(9/26/08) Thirty Churches to Risk Their Tax Exempt Status (FOX)

[Skylight]

A pastor talked with Greta last night, and said that there are 30 churches across the nation who are going to risk their tax exempt status as a nonprofit entity to openly endorse John McCain. He said they are protected by the 1st Amendment, and will not be held hostage by the IRS.

[Charlie Brown]

church and state need to stay seperate...From both church and state points of view...alls we need is a srewed up congress like we have dictating how we conduct our worship can you imagine how that would end up....:eek:

I also dont think churches should endorse cannidates....Give me a break...

[Skylight]

Well, technically, the churches are made up of voters. If every group out there who is wacko, communist, marxist, or whatever can endorse Obama, then the churches should be allowed to say who they want elected.

By the way, separation of church and state, contrary to most, is not in the Constitution.

So, it's ok for the MSM to tell all of America who to vote for? People are frustrated with what is going on. So, I disagree with your point of view. This has nothing to do with Congress, this is individual church groups.

[hipelayne]

[QUOTE=Charlie Brown;402634]church and state need to stay seperate/QUOTE]

I think someone needs to tell Rev. Wright and Fr. Phlegler this!

[hillaryhoosier]

They didn't do anything to Obama's church for their outright endorsement of him, so if they really won't be able to do anything to these churches without looking like hypocrites.

[Skylight]

At least they aren't spewing, God **** America. I think they are willing to go to court if pushed.

[Optixmom]

A pastor talked with Greta last night, and said that there are 30 churches across the nation who are going to risk their tax exempt status as a nonprofit entity to openly endorse John McCain. He said they are protected by the 1st Amendment, and will not be held hostage by the IRS.

I guess I don't understand why they have to feel it necessary to come out as the Church is supporting a candidate. It would save their status if the group of them got together under a different heading and didn't use any church funds for political support. If they already know that a majority of their congregation supports McCain, then they band together under a different heading and endorse. There is no need to risk the Church for this. If they band together with the other 29 Churches under the separate umbrella, then all of them can have the strength and not risk losing their tax exempt status. It is when they use Church funds to do this, and they shouldn't...at least in my opinion they shouldn't.

[PalinPower]

church and state need to stay seperate...From both church and state points of view...alls we need is a srewed up congress like we have dictating how we conduct our worship can you imagine how that would end up....:eek:

I also dont think churches should endorse cannidates....Give me a break...

I'd have to disagree. "Separation of Church and state" simply means that the Government cannot endorse any one religion or impose religious rule among the people.

However, religious organizations have the right to discuss politics, or anything else for that matter, by right of the First Amendment. That's a seperate issue. If a person disagrees with a particular church because of their politics, they have personal free-will to leave that church. In fact, barring people from being able to discuss politics in a religious organization is actually a violation of "freedom of religion".

What particularly amuses me, is that plenty of AA churches, including the one Obama himself attended, have endorced Obama for president and yet no one has talked about suing them.

Personally, I feel that Obama is a Marxist/Fascist/Closet Muslim, and that his presidency would potentially take away my right to 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion', and quite frankly if I ran my own church, I'd feel compelled to warn my entire congregation about it too. It's not like we can trust the MSM to let everyone know for us.

[Eddie3dfx]

Thats not good. Church should always remain separate from state. What happens if there is an absolute horrible candidate one day coming from the right, yet something like this happens? It would be a disaster to have another president Bush or another president who is not ready.
not good not good

[ILBlue]

At least they aren't spewing, God **** America. I think they are willing to go to court if pushed.

And my view is:

This is one of the reasons I no longer attend any church.
I don't want a church to tell me what to think on anything outside of the bible.

I really resent that.

It is time to start collecting TAXES from churches or giving them fines .

Stay out of politics, separation of Church and State. Period.

[Centipede]

Four years ago when the churches were endorsing Bush and I wanted Kerry to win, I was all for them losing their tax exemption.

Now that I want McCain to beat Obama, I'd be willing to turn my head and look the other way. :D:D:D

[HumbleDave]

These are dangerous waters with the potential for constitutional violations lurking at every turn. I'd have to follow along with Opticmom's opinion on this one.

