IRS Investigating Liberal Calif. Church

[Perky]

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service has ordered a prominent liberal church to turn over documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year that contain references to political candidates.

The IRS is investigating whether All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena violated the federal tax code when its former rector, Rev. George F. Regas, delivered an anti-war sermon on the eve of the last presidential election.

Tax-exempt organizations are barred from intervening in political campaigns and elections, and the church could lose its tax-exempt status.

Rev. Ed Bacon received a summons Thursday ordering the church to present any politically charged sermons, newsletters and electronic communications by Sept 29.




Bacon was ordered to testify before IRS officials Oct. 11. He said he will inform his roughly 3,500 congregants about the investigation at Sunday's services, and will seek their advice on whether to comply.

"There is a lot at stake here," Bacon said. "If the IRS prevails, it will have a chilling effect on the practice of religion in America."

An IRS spokesperson declined comment...


http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ANTI_WAR_SERMON?SITE=CATOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-09-16-15-51-28

[Perky]

1. kickety kick kick for more votes

[Perky]

Is it hypocrisy to slam Dobson while defending this liberal Church?

is there a difference?

[bryant69]

11. Well a few points

Slamming someone isn't the same as saying someone should take legal action against them. I slam every conservative colunist i can, but there are very few of them I would advocate legal punishments for. At the end of the the day both Dobson and Regas have a right to say what they like, but neither has the right to say what they want without being answered.

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

[Perky]

13. Falwell probably is a better comparison

I agree with you. I guess what I would be concerned about specifically is calls I have seen on DU for RW pastors to be investigated by the IRS and whether or not DUers think different rules ought to apply if the pulpit message is liberal.

It is a very interesting dichotomy because there are substantial free speech issues and Freedom of religion issues involved on the one side and on the other division between those who embrace religion and those who are scared to death of it and its impact on politics.

I am curious as to which of these positions predominates on DU.

Edited for Typos

[bryant69]

15. I see your point

I would guess that those who want to see churches silenced, would have to support this investigation, as these same mechanisms can be used against more offensive churches.

Bryant

[Perky]

8. Self delete (dupe)

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. I don't relate to Bacon's argument as such.

>>>"There is a lot at stake here," Bacon said. "If the IRS prevails, it will have a chilling effect on the practice of religion in America.">>>>

If tax-exempt organized religions are prohibited from engaging in politics... that's fine with me.

But RW churches routinely do this. Example: Many Roman Catholic parishes regularly instruct their parishioners to be guided by a candidate's position on abortion.

The 'chilling effect on religion' stuff is stale rhetoric. What's seems to be really at stake here is the use of the IRS to punish political speech that it doesn't like.

Bacon should be asking why *his* particular church should be singled out. The chilling effect is on *speech*.... not religion.

[Warpy]

3. Asking church members to use their church's position on issues

to choose candidates is nothing new and there's really not much wrong with it. Church members often have differing opinions on the subject, thanks very much, and have had a nasty habit of pleasing themselves.

I don't think an antiwar sermon can be attacked as overtly partisan any more than an antiabortion sermon can be.

What some wingnut churches have done, however, is set up tables full of GOP literature in the vestibule and come right out and gawd blessed our tin Jesus Gee Dubya while demonizing his godless liberal opponents. THAT is the sort of thing that is not protected and that will lose a church its tax exempt status.

That's pretty much where the line is. You can teach your church's position on war, abortion, and the price of cream cheese. You can't point out which party approves of war, abortion and the price of cream cheese and instruct your parishoners to vote for the party of gawd, Jebus, and roating your tires.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. I think you mean '*should* lose', not 'will lose'.

>>> THAT is the sort of thing that is not protected and that will lose a church its tax exempt status.>>>>

According to the story, the last time a Church lost its tax exempt status for political activity was in '92. ( They bought anti-Clinton billboards.).

[Warpy]

5. My bad. I forgot we live in such weird times

and in an Alice in Wonderland world where anything that used to be illegal is now virtuous and only people who actually follow Christian teachings can be prosecuted.

[treestar]

6. How many conservative churches are they investigating?

Wonder if the fundies will see "persecution" here. They see it when they aren't allowed to take over the schools.

[madrchsod]

7. "blessed are the peace makers

for they will be called sons of god". i thought bush was a religious man......

[Selatius]

9. It's a frivolous waste of resources

I bet it won't even make it pass district court before being thrown out.

Regas never mentioned to vote against GWB. He simply condemned the war and condemned giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.

[Perky]

10. These Polls results thus far probaby represent a poor sample

So I am kicking.

[genie_weenie]

12. The Church is supposed to be subordinate to the State.

Isn't that the Hobbessian position which all politicans (most unknowingly) adhere to? The State is the ultimate authority and the ultimate good. The Government of the State needs to have the power...

[Perky]

14. Hobbes almost undoubtedly was an Anglican

so I am not sure his prism would be an accurate one to use.

The Founders took a view that the state was not empowered to control the Church and the church was not to be empowered or financed by the state. That is not to say that the church was meant to be viewed as more powerful or in any sense co-equal.