of history is any guide, that in the 1840’s and 1850’s, the preachers were pretty careful about naming names from the pulpit to vote for or against. More often, they would preach on the Biblical imperatives about slavery on either side, and encouraged the parishioners to vote their conscience.

To me, if a minister wants to preach against abortion, or war, or blind patriotism…the pulpit is free, that is his or her DUTY to preach according to his or her understanding of scripture and what God is laying on to be preached. The risk is real, however. Endorsing particular candidates can be very, very risky. As others have pointed out, are we sure that the candidate of choice is avowedly Christian in all ways?

Of course, that would imply that we all agree on what “Christian” public behavior is really all about, wouldn’t it?

Mike,

In this country the tax-exempt provisions apply to any and ALL religions the exact same way no matter what type of religion it is. This isn’t about what is acceptable in one’s religion, but what our government rules are for tax-exempt status.

I would say if one’s religion required that they be political and endorse candidates then I would say that they should not claim tax exempt status. I certainly can’t see where and how this is acceptable in any Christian Church or religion.

I don’t understand the confusion or your question really.

I see it like this, one who is Christian is suppose to be willing to die for the name sake of Christ. Now certainly one should be willing to let go of anything on this earth for Christ’s sake. So why would any religious leader feel it necessary to bring a lawsuit under such conditions, that in itself seems to me to be a violation of Christianity.

What is it? Is it that these leaders do not possess the heart to let go of something as material as a tax-exempt status, and paying due taxes? But, it is all so backwards and will not make sense because it is not in agreement with the Word of God.

Very sad seeing so much disgrace being brought to the name of Christ so often by religious leaders..

Unless pastors have a cult rather than a church, endorsing politicians in church would probably cause a loss in donations – even if the donations remain tax free. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) might win a court test. If giving to the church is part of the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the first amendment to our Constitution, how can donations be taxed?

If a pastor endorses a candidate, is his/her church no longer religious? If a Catholic priest says a political candidate should not receive communion because he or she is not “pro-life” enough and there are only two candidates running, is that not endorsing a candidate? Is that not dissing the candidate who leans more toward “pro-choice”? With one in four voters being Catholic, does anyone really think parishioners are going to lose the right to tax exempt donations? The ADF should save its resources. The law is not being enforced anyway.

Mike - How does paying taxes violate free exercise? The religious group is not barred from any activity in which they would normally engage. Religious groups still benefit from other people paying taxes, people who can engage in all the political activity they want. I could see that it would be a violation if religious groups were suddenly charged with extra taxes, but nobody is talking about doing that. Just their fair share if they wish to cross the barrier between church and state.

I like hs’ take on it. Leave the individuals out of it, but please do talk about the Word of God and how we should all be accountable to it.

D Walker, I find it interesting that you are supporting the tax collector in this argument…