Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, June 20, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments |

Document Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit

by ABC News

Thanks to EJ Ashcraft III for the link.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5198068&page=1

Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit
Ministers Pit 'Freedom of Expression' vs. 'Separation of Church and State'


Few Americans would invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, but that's exactly what Minnesota pastor Gus Booth wanted when he stood behind his pulpit and told his congregation God wanted them to vote Republican.

n an election where candidates openly discuss their faith and are regularly seen in churches, and a time when pastors' sermons lead the politics sections of newspapers, one might be excused for not knowing that it is illegal for a church to endorse or oppose a candidate for president.

But when Booth addressed the members of his Warroad Community Church one Sunday in May and told them, "If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for president," he very much knew he was violating the law. He even wrote a letter to the IRS explaining what he had said and challenging the tax collection agency to do something about it.

Churches and other non-profit groups like charities and universities do not have to pay taxes. That exemption, however, comes with a price. Churches, and by extension the pastors who serve them in an official capacity, are not allowed to endorse or oppose political candidates.

Booth, 34, is one of several religious leaders who this year hope to challenge federal law by flouting the regulations about endorsing candidates from the pulpit — a move that could potentially cost them their tax-exempt status, creating financial ruin for many congregations.

The separation of church and state may be one of our democracy's most vaunted values, but its enforcement falls to one of our government's most derided institutions — the IRS.

First Amendment Protection?

Booth and other religious leaders who want to challenge the government believe their rights to freedom of speech and religion, enshrined in the First Amendment, permit them to say whatever they want, wherever they want. Those rights, they say, should trump a 54-year-old tax code.

"The government is trying to censor me and other religious leaders," Booth told ABC News. "I may be taking on the IRS, but the IRS has taken on the Constitution unchallenged since 1954. I feel like the only law that should dictate what I am allowed to say is the First Amendment."

"The gist of my speech was you can't support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because they support abortion and homosexual marriage, and the scripture vehemently opposes both. I didn't say vote for McCain, but I'm planning to," he said.

In addition to being a pastor, Booth is also a delegate to the Republican National Convention. But it was his Lord and Savior, he says, not his party bosses, who told him to literally make a federal case out of preaching a sermon.

"A month before I made the sermon I talked to the church leadership. I told them, 'If we do this we could lose our tax exempt status. Are you prepared for that?' We spent a week in prayer, and I felt God was telling me to make that speech."

Booth said despite alerting the IRS to his sermon, he has yet to hear from the agency. The IRS would not comment to ABC News on any specific investigation.

Watchdog Group Weighs In

Last week, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a watchdog group sent a letter to the IRS also asking them to investigate Booth.

Both the IRS and Americans United say the agency in recent years has increased the number of investigations it conducts on organization suspected of abusing their tax-exempt status and the speed with which it recommends action.

In 2006, the IRS received 237 complaints and selected 100 groups — 44 churches and 56 nonchurches — for examination. More than half of those cases remain under investigation, according to IRS statistics.

"However, the IRS did substantiate improper political activity in 26 cases and issued written advisories. So far, there are no revocation recommendations," according to an agency report on the statistics.

In 2004, the IRS selected 110 cases for examination and revoked the tax-exempt status of five organizations. Of those five organizations, none were churches.

The last church to have its tax-exempt status revoked was the Church at Pierce Creek near Binghamton, N.Y., in 1992.

The Church took out an ad in 1992 that read: "The Bible warns us to not follow another man in his sin, nor help him promote sin — lest God chasten us … How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?"

That ad, like a speech from the pulpit, is a violation of section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, according to the IRS.

"Generally, the law passed in 1954 prohibits any tax-exempt organization from participating on behalf or in opposition to any candidate," said IRS spokesperson Nancy Mathis.

Equal Time Behind the Pulpit

Legally, Mathis said, candidates are allowed to speak at churches, much like Sen. Barack Obama, D- Ill., did over the weekend in Chicago when he delivered a sermon about fatherhood. Churches who host candidates, however, are supposed to invite the opposition candidate as well.

In 2007, the IRS investigated and dropped charges against United Church of Christ following a conference in which Obama was allegedly endorsed during an introduction. Obama formerly belonged to Trinity Church, a member of United Church of Christ, but split with the church following controversial comments by his old pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"There is a very simple test religious leaders can use to determine if they're violating the law," said Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "Ask yourself: 'Is what I'm doing intended to help someone's candidacy?' If the answer is 'yes,' don't do it."

"Tax exemption is not a right; it's a privilege that comes with certain restrictions," Lynn said.

