More and more, Churches are violating the establishment clause in the First Amendment and the 501(c)(3) tax code, from which they derive their tax exempt status, by endorsing Republican candidates for public office. The Bush Regime simply ignored the complaints about this.
When South Dakota gubernatorial hopeful Gordon Howie put out a call for pastors to endorse him from the pulpit, the Rev. H. Wayne Williams was quick to respond.
Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, endorsed the Republican candidate during a church service on May 16.
An ecstatic Howie, the self-professed “Tea Party” favorite, quickly issued a press release praising the action.
“Last week, Howie challenged South Dakota churches and their pastors to become more politically active in the stretch run to the June 8th primary election, urging pastors to endorse candidates and advocate specific issues from the pulpit,” read the Howie media statement. “Reverend H. Wayne Williams, Pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, became one of the first to accept the challenge, adding an official endorsement of Gordon Howie for Governor to a message delivered during his Sunday night services.”
The release quoted Williams, who said, “I believe Gordon Howie has clearly demonstrated the courage of character and conviction to take a position that has long been forgotten and lost in this country. I’m glad that this issue has been brought to the forefront of public conversation. It is high time that churches return to the role that they’ve occupied historically in guiding their flocks in making election decisions.”
But not everyone agrees with this kind of blatant church electioneering. Williams seems to have been the only pastor to endorse Howie from the pulpit, and several South Dakota religious leaders spoke out publicly against pulpit partisanship.
Among them was Howie’s own pastor, Bishop Lorenzo Kelly of Faith Temple Church in Rapid City.
“I have encouraged our people to be participants in the political arena and showed them the scriptures that back it up,” Kelly told the Rapid City Journal. “But I have not from the pulpit endorsed him. I wouldn’t do that. I wouldn’t put my church in jeopardy of anything.”
South Dakota voters were also not impressed. On Election Day, Howie, a state senator running against four other Republicans, took fourth place with just 12 percent of the primary vote.
The church endorsement scheme was also legally problematic. Federal law prohibits all non-profit organizations that hold 501(c)(3) status from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The Internal Revenue Service has repeatedly reminded churches to stay out of elections.
Nevertheless, some pastors continue to insist they have a right to tell their congregants which candidates to vote for or against. They are often aided and abetted by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an Arizona-based Religious Right legal group founded by right-wing television and radio preachers in 1993.
Alerted by members in South Dakota, Americans United began investigating the Williams affair. In early June, an Americans United staffer contacted Williams. He not only admitted that he had endorsed Howie during a church service but brazenly asserted that the IRS has no authority over him or his church. He was defiant and argumentative.
On June 10, Americans United filed a formal complaint with the IRS over Williams’ actions.
Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn pointed out that Williams has admitted that he violated the law by endorsing Howie.
“Furthermore, he asserted that the IRS has no authority over his church and that he has a legal right to endorse candidates from the pulpit,” wrote Lynn to the federal tax agency. “Liberty Baptist Tabernacle appears to be in clear violation of federal law. Accordingly, I am asking the IRS to investigate this matter and enforce the law as necessary.”
Although Williams had been combative when he talked with Americans United, the complaint may have given him pause. The minister quickly began backpedaling after the IRS complaint became public, and his story suddenly became fuzzy.
“I simply preach from the pulpit principles, and when someone stands with our principles, I say this person is standing with the same principles we stand on and are worthy of our consideration,” Williams told the Associated Press. “I told them vote on the basis of your own conscience.”
In an interview with the Journal, Williams took an even more curious tack: He insisted that his church never sought 501(c)(3) status, and, although he admitted the church is tax exempt, he claimed the IRS has no power over him… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Alternet>
Many of you have read that I do volunteer work and am on the board of a small nonprofit corporation that helps prisoners learn to change into law abiding citizens and help them transition to community life when released. I often discuss it here in general terms, but never give specifics. If you have wondered why, our group is also a 501(c)(3). Since I regularly endorse and oppose candidates for public office here, I must keep the group I represent completely separate from my political blogging. I respect the law.
Why won’t the the followers of Supply-side Jesus (the Republican abomination, not the real one) do the same? They do not respect the Constitution, the law, or even the biblical injunction to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
I hope the Obama administration will strip such churches of their tax exempt status.
22 Responses to “Strip Unconstitutional Churches”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
TC
I sure hope they enforce that law. I lot of revenue would then be collected. From just about all churches I’m afraid. Back when I was a kid, Catholic Churches were notorious for being political on Sundays. Even all those tent ministries have some explaining to do.
I agree, Tim.
Enforcing the law would be the fiscally responsible thing to do 🙂
It would. 🙂
“Unconstitutional Churches” is hyperbole. The first amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a national religion, not preventing churches from advocating a political position. What you object to is political involvement by non-profit organizations, specifically churches, which is a violation of tax laws, not the Constitution.
I would imagine you would claim a for-profit church is hypocritical which advocates for a particular candidate because they should be focused on helping their community rather than “making money”. Since you’ve got a chip on you shoulder for Christians (“Unconstitutional Churches”, “supply-side Jesus”) and Republicans (“GOP Hypocrites”), clearly no course of action would satisfy you except for the church give up and go away, right? The least you can do is avoid unnecessary exaggeration in your own advocacy.
