Should this church retain its tax-exempt status?

[texastoast]

Today is election day here in Texas where we are voting on several constitutional amendments, not the least controversial of which is called Proposition 2. Prop 2 would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Southern Baptist church down the street has one of those lighted signs where letters can be placed to announce events, etc. Last night it read:

VOTE YES PROPOSITION 2

Now, does this meet the criteria of "activism" so that this church should lose its tax-exempt status? This church is the same one who shilled for Bush from the pulpit last fall and huzzahed the war (for which I have no hard evidence other than maybe getting some affidavits of members who said it was so).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. did you get a photograph of the sign?

If so, I'd mail it to the IRS, and demand an investigation.

[texastoast]

11. Yes, I did

[CBGLuthier]

2. Not a violation

Learn the law.

The only thing forbidden is to endorse or oppose a candidate or to engage in overtly partisan behavior.

Position advocacy is allowed.

[bryant69]

4. There's a church out in California

Who is aparrently experiencing a different sort of law.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[gratuitous]

3. Churches are allowed to voice an opinion on ballot measures

But they're not allowed to endorse individual candidates.

Don't ask me to explain it, because I don't understand all the subtleties and nuances involved. However, I just flat couldn't go to a church that preaches hatred and discrimination against God's people -- and Jesus taught that we are all God's people.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. However, is this an opinion or a directive

If the sign read: "We support Propoposition 2", that is voicing an opinion. As it's worded, it is a directive on how to vote on a political issue, IMO.

[Critters2]

14. Still not a violation

Churches and other 501c3s can take a position on referenda. They can not endorse a candidate or party.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. So not this anti-war church eh?

If the rules are going to be different for one set of group (as in the liberals) than it should apply to everyone. I don't attend church to be told who or what to vote for. I go to church for my own personal spiritual reason's. I can make up my own mind on who to vote for. If my church ever did that (which I don't think they would but you never know now days) I'd leave it in a heartbeat. There's a seperation of church and state for a purpose. See the Salem "witch" trials. Are they going to start doing that again if people in the church don't vote the way they want? I'm tired of this bullcrap.

[gratuitous]

10. I'm all for the IRS coming to my church

As a member of the Church of the Brethren, we believe, preach and act on the premise that all war is sin -- and it's immaterial to us who's waging the war. If the IRS wants to come sniffing around our congregation and make threatening noises, they're welcome to do it.

[Critters2]

16. Sort of different

What the IRS is contending, incorrectly imo, about the California church is that it took a partisan position in opposing the war. I've read the sermon, and i think the IRS is wrong, and will lose if this goes to court.

But that's what the IRS says is the difference--the California church was partisan.

And my Brethren brother, you're right--if an anti-war position is partisan, Brethren and Mennonite Churches, and Quaker Meetings are in trouble. I wish I could say the same for the UCC, but we only talk about one issue--I think because it keeps us from taking on challenging things, like war.

[Beaverhausen]

15. The church in Pasadena wasn't endorsing anyone either

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_ANTIWAR_SERMON_CAOL-?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Yes they should

If they get a church for preaching anti-war messages they sure as hell should be getting these churches!!!

[BOSSHOG]

6. I fail to understand the logic

of working hard to pass a law that will have absolutely no effect on you. Obviously we know religious zealots are driven by hate and our angst is compounded by the idea that they can spread their hate in many forms and through many avenues in a tax exempt status.

[Union Thug]

9. Frankly, and at risk of being hit by flamethrowers here...

Churches have been endorsing candidates since at least the Ray-Gun era (and probably longer). Endorsements may be carefully framed in such a way as to avoid having their tax exempt status pulled, but they do it, nonetheless.

And for this reason, I am beginning to think that churches should no longer be granted the luxury of of tax exemption. Release them of their bindings and let them once and for all clearly expose themselves and their true motives to the community and world.

;-)

[texastoast]

12. Could you give me an example?

Is there language, regulations, directives, etc., anywhere showing how to endorse and keep tax-exempt status?

But oh dear, I think all Christian churches shouldn't have tax exempt status. Jesus was very antiwar, so how could preaching the gospel keep you tax exempt?

:shrug:

[Selatius]

18. There's always ways to bend the rules in this case

For instance, if I were to argue in favor of voting for Bush, I could argue the importance of having a "steady hand" and "having convictions" and following through with those convictions. Of course, I'm alluding to the notion that Kerry is inconstant and always changing his mind. You would see I am attacking a candidate and endorsing another, yet I mentioned no names.

[Critters2]

21. Like this:

If you say "war is a bad thing" that's tax-exempt, because it doesn't lay the onus of war on a named candidate or party.

If you say "George Bush is a bad man and no sane person would vote for him", true though it is, this is political speech, and not allowed by tax-exempt entities.

[Critters2]

20. I've often thought tax exemption

is more of a hindrance than a help. And it would have a "wheat from the chaff" effect. Churches that are committed and supported would meet the challenge. Those that are serving no real purpose would die.

Besides, churches should pay for roads, schools, water, sewage, etc just like everyone else.

[texastoast]

13. Kick

:kick:

[derby378]

17. Many skeptics' groups are also 501(c)(3)

They are legally able to challenge the teaching of creationism in public schools, state licensing of naturopaths or homeopaths, employment of "psychic detectives" by police departments, etc. But they cannot legally endorse candidates for public office.

[Beelzebud]

19. No church should be tax exempt. Liberal or Conservative.