This topic is not one to take lightly given the religious diversity in this country and growing influx of immigrants. Not all religions share the view of acceptance or tolerance of the religions of others. Some look upon religion and state as being one and the same. Keep that last sentance in mind. You may get what you want, but the price tag later may be more than you bargained for.

[Calico]

Four years ago when the churches were endorsing Bush and I wanted Kerry to win, I was all for them losing their tax exemption.

Now that I want McCain to beat Obama, I'd be willing to turn my head and look the other way. :D:D:D

Me too.

I will make an exception, in this case.

:)

[ILBlue]

At least they aren't spewing, God **** America. I think they are willing to go to court if pushed.

That's a perfect example Skylight.

To you and many of us that is beyond the pale but as we have also heard there are many who agree with that.

Every church has it's own agenda of ideas. Some we agree with , and some not.

If they want Tax-exempt status then they are to stay out of political posturing .

I attended the Reformed Church of Christ as a child but went to many of the same and all was totally differant in approach. ( we never missed church when on vacation etc. )

[Lynne]

I guess I don't understand why they have to feel it necessary to come out as the Church is supporting a candidate. It would save their status if the group of them got together under a different heading and didn't use any church funds for political support. If they already know that a majority of their congregation supports McCain, then they band together under a different heading and endorse. There is no need to risk the Church for this. If they band together with the other 29 Churches under the separate umbrella, then all of them can have the strength and not risk losing their tax exempt status. It is when they use Church funds to do this, and they shouldn't...at least in my opinion they shouldn't.
If they are African American churches then it would be important for the church name to be used. Traditionally, the church plays a central role in the African American community. The church is viewed as an authority and its opinions carry a lot of weight. People trust the church. In this situation it could be very important. I am not arguing "for" or "against" separation of church and state.

[diane]

This is not what the GOP needs right now! Those churches are just seeking publicity. They know this won't help McCain. Palin is already seen as religous zealot and a bunch of church congregations coming out for McCain will only help to fuel that religous wackjob view. It's not helpful at all.

[Tom Terrific]

Black churches have been preaching politics for years, and the only consequence has been that they get what they want.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Personally, I don't see any silence requirement inherent in church exemption from taxation. The Establishment Clause contains an inherent tension. Does the second part mean churches cannot be taxed? or, does the first part mean that churches must be taxed (in order to treat them the same as every other entity, i.e. show no favortism or discrimination when it comes to taxation)?

Religion is seen by government as a force for good in society; perhaps this is why choses the former. The only way you could connect taxation of a church to this is to distinguish between an establishment of religion and some other kind of establishment (e.g., a political club masquerading as a church) according to whether or not politics is discussed.

Perhaps this is the tack that has been taken; but, if so, then I think it is clearly wrong-headed. If religion is anything to a man, then it is not of the "Sunday morning only" variety; on the contrary, it underlies his whole life, giving direction in all his decision-making and meaning to all he does. You simply can't carve a political exception out of that. It's impossible.

I never saw much sense in using taxation to threaten churches into silence on political issues. The loss of the freedom of political speech is far more pernicious than any damage -- which I think is rather slight -- that churches might do to the republic by speaking politically.

Telling a religious group they may not speak against evil because it is manifesting politically strikes me as bizarre. Should churches have remained silent on slavery? on gambling? on prostitution? All of these have at times been political issues put before the voting public. And then there's Obama, who represents what people of many different religious persuasions will have little difficulty categorizing as "evil," in his actions, in his character, or in his intent.

Perhaps that's why these 30 churches are risking it.

[kathleen]

Me too.

I will make an exception, in this case.

:)

As would I. :p

How about a compromise. No endorsing a candidate, but expose findings relevant to security and safety of America concerning candidates.

I'm trying to creatively place myself in a religious leaders shoes. One who is suppose to love and gaurd his flock. As a parent, I love and guard my children and their welfare. Assuming a pastor has a similar heart and a similar calling, I'd feel inclined to warn my loved ones (my flock) about the dangers that lie within a person who they may be tempted to consort with or, God forbid, follow. In good conscience, I could NOT remain quiet or neutral. I'd issue the warning, lay down provable facts, and allow them to decide from there.