Welcome, IC. I let your comment pass, because I wanted to give you your say, but if you comment again under a bogus email address, it will not be approved.
Over a hundred years ago, churches appealed an attempt by one of the states to tax them to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in their favor that the First Amendment does indeed establish a wall of separation between church and state, and that as long as churches do not engage in politics, they may not be taxed. The tax law, as applied to churches, is a direct offshoot of the Court’s constitutional ruling in the churches’ favor. Therefore your argument is incorrect.
Non-profit is a tax term. One could hardly consider the Catholic Church to be devoid of profits, considering their considerable wealth, not to mention such profiteers as Jim and Tammy Faye. So I would consider it far more honest if a church that wished to engage in political activity were to give up their tax exempt status.
I readily admit that I have chip on my shoulder where the Republican Party and its leadership are concerned, but I have no ill will to individual Republican voters. If the party were to change their policies, my attitude would also change.
I find it especially interesting that you assume I have a chip on my shoulder for Christians. I AM a Christian. By unconstitutional churches I refer to churches why disobey the Constitution. By Supply-side Jesus, I am not referring to the historical Jesus, the one who preached care for the poor and outcasts, who always met people at the point of their need, and who tolerated all except for the extreme religious right of his day, the Pharisees and Sadducee’s. Supply-side Jesus is a mythical construct that represents the gospel of greed, jugmentalism, intolerance, and often racism practiced by the extreme Republican religious right today, perverting the gospel of Christ.
The church has many valuable roles to play in society today. Advocating for those who favor the rich at the expense of the poor, contrary to Jesus’ teaching is not one of them.
I see the establishment clause as preventing the government from establishing a church and endorsing one faith over another. In fairness, each church is exempt from taxes, in exchange, they don’t directly endorse candidates. If they choose to endorse candidates AND accept the exemptions, it would be an indirect establishment of the church…
I have no problems with churches or involvement in political issues (my church frequently erects tombstones in their yard to represent the children killed by abortions). It is when they cross that line and tell their parishioners who to vote for that I have a problem with.
Here is something to consider – the constant assertion by conservatives that Obama is an adherent of Black Liberation Theology and that that faith drives his every move. Now imagine if they had audio of Reverend Wright endorsing certain candidates in his sermons… the right would have had a fit about the separation of church and state…
Also consider the push to prevent the construction of mosques all over this country by tea party groups and right-wing conservatives…
Kevin, I have no problems with chirches becoming involved in political issues either, as long as they are not calling for the subversion of someone else’s rights.
They definitely need to enforce that tax law. If churches want to get involved in politics, they shouldn’t be allowed to use our tax dollars.
I agree, Tom. Either/or.
If I were Eric Holder, I would go jihad on every church that violated this law. Minimum 3 year suspension from paying taxes and then, if they can behave themselves, their 501(1)(c) exemption would be restored. Hell, that money would wipe out the deficit in no time.
Don’t you mean suspension from tax exemption, Lisa?
If the IRS had the guts to strip flagrantly-politicized churches of their tax-exempt status, it would probably put a pretty significant dent in the deficit.
LOL, Infidel. It just might, because there are a bunch.
So you don’t think Churches should enjoy 1st Amendment rights? That’s really what it boils down to. I’m in form agreement with Voltaire… I don’t agree with what these people say… but they certainly have a right to say it. If giant corporations can do it why not churches?
Welcome Cletus. Neither churches nor corporations are people. Neither churches nor corporations are citizens. Members of churches and corporations have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else. Don’t forget that exclusion from endorsing or opposing candidates is part of the bargain church members made as a group in trturn for their tax exempt status. They may have one or the other, not both.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (www.au.org) does absolutely stellar work monitoring Talibangelical christianist “churches” – and has an impressive record of wins.
Here is the letter AU sent to the IRS in this case [PDF]:
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/06/letter-to-irs-re-liberty.pdf
And if you ever want to contact the appropriate person at the IRS WRT tax exemption issues, here’s the mailing address:
Lois G. Lerner,Director
Exempt Organization Division
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Another person you may want to consider:
Catherine E. Livingston
Deputy Associate General Counsel (Exempt Organizations)
::::
Pay no heed to this part, I’m
justdinking w/ HTML code stuffIronically I find myself, as a Christian, in agreement with AU more often than not. Thanks for the good info.
The HTML is a bit constraining, but I think WP offers more in comments than most blog software.
I dont understand why churches dont pay taxes in the first place. Jesus DID pay taxes. So why can’t the churches? Pastors would then be free to speak to political issues and candidates
Welcome Rev. I would have no problem with that at all, as long as they are not trying to interfere with the rights of others.
check out the property tax exemption the churches & private foundations enjoy… this area needs reform… also the 501 c 3 are always in court but they pay no taxes…. they should pay hourly rates to use the courts.. imagine the court costs we taxpayers have had to pay over the last 35 years litigating roe vs wade.
Welcome, Frank. I have to disagree. To make 501(c)(3) groups pay to use the courts would violate the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law for the people the NPGs are representing.