If my last post suggested a belief that there are too many lawyers putting their noses where they don't belong, a Sept. 8 article in the Washington Post trumps my traffic court issue in spades.
The right wing Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is urging pastors to openly endorse political candidates, even though doing so would violate a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt churches.
ADF officials hope the endorsements would trigger investigations by the Internal Revenue Service, which ADF lawyers would then challenge in hopes of getting the newly conservative Supreme Court to throw out the ban. They claim three dozen or so pastors have already signed on.
The ADF was founded in 1994, mainly by conservative Christian spokesmen like James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Bill Bright of Campus Crusade. With a $20 million annual budget, it advocates for socially conservative causes favored by the religious and political right (truth-telling, alas, is not one of those causes).
I hope the organization is willing to escrow some of its millions to provide financial support for churches who could lose their tax-exempt status if their pastors get suckered into becoming live bait for the ADF's challenge to the IRS.
After paying all their lawyers, though, I doubt there will be anything left over.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The ADF and these local pastors are being foolish to test the "no endorsements -- no taxes" tradeoff. While I have no idea how they would rule, a case will surely make it all the way to the Supreme Court one day. Do they really want to take the risk that their church's income would be taxed. And for all of the symbolism of challenging "big government," aren't these the same people who want to reduce taxes? Would their members really approve if the outcome of this challenge to "big government" is that the donations of their members are no longer tax deductible? A Supreme Court ruling might apply to all churches, not just the one involved in the case.
Church income is not taxed because the income of the donors has already been taxed. As a local pastor, I have not found the no endorsements restriction onerous.
A UCC pastor in Ohio is calling on pastors to preach on September 21 on the value and importance of the separation of church and state. Maybe Baptists who still believe in it should join the effort.
Double taxation doesn't stop the IRS from taxing corporations or other types of organizations even though the money spent/given there has already been taxed. I don't think they government cares where the money comes from...they just see "income" b/c money is "coming in" from somewhere.
To go even one step further than that, here in Alabama, for example, say I file my state and federal taxes for the year 2005. I've paid my state and federal taxes on my income for the year 2005. If, after I file with the IRS, I get a refund from the federal government in 2006 (for my 2005 taxes), I have to claim that refund as income for my 2006 state income tax return. Double taxation is a way of life in this country so I don't think that has much to do with it.
I think even the current court would balk at rewriting the code. The problem isn't the code itself anyway; is it's enforcement. If you google "church tax exempt status investigation" or some combination of terms like that, there have been churches under investigation for preaching issues...some liberal, some conservative. On the other hand, it's a regular thing some places, especially in African American churches it seems, to have a candidate be a "guest speaker" while not giving equal treatment to that person's political opponent, and very little is done or said.
The law is what it is and I think it's good, in general. I agree with anon that it shouldn't be an unreasonable burden for a pastor (in his or her official role of pastor) to refrain from endorsing a candidate.
What the ADF is doing is fighting the wrong fight. Instead of shirking the law and thumbing their nose at the IRS, they should be advocating for the fair and equitable application of the 501(c)(3) code.
I think the religious right has forgotten that it forfeits its prophetic voice when it seeks to become a chaplain to the state. They fail to consider that the party that seems to honor their values in the present can very well abandon them in the future.
As with the recent Pew survey, there is a growing desire among social conservatives for the religious right to pipe down. 50% as opposed 30% in 2004. In the overall survey, 66% would prefer that churches and houses of worship not publicly endorse a candidate.
Judging from that survey, I'm willing to sit back and watch the ADF and its clients make a fool out of themselves.
"I think the religious right has forgotten that it forfeits its prophetic voice when it seeks to become a chaplain to the state."
Quote of the day!
About 3 or 4 months ago, a Republican candidate's office in our local congressional race called my office AT CHURCH and encouraged me to get a group together to meet with her campaign - said they needed youth groups and the whole community to get involved if they wanted to win this race! I told them that first of all we don't do partisan politics but that also doing such a thing would ruin our tax-exempt status. They sort of flubbed over the issue and said we would have to check the legality of meeting somewhere else like a restaurant - but if I as a clergy organize a meeting to support a candidate, I'm violating the principle regardless of where we meet.
Makes me shudder just talking about it...
I would take out "religious right" and insert "Christianity" if we're to understand "chaplain" as an official, ecclesiastical position in a state.
The religious left is equally in danger of losing it's prophetic voice by identifying itself too closely to the liberal political left (similar to what the religious right did with the political right).
A corollary question is, "What does it mean to have a prophetic voice in the first place?"
Post a Comment