What is everyone screaming about today? No warnings. No warning about Freddie and Fannie. No warnings about 9/11. No warnings about (fill in the blank)

Allow anyone to issue a warning, but make the allowence only accepted with hard, cold, facts.

[BillDemo]

Maybe they believe Obama is the AntiChrist....

I have to say, if I was a religious person, I would be convinced right now that Obama is the AntiChrist. He fits the biblical description perfectly.

[PalinPower]

Maybe they believe Obama is the AntiChrist....

I have to say, if I was a religious person, I would be convinced right now that Obama is the AntiChrist. He fits the biblical description perfectly.

Quite frankly, if Obama wins the presidency I'll probably be convinced that he is the AntiChrist at that point. I mean the fact is that the AntiChrist is said to emerge as a political figure who is embraced by the world, pretends to be a friend of Israel and then seeks to destroy them. I'd say Obama fits the bill pretty well.

[Suzan]

Well, not to over-simplify, but two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some AAs have politicized their churches and their messages to the flock and gotten away with it doesn't mean the solution is that every church should fight fire with fire. What happens when you do that? You get a honking big fire and lots of trouble.

Personally, I think the AA churches in question should lose their tax exempt status. Then they can do whatever they please. Possibly they should turn the church into a campaign office if politics is to be their main concern.

Obviously, this is really touchy subject for lots of us and I probably shouldn't even be weighing in, but as long as I'm here, I have to say it would infuriate me to go to my church and be told how I should vote. That is most emphatically not why I go to church.

[adventures7]

Quite frankly, if Obama wins the presidency I'll probably be convinced that he is the AntiChrist at that point. I mean the fact is that the AntiChrist is said to emerge as a political figure who is embraced by the world, pretends to be a friend of Israel and then seeks to destroy them. I'd say Obama fits the bill pretty well.

He doesn't help himself by embracing the WORLD view like he does.

[hipelayne]

Well, not to over-simplify, but two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some AAs have politicized their churches and their messages to the flock and gotten away with it doesn't mean the solution is that every church should fight fire with fire. What happens when you do that? You get a honking big fire and lots of trouble.

Personally, I think the AA churches in question should lose their tax exempt status. Then they can do whatever they please. Possibly they should turn the church into a campaign office if politics is to be their main concern.

Obviously, this is really touchy subject for lots of us and I probably shouldn't even be weighing in, but as long as I'm here, I have to say it would infuriate me to go to my church and be told how I should vote. That is most emphatically not why I go to church.


Good post Suzan

[BillDemo]

Quite frankly, if Obama wins the presidency I'll probably be convinced that he is the AntiChrist at that point. I mean the fact is that the AntiChrist is said to emerge as a political figure who is embraced by the world, pretends to be a friend of Israel and then seeks to destroy them. I'd say Obama fits the bill pretty well.

Yes, and one important detail is that the AntiChrist is supposed to come like the lamb ie: like Jesus. Now which politician has been trying to compare himself to Jesus lately...? LOL

[Les33]

If churches become tools for political influence, the notion of any religious institution's integrity is lost. Separation of Church and State is the most essential basis for religious freedom and continued freedom of speech and thought. A person's spiritual life is at once the potentially strongest and most vulnerable aspect of their beings. A charismatic church leader is in a position to virtually "command" votes for a particular candidate and stifle dissenting opinion. Churches (of all persuasions) throughout history have perpetrated horrendous atrocities in the political arena. Islamic extremists operate from a political agenda. Extreme right wing Christians assured Bush's 2nd term with their political focus on LGBT people and the laws they wanted to enact to control if not eradicate them.

A church can address political issues without endorsing a candidate or Party. Mine does. Heatedly at times. But with an ultimate purpose of realizing God's presence in our lives, not endowing a political figure with God's stamp of approval.

