Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

WASHINGTON – Churches should have the First Amendment right to endorse political candidates and still keep their tax-free status, say House Republicans, who quietly tucked a provision into a sweeping spending bill that would deny the IRS money to enforce the 63-year-old law prohibiting such outright politicking from the pulpit.

Republicans repeatedly have failed to scrap the law preventing churches and other nonprofits from backing candidates, so now they are trying to starve it. With little fanfare, a House Appropriations subcommittee added the IRS measure to a bill to fund the Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies.

The subcommittee passed the bill Thursday.

Republicans say the law is enforced unevenly, leaving religious leaders uncertain about what they are allowed to say and do.

“I believe that churches have a right of free speech and an opportunity to talk about positions and issues that are relevant to their faith,” said Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio.

Some Democrats say the measure comes too close to mixing church and state. They say religious leaders already have First Amendment rights, just like anyone else. But if they want to get political, they don’t have a constitutional right not to pay taxes.

Some also worry that the measure could upend the system of campaign financing by allowing churches to use their tax-free status to funnel money to political candidates.

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., recalled a speech that former President John F. Kennedy gave to religious leaders when he was running for president.

“He said the pope wouldn’t tell him what to do, and the people in that audience shouldn’t be telling people on Sunday morning who to vote for,” Neal said. “I don’t think churches should be endorsing.”

Many nonprofit groups want to avoid politics. In April, 4,500 nonprofit groups signed onto a letter to congressional leaders asking them to preserve the law.

The law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations such as churches from participating directly or indirectly in any political campaign to support or oppose a candidate. If the IRS determines that a group has violated the law, it can revoke its tax-exempt status.

The law doesn’t stop religious groups from weighing in on public policy or organizing in ways that may benefit one side in a campaign.

The bill specifically forbids the IRS from spending money to enforce the law against “a church, or a convention or association of churches,” unless the IRS commissioner signs off on it and notifies Congress.

The bill doesn’t mention other types of nonprofit groups, or even synagogues or mosques, said Nick Little of the Center for Inquiry, which promotes secularism.

“All they care about is the Christian groups, and in particular, it will end up as the extreme religious right Christian groups,” Little said. “If this goes through, this would add just another way in which unregulated dark money could be used.”

kalm wrote:If we all became charities and churches, no one who would have to pay taxes!

WASHINGTON – Churches should have the First Amendment right to endorse political candidates and still keep their tax-free status, say House Republicans, who quietly tucked a provision into a sweeping spending bill that would deny the IRS money to enforce the 63-year-old law prohibiting such outright politicking from the pulpit.

Republicans repeatedly have failed to scrap the law preventing churches and other nonprofits from backing candidates, so now they are trying to starve it. With little fanfare, a House Appropriations subcommittee added the IRS measure to a bill to fund the Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies.

The subcommittee passed the bill Thursday.

Republicans say the law is enforced unevenly, leaving religious leaders uncertain about what they are allowed to say and do.

“I believe that churches have a right of free speech and an opportunity to talk about positions and issues that are relevant to their faith,” said Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio.

Some Democrats say the measure comes too close to mixing church and state. They say religious leaders already have First Amendment rights, just like anyone else. But if they want to get political, they don’t have a constitutional right not to pay taxes.

Some also worry that the measure could upend the system of campaign financing by allowing churches to use their tax-free status to funnel money to political candidates.

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., recalled a speech that former President John F. Kennedy gave to religious leaders when he was running for president.

“He said the pope wouldn’t tell him what to do, and the people in that audience shouldn’t be telling people on Sunday morning who to vote for,” Neal said. “I don’t think churches should be endorsing.”

Many nonprofit groups want to avoid politics. In April, 4,500 nonprofit groups signed onto a letter to congressional leaders asking them to preserve the law.

The law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations such as churches from participating directly or indirectly in any political campaign to support or oppose a candidate. If the IRS determines that a group has violated the law, it can revoke its tax-exempt status.

The law doesn’t stop religious groups from weighing in on public policy or organizing in ways that may benefit one side in a campaign.

The bill specifically forbids the IRS from spending money to enforce the law against “a church, or a convention or association of churches,” unless the IRS commissioner signs off on it and notifies Congress.

The bill doesn’t mention other types of nonprofit groups, or even synagogues or mosques, said Nick Little of the Center for Inquiry, which promotes secularism.

“All they care about is the Christian groups, and in particular, it will end up as the extreme religious right Christian groups,” Little said. “If this goes through, this would add just another way in which unregulated dark money could be used.”

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/j ... ical-cand/

CID1990 wrote:This is BS

Any church that practices politics from the pulpit should lose its tax exempt status - period

But as much as klam and the Democrats will whine about this- its just narrative manipulation. Because you apply this standard to black churches and watch what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pwns wrote:The idea there's some wall of political neutrality around tax-exempt organizations in this country is laughable.

Planned Parenthood has its congressional scorecard and doesn't even pretend to be politically neutral, Media Matters is an overtly partisan organization, and so on.

It's only bad according to some when it's non-progressive churches injecting themselves into politics.

