Pulpit Freedom Sunday

[ydoaPs]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/definat-pastors-irs/story?id=11726610&page=1

 

Several pastors across the USA are deliberately trying to lose their tax exempt status by recording sermons and sending them to the IRS. They are doing this so that they can then file lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of the tax-exempt status restrictions. They say that it is unconstitutional because they have freedom of speech.

 

"The whole goal is to foster a lawsuit where we could challenge the constitionality of the law," Stanley said. "We believe if a federal judge looked at the constitutionality of what the IRS has done, it wouldn't take long for the judge to strike it down as unconstitutional."

 

"It's entirely appropriate to use the separation of church and state to tell government it has no business being in the pulpits of America," he said. "This is about a pastor's right of free speech."

 

I, however, think they severely misunderstand the situation. While they most certainly do have freedom of speech, they do NOT have the freedom of unconditional tax exempt status. If they fail to meet the conditions for the privilege of being tax exempt, they do not get that privilege. It is really that simple, IMO.

 

No one is being censored and no one is being interfered with by the government, so I don't think either freedom of speech or separation of church and state are relevant at all. I'm pretty sure that any competent judge would agree with me. You must meet the prerequisites to get the benefits of any other government program; this program is no different.

 

 

What do you guys and gals think?

Edited September 26, 2010 by ydoaPs

[Marat]

This case is different from the normal rules by which the government can freely design its tax exemption status rules, since it concerns a Constitutional right of freedom of religion, which these rules arguably violate.

 

The issue is whether churches can endorse political candidates from the pulpit. The argument against allowing this is that it would permit churches to use their tax-exempt status to support their political views, in effect forcing taxpayers indirectly to bear the financial burdens of the political campaigns of candidates they don't support. This would make the government indirectly the financial backer of certain political candidates, which would violate the necessary political neutrality of the government tax structure. The argument for allowing this is that religious doctrines may clearly have implications about which political candidates should be endorsed, so if the government denies tax-exemption status to churches endorsing candidates from the pulpit, this could be government interference with freedom of religion.

 

I am not sure why the churches want to make such an issue of this, however, since the government tax rules are easily circumvented as they stand. Thus a priest could say from the pulpit, "Any Catholic who gives aid and comfort to anyone endorsing abortion is excommunicated!" and this would be regarded by the law as a politically neutral religious statement, but if said just before Election Day, all the members of the congregation would recognize it as a political endosement.

[insane_alien]

simple solution, remove tax exempt status from all religious organisations.

[cypress]

They are indeed being censored, the question is whether or not it is constitutionally protected speech relative to the governments interest to enforce existing tax law. Censorship is only effective if there is a practical consequence that causes the speaker to modify the content of their speech and in this case the consequence is economic. In most instances where there are competing interests, the predominate purpose of the speech is used as a test. This would prevent someone from setting up a church as a front for a political campaign. To remove tax free status for the occasional mention of political contests seems out of balance with historical treatment of competing interests.

[Pangloss]

I, however, think they severely misunderstand the situation. While they most certainly do have freedom of speech, they do NOT have the freedom of unconditional tax exempt status. If they fail to meet the conditions for the privilege of being tax exempt, they do not get that privilege. It is really that simple, IMO.

 

It's an interesting point, and an interesting example -- thanks for posting it. I agree that the result could be that they lose their tax exempt status and accomplish nothing. It will be interesting to follow.

 

 

simple solution, remove tax exempt status from all religious organisations.

 

What if the purpose of the money they've collected is not politics, but charity? That seems like a reasonable line to me, saying that if you collect for charity, fine, but if you collect money and make political statements (or build a bigger church, or buy Cadillacs, or whatever), you pay the piper.

[insane_alien]

They aren't being censored. they are allowed to say whatever they like on the pulpit.

 

However, when they say certain things it disqualifies them from being eligble for other benefits.

 

a good parallel would be entering a writing competition. Now, there is nothing STOPPING you copying a classic novel and submitting it. But by doing so you are making yourself ineligble to win the contest.

 

The criteria to be eligble for the tax exemption(as well as other criteria) is you don't get political. If you get political you don't get exemption. Where is the censorship? They won't break the door down and gag the pastors or lock them up, they'll just require them to pay taxes. Nothing more, Nothing less.

 

If they don't pay the taxes then they'll be convicted of tax dodging.

 

I doubt their exemption will be revoked for minor infringements such as mentioning a politician but for more gross violations such as proclaiming <insert hated candidate here> is Satan/Jesus in disguise and stuff of a similar nature.

 

Saying stuff like "I had a talk with <insert political figure> and he said the work we were doing for charity was great etc. etc." is unlikely to get tax exemption removed.

[Sisyphus]

What if the purpose of the money they've collected is not politics, but charity? That seems like a reasonable line to me, saying that if you collect for charity, fine, but if you collect money and make political statements (or build a bigger church, or buy Cadillacs, or whatever), you pay the piper.

 

Exactly. File like any other nonprofit organization, and follow the same rules. That places of worship get special treatment in the first place is what I've never understood. It's definitely a violation of a separation of church and state, which is why it's especially strange that they're trying to defend it on those grounds. I don't think they'll have much luck.

[Pangloss]

This article has further information about Nonpartisanship in tax exempt orgs, which of course go well beyond churches:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_%28American_organizations%29

 

I thought this was interesting:

In this context, "nonpartisan" means that the organization, by US tax law, is prohibited from supporting or opposing political candidates, parties, and in some cases other votes like propositions, directly or indirectly, but does not mean that the organization cannot take positions on political issues.[2]

 

Here's some more info from the same article (bold is mine):

 

Among the prohibitions, 501©(3) organizations may not become involved in political campaigns[5] by "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." They may not contribute to campaign funds or make public statements in support of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

 

However, such organizations may present public forums, publish voter education guides, and conduct certain other political activities that the Internal Revenue Service classifies as "non-partisan". They may also conduct activities "intended to encourage people to participate" in elections, such as voter registration, training programs, issue briefings, and "get out the vote" drives, if done without bias that would favor one or more candidates over others, or that would oppose candidates. When making public political statements they are required to concentrate on the broader issues, and not make comparisons between candidates.[6] Public forums and other activities are also subject to a number of rules, such as a requirement to invite all viable candidates.[6] Public charities (but not private foundations) may conduct some lobbying activities to influence legislation, if the lobbying activity is not a "substantial part" of its overall activities.[7]

 

If they break the rules, not only do they run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status, but they may face criminal penalties if they attempt to cover up their involvement:

 

Organizations that violate the IRS rules may have their tax-exempt status revoked or denied, and may face penalties. In addition, concealing or misreporting prohibited activities may, depending on the circumstances, be a crime on the part of the individuals or organizations involved.[7][8]

 

Interesting stuff. I'm actually in the process of forming a non-profit for a specific purpose. It has nothing to do with politics or even current events (it's just a student support network), but I could see how an org might want to take a general position on an issue, especially if it intersects with their goals and purpose. But it would be very easy to cross a certain line, and I think it's not just religious institutions that run a risk here.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, would be pretty hilarious if to counter Pulpit Freedom Sunday a few politicians buy/rent themselves a church and hold weekly political rallies/fundraisers at it while claiming tax exempt status as a religion.

 

simple solution, remove tax exempt status from all religious organisations.

 

That would certainly remove the limitation that is bothering them.