As you no doubt know, churches are tax exempt. Churches do not pay income taxes on donations or earnings, don't pay sales taxes on purchases, don't pay property taxes on buildings and land, etc. We the people (not the IRS) gave churches this gift in exchange for a few trade-offs. Through our elected officials, we said you don’t have to pay taxes if you agree that you will not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
What these pastors did was a morally irresponsible example to their churches and community. I highly doubt the IRS will take the action it should and enforce the tax code against these churches, but I wish it would. And this is not just an issue of the IRS going after right-wing churches. In 2004 the same thing occurred when some churches spoke out against the war in a way that intervened politically against George Bush.
The pastor interviewed by the Washington Post shared his insight into why he needed to defy Federal law:
Asked why he felt the need to discuss the candidates by name and to be explicit in rejecting Obama and his pro-choice views, Johnson said he must connect the dots because he is not sure that all members of his congregation can do so on their own.
I hope you are equally aghast at this outrageous abuse of religious authority. But even if you are not, I hope my fellow taxpayers at least want these moral hypocrites taxed.
7 comments:
I am always pissed off when a pastor or religious figure uses his or her position to declare his corner on truth in the political arena.
It's terribly inappropriate. It alienates people in their congregation and ensures that others will not approach that church, possibly even that particular faith. It just disgusts me, honestly. I have seen this happen when a conservative Republican falls out of line with one of the Religious Right's issues as well.
I mostly hate what this type of behavior says about the god they claim to serve. It's pretty unattractive and unappealing.
This is reprehensible behavior in my opinion for many reasons, many of which have been stated already by LJ. But also from the simple fact that these actions are a direct flaunting of the laws and regulations. Perhaps Jesus' new covenant also holds to the tax laws of the United States.
The churches should have their 501(c)(3) status pulled. See how long people keep attending or much people keep giving when they don't get the corresponding tax deduction.
That said, I am fine with a church taking on a serious topic. The church just should be careful not to cross the line from religious action to political action.
I absolutely agree. I should have said that earlier. A church must stay relevant and address current issues. However, that is a far cry from staking the claim on political absolutes.
Greg Boyd of Woodland Hills church gave a great sermon on June 1st this year called Rich Towards God. http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_855.htm
I like what he says about the Kingdom of God being beyond any one nation and beyond any one political party. He cautions Christians about borrowing the authority of Christ to promote political views.
It is putting words in Christ's mouth and adding to Scripture. I'm pretty sure that's a no-no.
But I support the belief that Christians, and even Pastors, have the same right as any other citizen to speak their political views and attempt to effect political processes.
However, in light of the law here, Pastors must make sure they are not speaking for the church or organization when making political stances on candidates.
Using the pulpit as a political campaign office is out of bounds not only legally, but spiritually as well.
What do you think though...is Rev. Wright's church on the list of offenders? And are all non-profit organizations scrutinized for this behavior or just churches?
I don't know that all not for profits are scrutinized to the level of churches, but they are all subject to the same laws. That is why many not for profits form lesser known 501(c)(4) organizations which are not for profit but may partake in political activities. The downside is that donations to such an organization are not deductible from the donor's taxes.
I agree christians and pastors have the right to speak out on any issue they want, but you can't do it under the cloth or as the voice of the church. You must only be stating your personal views.
I can't imagine ONLY 33 pastors preached on the election this weekend. My guess is it was closer to 3,300.
Each of us has a circle of influence, and as that circle grows our responsibility does as well. When we get into congregations and pastor roles, that influence is magnified due to the spirituality and emotion connected to the church experience. If my pastor claimed that Toyota was better than Honda, I think a significant portion of the congregation would be swayed, even though he has no more knowledge in Japanese automakers than most in the congregation. His opinions (and many of ours) carry more weight than they should. Understanding that is a vital part of becoming a leader, and it must be taken very seriously.
When I worked at the Department of Transportation, our Chief Engineer had to be extremely careful about brainstorming in a setting with his employees. The reason? His "brainstorms" became policy, because the staff was eager to move in the direction of the boss's opinions. Similarly, many church members are (at least subconsciously) eager to gain favor of their pastor. And when he explicitly tells his people to vote for Candidate A, they will.
And that is dangerous.
The incendiary parts of Rev. Wright's messages I've heard have not been for or against ANY candidate. I think you can claim God is punishing America if you want, that's not legislation or a campaign. I gave an example of a church being investigated for endorsing a Democratic candidate too, and as Erick says it applies to all non-profits and definitely something people watch. The Executive Director of the Boys & Girls Club is not allowed to speak in endorsement of (or against) any legislation or candidate even if it's on behalf of the youth served.
Post a Comment