According to Lynn, Booth's "free speech" argument is specious because taxpayers should not have to subsidize pastors' political activities they do not agree with.

Other Pastors Join Booth

Booth is not the only pastor challenging the IRS this year.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian advocacy group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., is enlisting ministers around the country to endorse candidates from their churches' pulpits on Sept. 28.

"Pastors on that day will evaluate candidates in light of scripture," said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the group. "Our hope is that the IRS will initiate investigations and we can bring this into the federal courts."

Churches, he said, are doubly protected by the First Amendment to make political speeches, because it protects both free speech and freedom of religion.

"Churches have constitutional rights and special status by virtue of being churches. This isn't about political speech, it is about religious speech. The Bible and scripture applies to every aspect of life, including who we elect."

Both the Democrats and Republicans recognize how important "faith voters" will be in this year's presidential election, and each is working to court religious groups.

Given the sensitive legal and political ramifications of the issue, officials from both parties would speak only on background.

"We don't advise churches because they're tax exempt organizations. We do advise our volunteers and coalitions that anything they do related to their religion must be done in their volunteer capacity — not through the church," said a Republican National Committee official.

The Democrats this year are courting religious voters like never before and will open this summer's convention, for the first time, with a prayer meeting.

"There is a distinction between the pastor and the pulpit," said a Democratic Party official. "We've made a significant effort to reach out to faith voters this year, but we're always making sure people know the law and the guidelines."

Comments 1 - 34 of 34 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #196722 by SonOfSLJ on June 20, 2008 at 11:29 am

 avatarQuoth the article:

"The government is trying to censor me and other religious leaders," Booth told ABC News. "I may be taking on the IRS, but the IRS has taken on the Constitution unchallenged since 1954. I feel like the only law that should dictate what I am allowed to say is the First Amendment."

Completely agree with you Pastor Booth, provided that you finally pony up the membership fee for our dorky little USA Club that guarantees your religious institution the rights dictated by the First Amendment. Until then, it's really a question of whether you want to eat your cake or have it.

Other Comments by SonOfSLJ

2. Comment #196723 by JLD Calgary on June 20, 2008 at 11:30 am

How much do you want to bet the IRS doesn't end up doing anything on this? Pretty disappointing.

Other Comments by JLD Calgary

3. Comment #196729 by tybowen on June 20, 2008 at 11:33 am

 avatarSure they can endorse a candidate from the pulpit, they just have to accept the financial consequences. There is no constitutional basis for tax exempt status (the 16th amendment covers that) so they'll just have to pay taxes like the rest of us. Use that money for science education. We lose some churches and get better education. Win-win!

Other Comments by tybowen

4. Comment #196734 by Szkeptik on June 20, 2008 at 11:38 am

It's obvious they would lose in a federal court. This is not about free speech. They will not be fined or jailed, they will not be penalised in any way. They will simply lose a privilege because they broke the law.

Other Comments by Szkeptik

5. Comment #196736 by Epinephrine on June 20, 2008 at 11:40 am

 avatarI'd like to see them paying taxes too. Any chance of that happening in our lifetimes?

Other Comments by Epinephrine

6. Comment #196738 by sidfaiwu on June 20, 2008 at 11:47 am

 avatar"The gist of my speech was you can't support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because they support abortion and homosexual marriage, and the scripture vehemently opposes both. I didn't say vote for McCain, but I'm planning to,""

But his version of Christianity is okay with massive-scale greed and perpetual war? Where do I sign up for this blood-thirsty congregation. At last, a church that takes the Old Testament seriously. Time to start cracking some skulls and making money on the side!

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

7. Comment #196739 by FightingFalcon on June 20, 2008 at 11:51 am

 avatarIn other thread here, I said I was opposed to churches paying taxes if it means that they can't get involved in politics or the government (directly at least).

I'll definitely be watching this case closely. I still prefer to have churches retain tax exempt status if it also means that they can't endorse political candidates or interfere in government.

Of course, if the IRS is on the case we can expect absolutely nothing out of this. What a worthless group...

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

8. Comment #196747 by Nick6742 on June 20, 2008 at 12:00 pm

 avatarA far more sinister abuse of this code is the Co$ manipulating the city government in Clearwater, FL to blatantly restrict the civil liberties of the citizens there. The IRS is incompetent and lacks the will to do anything important.

Other Comments by Nick6742

9. Comment #196754 by sophia_mr on June 20, 2008 at 12:09 pm

 avatarCall me an idiot..