[foxyladi]

[QUOTE=Charlie Brown;402634]church and state need to stay seperate/QUOTE]

I think someone needs to tell Rev. Wright and Fr. Phlegler this!

WRIGHT!!!!!!

[Laura Cereta]

I think there are two aspects to this. The first is one of a moral level, and I guess, can only be decided why the church itself, and that is does a church want to risk alienating people and therefore possibly derailing its larger message by allowing its leadership to formally endorse a candidate?

The second issue is obviously legal. I see a difference between a Pastor's formal endorsement of a candidate and a church that chooses to work directly with a campaign as a result of a majority of its members supporting a specific candidate. Does the IRS have the right to take away a tax exempt status over speech? Or would that in fact mean they are violating the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment? I think the Supreme Court may end up having to work this one out.

[Kbentleyis]

Doesn't the political map in this election already exist regarding religious sectors?

Jewish Community; Evangelica's; Catholics; ect. It also is pointed out to us in various state sections and districts.

Religions are a big factor in voting. We tend to rely on the "separation of church and state" but that simply means our government is not ruled under one religious sect. This endorsement is no different than any other of them.

[PalinPower]

Obama is giving a speech live on Fox News right now and someone in the audience has just fainted!

In light of this discussion, that just gave me the heebie jeebies. Why are people fainting at his rallies?

[Lodi]

Well, technically, the churches are made up of voters. If every group out there who is wacko, communist, marxist, or whatever can endorse Obama, then the churches should be allowed to say who they want elected.

By the way, separation of church and state, contrary to most, is not in the Constitution.

So, it's ok for the MSM to tell all of America who to vote for? People are frustrated with what is going on. So, I disagree with your point of view. This has nothing to do with Congress, this is individual church groups.

I believe it's the churches' 5013(c) nonprofit status that PROHIBITS them from endorsing candidates. MAY ALL THESE CHURCHES LOSE THEIR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS--AND FAST!

[We_Count]

[QUOTE=Charlie Brown;402634]church and state need to stay seperate/QUOTE]

I think someone needs to tell Rev. Wright and Fr. Phlegler this!

AMEN!!!! I have seen them preaching politics from the pulpit and they have not lost their tax exempt status.

[DC_Mark]

I've never heard of the requirement for non-profits to remain silence about their political preference. They shouldn't campaign on behalf of a candidate, yes, but they're free to endorse someone for office. That's well within their First Amendment rights. I mean, plenty of environmentalist non-profits, like the Sierra Club, have endorsed Barack Obama. Traditionally, churches have tried to stay out of partisan politics and clergymen always ensure people know they're expressing their opinion as individuals. I don't think there's anything in the tax code that bars churches from taking a political position.

Sounds to me like Obama's lawyers have been going around intimidating people again.

[Mrs L]

Then why wasn't action taken against Pastor Wright and Rev Pflieger???

[kathleen]

Yes, and one important detail is that the AntiChrist is supposed to come like the lamb ie: like Jesus. Now which politician has been trying to compare himself to Jesus lately...? LOL

Not to contribute to conspiracies...BUT...isn't the anti-christ also suppose to come from an unknown backround, somewhere from the old roman empire? Not Rome...but the old empire which was scattered throughout the middle east and asia minor. Africa was part of it. So was Turkey, Syria, was Pakistan part of that too? Anyway, he's suppose to talk peace and bring war and mesmorize the nations. Followers who will kill for him thinking they are serving God. And a very scattered and unknown backround.

I do not think BO is the anti-christ. But he sure sets the stage for him. Few would resist the anti-christ. BO hasn't the smarts or charisma to match the anti-christ. Too many are in doubt of him. Too many see him for what he is. This would not be the case with the anti-christ. He'd be so smooth he'd be able to deceive God's very elect if possible. BO doesn't cut the mustered.

Nevertheless, he gives us a glimpse how it could happen. He also provides a peek into the past as how Hilter rose to power. Media propaganda, censorship, deceit, one world vision, divide and conquer, indoctrinated radical youth, villianization of select groups, minimizing the value of life in the disabled by calling them a drain on society, etc.

