Churches Have No Business Speaking in Favor of Political Candidates

[phkrause]

http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1827

[doug yowell]

http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1827

So here's the ensuing question: "Do churches have any business speaking against political positions that (unnamed) political candidates openly support or conversely speak in favor of the positions that the (unnamed) candidates who oppose the other (unnamed) candidates support?

[teresaq]

Quote:

Churches Have No Business Speaking in Favor of Political Candidates

So what's the confusion about Doug?

[phkrause]

Quote:

Churches Have No Business Speaking in Favor of Political Candidates

So what's the confusion about Doug?

Good question teresaq, I'm not sure why he's asking me? Doug you should ask the guy who wrote the article.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1827

So here's the ensuing question: "Do churches have any business speaking against political positions that (unnamed) political candidates openly support or conversely speak in favor of the positions that the (unnamed) candidates who oppose the other (unnamed) candidates support?

Some really great questions doug, why not ask the guy who wrote the article. I remember a number of years ago when the church did speak out against a candidate, JFK, told us not to vote for him! That's when I knew that had I the chance to vote, he would've got my vote. :)

[teresaq]

Turned out to be have been based on unfounded fears. LOL

[doug yowell]

Doug you should ask the guy who wrote the article.

How do you do that?

[doug yowell]

[some really great questions doug, why not ask the guy who wrote the article. I remember a number of years ago when the church did speak out against a candidate, JFK, told us not to vote for him! That's when I knew that had I the chance to vote, he would've got my vote.

The article referred specifically to the naming of candidates. My question was to legitimacy of omiting the specific candidate's name while allowing the obvious application to their policies?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Doug you should ask the guy who wrote the article.

How do you do that?

It looks like there's a place that says "contact us." Try asking a question there! It seems that you should be able to get a question to the person that writes a specific article?

[Tom Wetmore]

The basic rule is that tax exempt organizations, including churches, are prohibited from engaging in political activity which is defined as "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." Specific endorsements or financial support are the most obvious violations. But allowing a declared candidate to speak in a church, use of publications or other facilities and resources are also potential violations.

The short answer to Doug's question is that focus on issues is OK. The caution I usually give is that if the particular issue is so clearly associated with a particular candidate as to make the identification of that candidate unmistakeable it could cross the line.

For more detailed info start here - The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention

[Dr. Shane]

That has been my understanding too. A church can support issues like pro-life or civil rights but not a specific candidate.

Once upon a time, political contributions were tax deductible. I would think the rules for churches wasn't so strict then but that was before I became politically active.

And I think it is worth clarifying, a church is free to support specific candidates. That is part of their First Amendment rights. The only issue is their tax exempt status. No preacher or church official will get tossed in jail for supporting a specific candidate or political party however they will lose their tax exempt status. The First Amendment does give us freedom of speech and free exercise of our religious faith but it does not give churches tax exempt status.

[Gibs]

It looks like being tax exempt does away with a certain amount of liberty on issues that very well should concern Christians.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Tom Wetmore]

While theoretically correct, the revocation of a church's Federal tax exempt status could be financially devastating. It is not simply that they would now have to report all church revenues as taxable income and pay at the corporate rate. That alone would have a significant financial impact. It also means that members no longer get a tax deduction for contributions which would likely reduce contributions to some extent. But other exemptions also flow from that status. State tax exemptions are typically premised on the Federal tax exempt status. That would include income tax, sales tax, property tax, unemployment comp and a perhaps some excise taxes.

Then there are the special tax rules that apply to church employee benefit plans that a church that has lost its tax exempt status possible would need to withdraw from and establish non-church plans, since church plans can only be operated for church employees.

If the church that has its status revoked also operates a school, its status could be effected. A church operated school also enjoy tax exemptions derived from the church that operates them. While it could perhaps obtain exemption on its own, if separately organized (most aren't), a non-church affiliated private school would have to file an exempt organization information return (Form 990) reporting on its finances and activities. ( Church operated elementary and secondary schools are exempt from filling a 990.)

Is it really worth the risk?

[teresaq]

I guess I'm at a loss as to why any church would want to deviate from, or dilute, it's God-mandated mission: to spread the gospel.