I didn't know Lynn was a Rev. -.-

i saw him in a video defending evolution.. he's a good man. XP

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dFPeQW5XLcc

Other Comments by sophia_mr

10. Comment #196758 by prettygoodformonkeys on June 20, 2008 at 12:15 pm

 avatarPierce Creek Church
"The Bible warns us .... lest God chasten us …"
What the hell are they worried about? When is the last time anyone's seen any thunderbolts coming from that quarter?

I mean, they're marrying gays in the sunshine in California, and yet the Midwest is being 'punished' by 'acts of god'.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

11. Comment #196770 by Border Collie on June 20, 2008 at 12:27 pm

 avatarIf there's anything I loathe more than religious wingnuts, it's the IRS ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

12. Comment #196782 by Edouard Pernod on June 20, 2008 at 12:35 pm

 avatarFor the 2006 congressional elections, my father (who is left leaning) staged a walkout of his church service when the pastor brought in a guest speaker who was so anti-abortion that they told the congregation it would be a sin to vote for a Democrat. My dad and the members who walked out with him wrote the pastor a letter threatening to contact the IRS if it happened again, and the pastor apologized vehemently the next week and promised not to invite the guest speaker back. Churches have in fact lost tax-exempt status (WHICH THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!) for endorsing or condemning political candidates in the past, and it has been happening with increasing frequency, so I'd love to see these pastors be asinine and use the pulpit for politics and watch them lose their tax exempt status.

These churches are pretty corrupt with how they end up showing their "charitable non-profit" status anyway. They'll repave the parking lot twice a year and buy hundreds of youth group T-shirts and spend money on "retreats" which are just fancy church vacations to condos to "commune with nature as God made it", so that way it looks like the church isn't making a profit.

I'm all in favor of real non-profit organizations not paying taxes, religious or not, but just because something is religious does not mean it should be non-profit. The Church of Scientology is extraordinarily wealthy, owning a tremendous amount of top dollar real estate, and tax exempt thanks to the IRS granting them that status in 1993. Being a "religion" should not grant anyone any special tax-exempt privileges. If they can't prove that they do real material charity work (no "saving souls" is not charity), then fuck them, they should pay taxes on their income just like everyone else has to.

Pretty crazy story...
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/nytimes.html

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

13. Comment #196805 by davem on June 20, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Me, I always thought God would have voted Republican, and Jesus would definitely be a Democrat, nay, maybe even a communist...

Other Comments by davem

14. Comment #196807 by EvidenceOnly on June 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

With the current US government defiantly ignoring the US constitution, do you really think that they will go after any tax exempt organization telling their sheep to vote republican?

If you want to see decisive IRS action, all you need is 1 tax-exempt organization telling its members to vote Democrat.

It is still possible that they would not want to set a legal precedent that opens the door stripping right-wing organizations of their tax-exempt status when the next president takes office.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

15. Comment #196811 by quill on June 20, 2008 at 1:05 pm

 avatarHaha, these guys are going down. You don't try this kind of bullshit with the IRS. Take it from Kent Hovind, suckers. They'll break down your doors, confiscate your property, and put your asses in jail for the rest of your miserable lives.

Other Comments by quill

16. Comment #196819 by Burt Likko on June 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm

 avatarThe pastor has every right imaginable to engage in all the speech he wants on politics. He can endorse specific candidates, denounce other candidates, and urge people to vote yes or no on whatever issue he wants.

The pastor does not, however, have the right to avoid paying taxes. That is a very special privilege, one that in a truly just world he would not have in the first place. But given that he does have that privilege, he must abide by the rules that go along with it.

So if the pastor wants to denounce same-sex marriage or speak out against a candidate of whom he disapproves, he can do so on the same footing as the rest of us -- as a taxpaying citizen of the United States of America. This atheist has no problem with that trade-off at all.

Other Comments by Burt Likko

17. Comment #196823 by ttheobald on June 20, 2008 at 1:15 pm

 avatarHmmm...obviously the fellow is not a lawyer. He doesn't seem to realize that the tax code in question has no impact whatsoever on his 1st Amendment rights. It is a fair exchange practice: freedom from taxation in exchange for political neutrality. Sacrifice neutrality, sacrifice tax exemption. Oh well, preachers are preachers for a reason - they aren't good at reasoning.

I can't wait to see the IRS come down on him like a ton of bricks. That would indeed be natural selection in its fittest moment.