Western Civilization will be just fine. This is nowhere close to the list of things to be worried about.

BTW, if you're a D1B and want to see the decline of religion precipiated in the US, the best thing that can happen is to have the clergy venting politics from the pulpit. You'll have a lot of people getting turned off if that happens.

Pwns wrote:The idea there's some wall of political neutrality around tax-exempt organizations in this country is laughable.

Planned Parenthood has its congressional scorecard and doesn't even pretend to be politically neutral, Media Matters is an overtly partisan organization, and so on.

It's only bad according to some when it's non-progressive churches injecting themselves into politics.

Western Civilization will be just fine. This is nowhere close to the list of things to be worried about.

BTW, if you're a D1B and want to see the decline of religion precipiated in the US, the best thing that can happen is to have the clergy venting politics from the pulpit. You'll have a lot of people getting turned off if that happens.

CID1990 wrote:This is BS

Any church that practices politics from the pulpit should lose its tax exempt status - period

But as much as klam and the Democrats will whine about this- its just narrative manipulation. Because you apply this standard to black churches and watch what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:This is BS

Any church that practices politics from the pulpit should lose its tax exempt status - period

But as much as klam and the Democrats will whine about this- its just narrative manipulation. Because you apply this standard to black churches and watch what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could give a rats ass about black churches tax exemption.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:This is BS

Any church that practices politics from the pulpit should lose its tax exempt status - period

But as much as klam and the Democrats will whine about this- its just narrative manipulation. Because you apply this standard to black churches and watch what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could give a rats ass about black churches tax exemption.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:This is BS

Any church that practices politics from the pulpit should lose its tax exempt status - period

But as much as klam and the Democrats will whine about this- its just narrative manipulation. Because you apply this standard to black churches and watch what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would be fine with that. Tax all churches. Make them pay property tax. Income tax on revenues.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I could give a rats ass about black churches tax exemption.

I haven't heard you saying anything about the regular, every four parade of Democratic candidates through just about every southern black church with a congregation over 1000

But here you are

Giving enough of a rats ass when Congress is trying to codify something that happens REGULARLY in inner city churches with zero consequences... why do you think that is?

Hell Hillary even had her own patented "down home" accent just for those occasions

Do you think they are preaching the Word O' God? I don't.

I think they're saying Jesus would vote Democrat.

Pwns wrote:The idea there's some wall of political neutrality around tax-exempt organizations in this country is laughable.

Planned Parenthood has its congressional scorecard and doesn't even pretend to be politically neutral, Media Matters is an overtly partisan organization, and so on.

It's only bad according to some when it's non-progressive churches injecting themselves into politics.

Western Civilization will be just fine. This is nowhere close to the list of things to be worried about.

BTW, if you're a D1B and want to see the decline of religion precipiated in the US, the best thing that can happen is to have the clergy venting politics from the pulpit. You'll have a lot of people getting turned off if that happens.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I haven't heard you saying anything about the regular, every four parade of Democratic candidates through just about every southern black church with a congregation over 1000

But here you are

Giving enough of a rats ass when Congress is trying to codify something that happens REGULARLY in inner city churches with zero consequences... why do you think that is?

Hell Hillary even had her own patented "down home" accent just for those occasions

Do you think they are preaching the Word O' God? I don't.

I think they're saying Jesus would vote Democrat.

Again...I don't care. Preach what you want. Pay taxes. That simple.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Again...I don't care. Preach what you want. Pay taxes. That simple.

I was just wondering why this phenomenon, which has been going on in every election in recent memory (local, state, and national) is suddenly worth criticism?

What could the reason be?

Because the GOP is pushing it

But welcome aboard! Better late than never

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I was just wondering why this phenomenon, which has been going on in every election in recent memory (local, state, and national) is suddenly worth criticism?

What could the reason be?

Because the GOP is pushing it

But welcome aboard! Better late than never

I can't think of a time where I ever supported churches manipulating elections. But keep grasping there, Champ.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I can't think of a time where I ever supported churches manipulating elections. But keep grasping there, Champ.

I also dont recall you mentioning it

until now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I also dont recall you mentioning it

until now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't recall if I have with this specificity either. I posted an article I found interesting. Even appreciated pwns's arguments. That's all.

I know you think you have a "gotcha" moment here or something so you go on and continue to jam out with your Klam out...

CID1990 wrote:This is BS

Any church that practices politics from the pulpit should lose its tax exempt status - period

But as much as klam and the Democrats will whine about this- its just narrative manipulation. Because you apply this standard to black churches and watch what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:I think Churches should be free to engage in politics. If that means eliminating the tax exemption that's fine.

I think the whole tax exemption thing has been used as a weapon to muzzle Churches. I've always felt Churches should be willing to give up their tax exemption in order to avoid being muzzled.

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think Churches should be free to engage in politics. If that means eliminating the tax exemption that's fine.

I think the whole tax exemption thing has been used as a weapon to muzzle Churches. I've always felt Churches should be willing to give up their tax exemption in order to avoid being muzzled.

Um... Yeah okay but
Why give up anything when you can have both..?

This whole thing is a non-issue
No matter who's side you think you're on