Sunday, 07 October 2012
-
1,400 US Pastors to Challenge IRS Non-profit Blackmail Tradition
(10/06/12) On October 7, 2012, over 1,400 pastors across the US are going to take a step in line with what their conscience dictates, not necessarily with what the US Government dictates.
Have you ever wondered why pastors in the US often seem to avoid discussing current political events? There has been one very strong reason, among others. A law passed in 1954 has basically been effective as a form of blackmail helping to keep pastors silent. The legal definition of blackmail does not necessarily involve the payment of money by the victim.
No matter what the initial intended purpose, the Johnson Amendment has helped to instill a sense of fear of regarding the discussion of any political issues around election time. The IRS retains the right to remove the non-profit status of any church which it determines has helped to support any particular candidate.
The creation of the Johnson Amendment in 1954 was self-serving, designed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson himself specifically for the purpose of helping him to win an election by intimidation, essentially squelching political comments by conservative opponents who, guess what, tend to meet in churches.
Losing this non-profit status, of course, would deal a financial blow to a church because people would be less likely to give donations if they were not tax deductible. And this is why the political endorsement ban has basically been a form of blackmail. It is basically buying silence. I met a missionary from Germany who said they have complete freedom to discuss politics in the pulpit there in that country without reprisals. It could be that they learned some lessons from the Hitler episode. The US has not been afforded any such learning experiences. In any event, these pastors are willing to take such financial risks in order to follow what their conscience dictates, even if it is considered controversial. It would have perhaps been more effective for the pastors to start speaking about candidates at the primaries when Ron Paul was still a viable candidate. Unfortunately, both Obama and Romney seem quite comfortable in helping to maintain the entrenched corruption in the status quo US economic-political system. Read more about the challenge to political endorsement at this CNN link.
The core of the argument by the group Alliance Defending Freedom was summed up in this statement by Erik Stanly:
“[T]hey are simply applying Scripture and theological doctrine to the positions held by the candidates running for office,” he said. “Pastors have been applying scriptural teaching to circumstances facing their congregations for centuries. “This is not ‘political’ speech,” he said. “Rather, it’s core religious expression from a spiritual leader to his congregants. That kind of expression is at the very center of the freedom speech and religion protections in the First Amendment.”
A brief debate on the subject posted in the L.A. Times offers two contrasting views by Christians Erik Stanley and Barry W. Lynn. Erik Stanley is senior legal counsel and head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and a longtime civil liberties attorney.
In the past, the IRS has not held a consistent and objective policy, but has activated waves of focused investigations:
“In 2004 the IRS created a dedicated enforcement program focused on political activity by churches and other nonprofits. Called the Political Activities Compliance Initiative (PACI), it investigated in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 election cycles 80 instances where church officials were alleged to have endorsed a candidate during services. According to IRS tallies made public after each election, the majority of the PACI complaints were upheld and settled with a warning that the organization comply with the ban on political activity. The IRS did not respond to Reuters questions about its enforcement activities in recent years, or explain why they seem to have ended abruptly in 2009.”
My opinion is that a Christian pastors should follow their conscience, whether or not non-profit status is retained. And Christians in general should tithe their income cheerfully as towards God, whether or not non-profit status is retained.
Tags: pulpit freedom Sunday, pastors versus IRS, blackmail of US pastors challenged, political endorsement ban challenged, pastors who follow their conscience not their treasury account, can US pastors talk about politics? IRS ban on church politics, ban on church political expression, politically correct church, why pastors fear IRS
Related
The 'Other' 2012 Christian US Voters Guide
The Civil Rights Movement in Reverse: Who's Next?
Christian Charlie Daniels on Agenda 21 and US Tyranny
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
email
- sent 1
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to templestream's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in templestream's local time zone: GMT +02:00 (Eastern European - Athens, Helsinki, Jerusalem)
Comments (9)
Isn't it ironic that the government can blackmail us with our own money?
@quest4god@revelife - Come to think of it, that is very ironic! And because the FED prints the money hand over fist with no accountability, I suppose they believe the money belongs mainly to them!
If you're going to talk politics then you're a political organization and are subject to whatever the laws are pertaining to such.
What caught my eye was your inference that it was feared that unless the contributors got a tax rebate, they wouldn't give money to the Church, or at least not as much. Doesn't say much for the sincerity of the average pew warmer.
Every official organization or individual earning money by any means should be taxed for the upkeep of the country.That's my bottom line.
@Lovegrove - Would that taxes were used for the "upkeep of the country!" Taxes are used to create dependency and therefore, longevity of terms in office for the politicians - to say nothing of the useless pet projects of the porkbarrel variety. If the FED were to bill us only for legitimate government functions, our burden would be exceedingly small in comparison to the theft (taxing of) the behemoth of a monster enemy that is our present government.
@quest4god@revelife - The upkeep of the country in my view, involves the upkeep of the people, which be definition mainly involves the poor and needy. You comment reveals that you think that not the case. That and you blogname suggests that you are a right-wing repub Christian. Am I right or is my prejudice against that standpoint coming forth? Do you hold that the poor are poor because of their own fault and therefore do not have "rights" to decent housing, decent education and healthcare? It seems obvious to me that Jeuss taught us to support the poor and needy. he didn't say check out their "worthiness" first. Indeed, he gave the example of being used and abused to turn the other cheeek and carry the pack further than required.
The American Christian Right is a good warning to Europe to ensure it does not allow its secular leanings to be compromised. If the Church gets back into power, God help us all.
@Lovegrove - How does the name "quest4god" suggest right-wing republican Christian? I selected that name because I truly desire to know God fully, and am therefore in a life-long quest toward that end. You are not alone in your pigeon-holing, stereotyping methods. People of all sorts and inclinations tend to seek the easy way out in dealing with others. It relieves one of the need to listen to what is said (the meaning of the words).
Some poor people are poor because they can't see a way to avail themselves of opportunities, some are poor because they are mistreated, some are poor temporarily but will work themselves out of want, and some are poor because they are not looking for a personal solution. You cannot lump all poor people together and treat them all the same. Some people are helped by receiving help and others aren't interested in changing anything.
I don't know you or your beliefs, but if you categorize Jesus as merely a champion of the poor or a social reformer, you are missing the boat ...entirely. Jesus is God born as a man to take the sin of the world on Himself so that we may have a relationship with God that He intended from the first. He did not cure all disease or eliminate all poverty while He was on earth, but in the end all those who are His will live on a perfect New Earth in a perfect body and there will be no death, disease or poverty - all of which resulted from man's sin and disobedience.
@Lovegrove -
>If you're going to talk politics then you're a political organization and are subject to whatever the laws are pertaining to such.
- I would not necessarily hold to such an opinion. When politicians discuss religion are they religious organizations?
Personally, I believe one of the central problems with society today is the notion that every spoken word must supposedly be categorized and approved by the powers that be. And now there are "free-speech zones" designed on occasion in the US to allow you to speak your mind on any subject without interfering with the thought processes of others. The US Founding Fathers are probably rolling in their graves. I clarified my opinion on this subject after some thought:
My opinion is that a Christian pastors should follow their conscience, whether or not non-profit status is retained. And Christians in general should tithe their income cheerfully as towards God, whether or not non-profit status is retained.
Amen. I agree Pastor should speak and Preach their mind. Good Post!
You guys make it really easy for all the folks out there.
sarasota dui defense attorney