[Laura Cereta]

Obama is giving a speech live on Fox News right now and someone in the audience has just fainted!

In light of this discussion, that just gave me the heebie jeebies. Why are people fainting at his rallies?

Welcome to the party... this has been going on for awhile now. During the primaries, he would have like 4 or 5 people faint during every rally. The cult of Obama is pretty creepy, huh? :eek:

[Mom4Hillary]

A pastor talked with Greta last night, and said that there are 30 churches across the nation who are going to risk their tax exempt status as a nonprofit entity to openly endorse John McCain. He said they are protected by the 1st Amendment, and will not be held hostage by the IRS.

I was expecting this story to be about churches supporting Obama -- not McCain. This is crazy. We must not wed politics and religion. It leads to witch hunts.

I was amazed this morning when I read a letter to the editor written by a Pentecostal pastor supporting Obama and attacking McCain. I immediately thought, "There goes that church's tax-exempt status! Hope they can afford it!"

This is wrong.

[Mom4Hillary]

Maybe they believe Obama is the AntiChrist....

I have to say, if I was a religious person, I would be convinced right now that Obama is the AntiChrist. He fits the biblical description perfectly.

Are you reading my mind?

[Molly]

Well - nothing that the obama gang has not already done.
These preachers feel very strongly that obama is the Wrong choice for our country - and
McCain is the Best choice for the USA - And ALL Religions
God Bless America

[hobbitt]

Obama is giving a speech live on Fox News right now and someone in the audience has just fainted!

In light of this discussion, that just gave me the heebie jeebies. Why are people fainting at his rallies?

There used to be a swooner at every Obama speech. (Conveniently at about the same spot in the speech). Once people started making fun of the fake fainters, it miraculously stopped.

There has not been a fainter for about six months.

Apparently, the Obama campaign knows that it is losing, and they are hiring the actresses again.

I guess they think it makes the O person look like an Inspiration and a Healer.

[samkm]

I expect that their state's attorney generals will fine them. And possibly tax them in the year of occurrence.

[Artists4Hillary]

Quite frankly, if Obama wins the presidency I'll probably be convinced that he is the AntiChrist at that point. I mean the fact is that the AntiChrist is said to emerge as a political figure who is embraced by the world, pretends to be a friend of Israel and then seeks to destroy them. I'd say Obama fits the bill pretty well.

This is just the evangelical description of the anti-Christ.

Obama is a tool. I'd give that title to Soros.

At this point, I think church endorsements are the last thing McCain needs. It's too much of a reminder of Bush.

[Skylight]

The churches aren't publicizing who they are for a reason. I think they could call a meeting off church grounds, and then endorse a candidate. Since most think the church is a building anyway, then it's all good. The church is the people in it - not a denomination or building. So, we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

I'm sure these pastors are afraid of an Obama presidency, as am I. Hopefully, they can enlist those in their church who aren't registered to do so. This is a very important election. And, yes, I'm turning my head the other way this time. I do think they can present both candidates and where they stand on an issue, and leave the decision up to the parishioners. I see nothing wrong with that.

As I stated before, there is nothing in the Constitution that spells out the separation of church and state. The founding fathers didn't want America to have a state sponsored church as was and is prevelant in England.

They aren't coming out with endorsements nationally, just within their congregations. McCain already turned John Hagee's endorsement down. This is just local churches. However, there may be Obamabots in their congregation who will bring the IRS down on them, so, it's very risky.

[Skylight]

There used to be a swooner at every Obama speech. (Conveniently at about the same spot in the speech). Once people started making fun of the fake fainters, it miraculously stopped.

There has not been a fainter for about six months.

Apparently, the Obama campaign knows that it is losing, and they are hiring the actresses again.

I guess they think it makes the O person look like an Inspiration and a Healer.

God, this is sickening.

[Area504]

Good for those churches. If I find out that they get taxed, I'll donate to help them pay it off.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that politicians have campaigned in churches within African American communities for a long time (I know it happens in my part of the country). Look at what has gone on at Trinity UCC. When they go after these 30 churches, we need to make sure they take a look at what Jeremiah Wright has been preaching, too.