T

Other Comments by ttheobald

18. Comment #196870 by liberalartist on June 20, 2008 at 2:16 pm

 avatar"Both the Democrats and Republicans recognize how important "faith voters" will be in this year's presidential election, and each is working to court religious groups."

and what about the rest of us? bastards.

"The Democrats this year are courting religious voters like never before and will open this summer's convention, for the first time, with a prayer meeting."

Makes me feel like I have no one to vote for in November.

Other Comments by liberalartist

19. Comment #196874 by black wolf on June 20, 2008 at 2:20 pm

 avatarSeems like pastors like these have gotten bored with preaching the same nonsense year after year, generation after generation. Perhaps unconsciously, they long for some real accomplishment, doing actual work for their money. Demolishing their tax-exempt status will force them to do so.

Other Comments by black wolf

20. Comment #196946 by TeraBrat on June 20, 2008 at 4:37 pm

What the hell are they worried about? When is the last time anyone's seen any thunderbolts coming from that quarter?


That made me laugh because the first year I decided I don't believe in god I went out of my way to do things like turn on lights on Shabbat, eat non-kosher foods, eat bread on Passover etc. I felt twinges of guilt but I knew that it was a conditioned response that would pass. I never learned to like pork and hated shellfish anyways. Now I'm a vegetarian and it doesn't matter.

Yom Kipur came. The "holy of holies" day. The "day of repentance". For the first time in my life I wasn't in a synagogue all day praying to god to forgive my sins. That one was pretty easy. Eating on Yom Kipur was harder. I gagged over every mouthful that year and half expected to be struck down dead. I obviously wasn't.

I can honestly say that I don't even think about it anymore when I eat on Yom Kipur.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

21. Comment #196950 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 4:48 pm

 avataredit: [errased] sorry, this posted on two threads, hey why am I apologizing?

Other Comments by mordacious1

22. Comment #196957 by evolver23 on June 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I still prefer to have churches retain tax exempt status if it also means that they can't endorse political candidates or interfere in government.


This would be fine, if it actually worked in the real world. From my experience with churches (I practically grew up with dual membership as a Missionary Baptist and Southern Baptist), preachers rarely shy away from giving political advice, especially in the more evangelical denominations. If they are too scared to mention any names, they will simply rail against practices that everyone knows are supported by this or that candidate. For instance they might decry abortion, gay marriage, or church/state separation, etc. Most parishioners will never report this type of activity, so unless the IRS sends out the occasional scout, even the more explicit cases will go largely unnoticed and unpunished. I say we just take their money.

Other Comments by evolver23

23. Comment #196976 by dragonfirematrix on June 20, 2008 at 7:39 pm

 avatarAny religion that is trying to gain political control over a society is reason enough for that society to wage a fighting war against the people of that religion.

There is no moral reason to tolerate the intolerant, so why do we tolerate the intolerance of religion?

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

24. Comment #196984 by adk on June 20, 2008 at 8:36 pm

 avatar
"If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for president."


"Why not?"

"Because!"

Other Comments by adk

25. Comment #196994 by Thor'Ungal on June 20, 2008 at 9:23 pm

 avatarI agree with the pastor in a certain respect, some tax laws need revising.

Pay Caesar his due then you can spread all the "free speech" you like. Well, baring the usual hate speech limitation everyone else has to abide by.

oh wait...atheists...homosexuals...hmmm not sure how well the usual kind of free speech will serve you.

oh well it'll all get better once Jesus comes down and takes all that pesky libertarianism away from us. Should be any day now...right.

I wish them good luck in recovering from their illness,

Thor'Ungal

Other Comments by Thor'Ungal

26. Comment #197014 by irate_atheist on June 20, 2008 at 11:56 pm

 avatarThank fuck I'm not American.

In a way it's sad to see you guys slipping back into the Dark Ages. Perhaps it will serve as a warning to others.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

27. Comment #197041 by geru on June 21, 2008 at 12:58 am

Laws don't apply to churches? What else is new..

Other Comments by geru

28. Comment #197145 by esuther on June 21, 2008 at 8:06 am

Hey Tetra,

We're missing you on the Einstein thread. There are some unanswered questions. Hope to see you there again.

Anyhow, regarding dietary changes from Kosher diet, I can understand your becoming vegetarian. (I am vegetarian myself, for lots of reasons). It is only a pity that you did it so soon. You missed out on some absolutely wonderful flavors -- ones that represent the happiest taste-bud memories I have.

The best non-kosher (anti-kosher?) foods on the planet are:

1. Bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich. On white bread toast, heavy on the mayo, and with the bacon very very crisp. And maybe an extra dash of avocado just to add to the fat content.
I always thought if you could serve this kind of BLT to a child in a conservative Jewish or Muslim home, you would halfway liberate her right then and there.