Can anyone show me any pure church that mixed church and state, besides the papacy and her daughters? How can a "church" which is made up of individual members who each have the right to think for themselves, support any particular candidate? Doesn't that take away the individual member's right to think and choose for her/himself?

[Gibs]

When the state makes mandates that interfere with Christianities right to oppose things that Christianity should mandate and there are several, like abortion, things to do with health and the dangers of practices Christians see must not be then these things become the Christians right to speak up and move the people against it that they then would be a voice to counter the non Christian way of the world.

More and more ministries are now no longer tax exempt now for that reason and more.

The main reason is Christ only is the Head of His Church and the state steps in and takes it's place as first master, I say NO. In more ways than one the state tells them what they can and cannot preach.

Christianity must have the right to hold it's "borders" of purity and speech. Not all meetings are necessarily the gospel message. The Sanctuary Service yes.

Who makes war with the Saints? It comes down through mandates of the state because the people didn't speak up and balance the thing to the right side.

Jos 10:25 And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Today it has gotten about as wicked as it can get, do we have a backbone?

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Dr. Shane]

It is not simply that they would now have to report all church revenues as taxable income and pay at the corporate rate... It also means that members no longer get a tax deduction for contributions which would likely reduce contributions to some extent.

Is it really worth the risk?

When Dr. James Dobson felt that God was calling him to become politically involved, he started an organization separate from Focus on the Family for political purposes. They did, and may still, solicit funds from those that support Focus on the Family. I received some of their mailings. The mailings made it very clear that it was a separate organization and that contributions were not tax deductible.

[Neil D]

Quote:

While theoretically correct, the revocation of a church's Federal tax exempt status could be financially devastating. It is not simply that they would now have to report all church revenues as taxable income and pay at the corporate rate. That alone would have a significant financial impact. It also means that members no longer get a tax deduction for contributions which would likely reduce contributions to some extent. But other exemptions also flow from that status. State tax exemptions are typically premised on the Federal tax exempt status. That would include income tax, sales tax, property tax, unemployment comp and a perhaps some excise taxes.

Im gonna play devils advocate here...not that I believe what I am about to post here...but I do want to explore this a bit more...because I've heard that removing the tax exempt status from church might be a good thing...Honest truth is that I am not so sure...

So, having said all that, let me ask the question-

If we remove the Federal Tax exempt status to churchs, what's wrong with that?

Sure, they pay the "corporate rate"....but don't corporates/corporations/[churches] not pay much in taxes, anyways? Look at the oil industry...they ain't paying much.....

And how can you tax "income" for a church when techniquelly it is "contributions"?

[Dr. Shane]

If we remove the Federal Tax exempt status to churchs, what's wrong with that?

That would basically mean that we would be taxing God. In the US, God gets to be tax-exempt.

[doug yowell]

So, having said all that, let me ask the question-

If we remove the Federal Tax exempt status to churchs, what's wrong with that?

Sure, they pay the "corporate rate"....but don't corporates/corporations/[churches] not pay much in taxes, anyways? Look at the oil industry...they ain't paying much.....

And how can you tax "income" for a church when techniquelly it is "contributions"?

That's not the question,but rather 2 good ones.

[doug yowell]

Sure, they pay the "corporate rate"....but don't corporates/corporations/[churches] not pay much in taxes, anyways? Look at the oil industry...they ain't paying much.....

There is a significant difference in the mission of the two and that's why churches are classified as non-profits. Churches also provide a social serice that neither corporations nor government can do with the money they are given.Not a whole lot of profit amongst the bunch.

[Tom Wetmore]

And how can you tax "income" for a church when techniquelly it is "contributions"?

That would be a complicating consequence of the loss of exemption. The revenue of the church would no longer fit that exemption definition as "contributions". It would be simply defined as income. The initial definition of taxable income is anything of value receive, directly or indirectly, from from any source, unless is it specifically excluded by the tax code.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

And how can you tax "income" for a church when techniquelly it is "contributions"?

That would be a complicating consequence of the loss of exemption. The revenue of the church would no longer fit that exemption definition as "contributions". It would be simply defined as income. The initial definition of taxable income is anything of value receive, directly or indirectly, from from any source, unless is it specifically excluded by the tax code.

Tom, do you think it more likely that churches would lose their non-profit status or that charitable contributions would be disallowed as exemptions?