[hobbitt]

I was expecting this story to be about churches supporting Obama -- not McCain. This is crazy. We must not wed politics and religion. It leads to witch hunts.

I was amazed this morning when I read a letter to the editor written by a Pentecostal pastor supporting Obama and attacking McCain. I immediately thought, "There goes that church's tax-exempt status! Hope they can afford it!"

This is wrong.


The 33 churches involved in the IRS protest did not specify which candidate they were going to endorse, just that they should be allowed to.

And they can say anything they want - but then they will lose their tax exemption.

Last year, the UCC convention invited Obama to speak, with the proviso that he NOT campaign. He agreed. And he campaigned, had more than 40 staffers there, handing out cards and flyers.

Surprise, the IRS came down upon the UCC Synod and smote them. UCC was a tad ticked off at Obama.

More recently, the Lovely Michelle was asked to speak at some church in Ohio and they reminded her to stick to the topic and not "campaign." She barely skirted the edges of campaigning (urging all to go register people and get oyt the vote), with veiled references as to what Barack would do ...and "volunteers" handed out Obama buttons.

Surprise! the IRS smote (ok, the IRS wrote a letter) , and now the church is pissed at the Lovely Michelle.


The tax code prohibits nonprofits from “participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.” The ban includes endorsements, donations, fundraising or any other activity “that may be beneficial or detrimental to any particular candidate.”

[Afa1234]

I agree with PalinPower!! The separation of Church and State has always been to protect the people from government interference with the Church. This allows the people to practice their beliefs without fear of government recriminations. If you have thirty churches willing to give up there tax exempt status to speak out for what is right then it shows you that these places of worship are willing to saricfice there own benefits for others. That says more than listening to someone pontificate at the pulpit, it shows true spiritual grit.

[CT-Hilltopper]

Obama is giving a speech live on Fox News right now and someone in the audience has just fainted!

In light of this discussion, that just gave me the heebie jeebies. Why are people fainting at his rallies?

His ego is so huge it sucks up all the oxygen from the room.

I'm surprised everyone doesn't faint.

[nette60]

First of all Obama is always doing things to get attention. There were people fainting at Pailn's rally last week and it wasn't all over the news.

As far as the tax exempt status....Black churches talk politics all the time...

[lynfreedom]

I do not see a problem of them saying our church is endorsing McCain as long as they do not make it part of their sermon each day as to why and pressuring people to vote a certain way

ff Obama can have al those endorsing him, then why not

[michu]

I am not a religious person, but I do believe in freedom and I do believe in the Bill of Rights. "Separation of Church and State" is not in the original Constitution. The First Amendment, which is part of the "Bill of Rights", states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This was originally meant to mean that the government could not have an established religion nor could they prevent other religions from assembling. The Supreme Court has since raped the First Amendment to change its meaning.

If a church wishes to endorse a candidate, even if it's a racist church, I feel they should have a right to say/endorse any darned thing/person they please.

But then again, I'm all about freedom and don't want my personal freedoms imposed upon.

[Mrsawd]

Hmm this is a touchy subject I guess !

But I am sorry I don't feel any group should be tax exsempt !

Lots of corruptions are getting pass over because of some of these groups that are suppose to be so helpful to communities !

Hell Look at Jeriamiah Wright and Trinity !
millions and millions and where does all this money come from !

People are suffering more and more and why ?
Because some have it so nice while other suffer each and every day !

So many charities hmm I was just asked at Long John silvers the other day to contribute to the Hungry Children over seas again !

Dollars are being stolen from the Americans from being nice too too NICE !

[Avalon]

Maybe they believe Obama is the AntiChrist....

I have to say, if I was a religious person, I would be convinced right now that Obama is the AntiChrist. He fits the biblical description perfectly.

If these churches did believe this to be true, would you really expect them not to say something to warn their members? He does fit the description so I can see why some would believe it. If Rev. Wright can endorse Nobama, other churches should be able to endorse Mac. All they may be doing is making a statement to their members and communities of who they think is the best person for the presidential office.