2. Pork roast. In heavy gravy with half-potatoes roasted in the pork fat. Heart-stopping but once a year is not so bad.

3. Coquille St. Jacques. (Scallops in cream sauce served on a clam shell)

I'll never eat any of those things again, but a woman has memories, after all......

Other Comments by esuther

29. Comment #197235 by Mr. Forrest on June 21, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I hope the IRS smacks those silly church-people so hard, they'd say it was gods punishment.
Little greedy fuckers can have freedom of speech when they pay their damn taxes like the rest of us. Until then they should shut the fuck up, ON EVERY TOPIC.

Other Comments by Mr. Forrest

30. Comment #197260 by Fedler on June 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm

 avatarMaybe it's just my mood today, but this is exasperating.
There is a distinction between the pastor and the pulpit," said a Democratic Party official. "We've made a significant effort to reach out to faith voters this year, but we're always making sure people know the law and the guidelines."
Yeah, but the problem is...the sheep don't care, so to speak. Faith voters don't care what the law is or what the guidelines are. Deep down I think they know what the rules are, they just honestly don't care because they feel religion is exempt from scrutiny so, by default, religion wins. They don't care about the law. I realize that the Democratic party is reaching out to faith voters like never before (how can you not? they're tripping over themselves practically every night in the evening news to "court" the religious voter), but does the party seriously think they can rope in faith voters, while still touting the necessity of the separation of church and state? That seems like an oxymoron in this day and age. Why? Because the religious moderates who hold the middle ground and mostly recognize the obvious cognitive dissonance, refuse to acknowledge the problem in order to correct it. Why? Because they think it doesn't really effect them. Turst me, I've been there. It's like the large elephant in the room that no one will talk about. They may condemn it casually in passing, but then they don't give it a second thought. They figure it's someone else's problem.

American's United for Church and State and the FFRF seem to be frowned upon because they seem so anti-religion at every turn. But people don't realize that the reason they seem anti-religion at every turn, is because religion is AT EVERY TURN! It's so pervasive where it shouldn't be and no other religions - or religiuos believers - seem to care. Why would they? Would Bill Gates complain that too many people are using Windows?

This is where we could strike out on new ground. If we could figure out a way to do positive community projects in our own right, without any mention of religion or our personal feelings about religion, then slowly people may begin to realize that non-believers do exist and our values are just as important as any faith voter. Probably more so since freethinkers/secularists are generally not "one issue voters" like many religious believers. We don't have magic 'trump card' ideals that candidates can pander to (i.e. abortion or homosexuality).

So, please, become active in local or national secular/freethinking organizations. We need all the help we can get!

Other Comments by Fedler

31. Comment #197269 by quill on June 21, 2008 at 2:02 pm

 avatarComment #197014 by irate_atheist:

Thank fuck I'm not American.

In a way it's sad to see you guys slipping back into the Dark Ages. Perhaps it will serve as a warning to others.


Oh? If America goes, then so do will a lot of others who might presently think they are safe.

Other Comments by quill

32. Comment #197270 by the great teapot on June 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

yes. That is what "perhaps it serves as a warning" would mean.

Other Comments by the great teapot

33. Comment #197289 by comet tail on June 21, 2008 at 3:32 pm

 avatar
A month before I made the sermon I talked to the church leadership. I told them, 'If we do this we could lose our tax exempt status. Are you prepared for that?' We spent a week in prayer, and I felt God was telling me to make that speech.



-What's really funny is that god must want them to pay taxes! Thats kind of a liberal stance here in the US.

Other Comments by comet tail

34. Comment #198185 by mada2002 on June 23, 2008 at 10:23 am

 avatarI'm sorry to say that I'm actually from that small town in Minnesota. However, it was religious crazys like this guy that helped to push my questioning belief over to complete disbelief.

The really awful thing about this guy is that the local paper has several columns written by Booth and other local pastors and priests where they can continue to spout their religious nonsense to a larger "congregation" (I wish the paper had an online version to provide for you, but its too small), which I'm sure this week he's written about his "mission from God". And then when/if the IRS smokes his ass, it will be another case of "god working in mysterious ways".

Although I couldn't provide a website for the paper, I found the editor's email and I'd love for everybody just to send a little note telling them how awful it is to provide print space for such nonsense. Thanks in advance! Here it is: wpioneer@wiktel.com

Other Comments by mada2002
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: