By Jesse

September 27, 2004 07:39 AM | Link to this

There has been great emphasis placed on the separation of church and state. It seems that the state does not what the church’s view in political decisions, yet here is a case where the state is sticking its nose in the church’s business. No one is stopping the politicians from using religion as a platform to bolster their political agenda in the political arena, why are we then trying to stop the church from expressing it’s view on those same issues in the religious arena. Stop the double standard. If we want the church out of the state’s affairs, then the state should stay out of the church’s affairs.

By norman ravitch

September 27, 2004 07:50 AM | Link to this

Ever since the 1800 presidential election Christian extremists have been putting our Republic in danger. It is time to be vigilant. The first step should be the removal of religious bodies from tax-exempt status. Then we can go further, through education and example, to purge irrational Christianity from the warped minds of our people.

By norman ravitch

September 27, 2004 07:53 AM | Link to this

Ever since the elections of 1800 churches have been intefering in politics, to the detriment of our Republic. Only vigilance can save us. Sermons and other ecclesiastical pronouncements should be screened for signs of interference with politics. Churches should have their tax exempt status removed. A Republic thrives on reason not superstition.

By Scott Reynolds

September 27, 2004 08:04 AM | Link to this

Perhaps it is best summed up as The Word of God says: The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2 He will have the last word!!

By Rev. Chet Thomas

September 27, 2004 08:11 AM | Link to this

Speaking as a conservative Southern Baptist pastor, I welcome anyone from any organization to come to any sermon that I preach. While I do discuss issues from the pulpit, I never make any endorsements of any party or candidate. I do this not because of any any law or because of the IRS, but simply because I believe it to be inappropriate.

My only concern about these groups sending people out to various churches is that they only seem to look at the conservative churches, not the liberal ones. If there is to be unofficial monitering, it needs to be across the board.

By Boscoe Roads

September 27, 2004 08:28 AM | Link to this

James Madison, fourth President of the United States, wrote: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.â€? He also stressed: “The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.â€? 52 of the 55 people who signed the U.S. Constitution were Christians. The IRS now watches the nations churches to see if they are breaking IRS laws? Next we’ll have monitors to make sure those same churches don’t offend the special interest groups. Communist Russia has something similar to this called the STATE church whose only doctrine is the government’s. Clearly this is not what the founders of this country had envisioned.

By Gayle Wright

September 27, 2004 08:30 AM | Link to this

They absolutely should be. The minute a tirade starts telling people who to vote for and so forth, the tax exempt status should be taken away.

By Brian Curtis

September 27, 2004 08:34 AM | Link to this

You BET they should be monitored… the last thing we need is voters being told to vote for a specific party or candidate or risk their very souls. That sort of heavy-handed domineering behavior is characteristic of churches, and we need to keep them the heck OUT of politics at all costs for that very reason.

Besides, churches are only being asked to justify their privileged (tax-exempt) status. If they can’t keep their mouths shut about politics, why should we bend over backwards to do them special favors—such as exemption from taxes—by pretending they perform a vital public service? Partisan hacks should pay taxes like everybody else.

By lyrazel

September 27, 2004 08:39 AM | Link to this

I would feel sorry for the sucker sitting through hours and hours and hours of sermons to listen for proof. Some ministers are blowhards bigger than Hurricane Ivan. My big question would be: who employes this spy? The IRS who decides tax-exempt status? Wouldnt they need a warrant? I have great pity for the church member who goes expecting to hear the word of god only to be blasted with how to vote. Notice how all candidates HAVE to have some religious affiliation even if in their lives they seldom make it to a pew. I applaud church congregations who refused to give lists of members to the republican party campaigns. Politicians should stay out of churches for their campaigns and never use them for photo-ops. What goes on in a house of god should be god-achieving. A courthouse is not a place of worship (although I bet god is implored more in court than church) and that is why religous texts are removed.

By Matthew Alexander

September 27, 2004 08:42 AM | Link to this

When the RNC publicly instructs Catholic “leaders”, in other words the priests, to inform their parish(s) that a vote for Kerry would not be in the best interests of the church or the practioners of that belief system, then Shaunti’s arguments turn rancid. The Christian right, much like the Muslim right, has for too long been fouling the waters of human affairswith strident, bigoted and intolerant messages to their flock(sheep). It may be their right to do so but it is not a tax-exempt right. And the Republicn Party may be also running afoul of campaign finance laws when it takes a corrupt back-door method to deliver their message by using both Protestant and Catholic organizations to deliver a political message. And fine, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander, but what is a “left-wing” church, execpt for one that doesn’t preach hate? The news is full of the Swaggerts et.al. who have made shameful public statements of racism, etc. they have been forced to merely apoplogize for. Meanwhile those clerics who walk the talk are jailed for peacefully protesting war and genocide when it is practiced by our government. Do we detect once again a right-wing double standard?

By Terry M. Adams

September 27, 2004 09:10 AM | Link to this

So now we’re going to start worrying about tax exempt institutions? Never mind that we have had many of these so-called “non-political” organizations openly and blantantly supporting their favorite political affiliation for years on end.

But when it comes to the churches - we’ve got to crack down hard! Yep, we need to jump up and down and pretend that we’re all concerned about tax exempt organizations having a political leaning. I just wish the anti-religious crowd at least had the guts to quit hiding behind all the pretended reasons and be upfront about where you stand.

By Tim

September 27, 2004 09:18 AM | Link to this

Shaunti never really states whether church sermons should be monitored or not. It sounds like she doesnt believe that they should be but does not give one good reason why not. Why should an individual or group not be monitored to make sure they are obeying the law? Police officers have radar guns to make sure that drivers obey the speed limits (although in Atlanta that is a joke!). So why shouldnt people be allowed to make sure churches are not handing out endorsements when that is against the law. I would also like to state that I am a Christian and do attend church but if I were in a service where a preacher was trying to tell me who I should vote for I would leave (even if it were the person I was planning on voting for). If you are going to play politics in church then pay your taxes!

Shaunti also about made me jump out of my seat when she talked about groups intimidating churches. Is it not the same as when ‘christians’ HARASS a gay/lesbian family cruise (children were being harassed!)? When is it ok and not ok!

By Cornelia E.

September 27, 2004 09:31 AM | Link to this

While the idea of spies in churches distresses me, maybe they will hear something at the churches that is enlightening and motivational. What really distresses me is how Ms. Feldhahn turned what is a simple political/ moral issue racial.

By Bob Siska

September 27, 2004 09:41 AM | Link to this

It never ceases to amaze me how certain self-proclaimed “watchdog” groups always seem to watch those who oppose their own political agenda, without spending any time watching or monitoring those whose views of issues agree with their own.

To illustrate, when is the last time you heard about the ACLU defending the 1st admendment rights of a church or other faith based organization? C’mon surely in all of their years of activity they must have come up with one case where the liberty of a Christian organization was being threatened, and they stepped in to help???

The fact is, the end result of one sided monitoring of free speech is actually an attempt to further a particular cause. Maybe somebody should be watching the watch-dogs, and threaten their tax-free status if they do not become more fair and balanced!!!

Pastors should be free to boldly proclaim the word of God, and this includes parts of the bible that deal with social issues. I agree that specifically endorsing candidates shouldn’t be done, but issues that are dealt with in the bible are open game, and if the congregation connects the issues with candidates, that is up to them.

By Craig A. Milliman

September 27, 2004 09:42 AM | Link to this

Ms. Feldhahn is absolutely on the wrong track. Most government agencies investigate only violations that are reported to them by the citizenry. There’s no reason why concerned citizens should not report violations of the law by churches or any other non-profit. (The “spies” to which she refers are volunteers.) Besides, no one is suggesting that the IRS should bust churches for discussing moral or spiritual issues, but only for illegally endorsing political candidates. If churches want to tell their congregations how to vote, all they have to do is pay taxes like the rest of us.

By Sara Crisler Cobb

September 27, 2004 10:17 AM | Link to this

I have been very concerned about the amount of faith-based activity made public by George W. Bush for the sake of his reelection. It is here that I come down:

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Social issues should be part of the religious message for all religions. However, besides the lack of his knowledge of the Constitution in this area, or his intentional abuse, George Bush has made this a very dangerous issue.

It is my opinion that no religious institutions have tax-exempt status - None at all!!!

Far too many churches have mass accumulation of real estate assets that do not and will not contribute to the best interest of the whole. Lets put all religious institutions on a level playing field and free the churches up to minister to the people instead of having to take care of these big, cold, and non-essential buildings and lands.

By Casey Bowman

September 27, 2004 11:04 AM | Link to this

The simple fact is that if a church wants to endorse a candidate then it has that right. However, they are then not simply a religious organization anymore and so must lose their tax exempt status. There is no question about that, it happens to be the law. If you don’t like the law then try to get it changed but whining about it now is just silly. Furthermore, if my church endorsed a certain candidate, I wouldn’t like the insinuation that somehow God is on one side or the other. If a preacher wants to endorse a candidate on his own time, then that is up to him. But to interject politics into religion is pretty awful.

By Tsani

September 27, 2004 11:08 AM | Link to this

Diane Glass - check the U.S. Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The power to tax is the power to control. If the state is permitted to tax churches, then it can control the content of their speech by means of taxation. Isn’t this what you are trying to do right now by revoking tax-exempt status based on the content of their speech? Like it or not, Diane, religious freedom is protected in the bedrock of the Constitution. That is why many of our ancestors came here. Religious issues have impacted the political landscape throughout history. This will never change. Both politics and religion influence the activity of human beings and their interaction with each other. Religion will always have something to say about the same issues that occupy the realm of politics. Our founding fathers knew this, and they took care to preserve the independence of religious expression. That’s the way it is. If you don’t like it, you don’t like America. Your ancestors immigrated here. Feel free to reverse their decision.

By Roberto Meinhofer

September 27, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. /end/

The Constitution (and Bill of Rights) says that the government cannot influence religion. NOWHERE does it state that religion is not allowed to influence government.

The IRS rule regarding church non-profits puts a condition on the 1st Amendment thus the IRS violates the 1st Amendment. The IRS should either give exemptions without conditions, or give no exemptions at all.

-Robert

By Kool Kathy

September 27, 2004 11:44 AM | Link to this

Oh, those subversive churches, mentioning politics. Anti-religious groups will have to be very religious (pun!) in their efforts. They must not forget all religious groups such as mosques, symagogues, temples, everything right down to witches dens. This means they are going to be very busy. I wonder whose anti-religious payroll is sponsoring them. Uh oh. Does that sound political?

By Randy Hayes

September 27, 2004 11:46 AM | Link to this

Being a Christian, one might think I would vote in favor of tax exemption status. I have a different view of the subject,I think churches should give up their tax exempt status. This way organizations who say that they are a church in order to get that status, would stop saying that they are a “Church”. This would rid the USA of untrue religions, such as any religion that doesn’t follow the God of Abraham. Untrue religions confuse people and I believe mislead them at the critical time, when they are looking for the true creator of this world. So I challenge all true churches to get rid of their tax exempt status and say what GOD wants you to say, not what the goverment allows.

Randy Hayes

By Paul

September 27, 2004 12:34 PM | Link to this

What is too often ignored is that the black pulpit has long been the location of many a political speech from candidates and many a partisan speech instructing church members how to vote. But how many black churches are targeted to have their tax-exempt status revoked? They may exist, but I have never seen an example in the media.

This attack on churches in the name of separation of church and state seems to be a partisan attack, directed at conservative, white (read “republican”) churches, while the democratic candidates actually fill the black pulpit. If you point out this fact, you are inherently labeled a “racist”.

This issue is not racist, just clearly partisan.

By norman ravitch

September 27, 2004 12:44 PM | Link to this

Let me be clear: I regard black Christians and their churches as just as dangerous as redneck Christians and their pulpits.

By Matt

September 27, 2004 12:54 PM | Link to this

As other people have noted…My problem with the monitors is that they almost exclusivly go to right leaning churches. I absolutely agree with Mrs. Glass that church services are not the appropriate forum for ministers to tell people who they should vote for. Ministers should not do this. But let’s be fair about this. My perpective is that Mrs. Glass is so busy regurgitating worn out cliches from her personal bias that she fails to speak to this obvious inequity. Maybe this is a concept that she is unable to grasp.

By Joe

September 27, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this

If churches are going to be monitored and penalized for practicing free speech, then shouldn’t this apply to the media also?

By Carlton Wyatt

September 27, 2004 01:21 PM | Link to this

Bob Siska: Perhaps if you actually took the time to look at the cases the ACLU has represented instead of just assuming your statements are correct, you’d not make such a fool of yourself in a public forum. A simple perusal of the ACLU website and glance at their case archives shows a large number of cases where they have represented religious peoples, of many faiths. Unlike some right-wingers who seek to shut out all non-right-wing thought and speech, the ACLU fights for the constitutional rights of ALL people, even conservatives.

Should churches be monitored? Of course. Should they face losing their tax-exempt status? Of course. They shouldn’t have that status in the first place, but as long as they do, they need to abide by the rules set forth for keeping it.

By Lyrazel

September 27, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this

This has a creepy feel to it—-like Hitlers troops entering synagogues to make sure there was no words spoken against him, or sending homeland security honchos into mosques to make sure there is no terrorism plots going on.

By Boscoe Roads

September 27, 2004 03:08 PM | Link to this

The 1978 Supreme Court case McDaniel v. Patyark emphasized the rights of citizens of faith: “The Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion, and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities … In short, government may not as a goal promote “safe-thinkingâ€? with respect to religion and fence out from political participation those, such as ministers, whom it regards as over-involved in religion. Religionists no less than members of any other group enjoy the full measure of protection afforded speech, association, and political activity generally. The Establishment Clause, properly understood, is a shield against any attempt by government to inhibit religion … it may not be used as a sword to justify repression of religion or its adherents from any aspect of public life.â€? If the IRS is monitoring churches, based on this case it is illegal!. NORMAN RAVITCH are you paying attention?

By M Wright

September 27, 2004 03:30 PM | Link to this

We have the right to spy on churches, but not the right to “profile” to relieve our society of drug dealers and terrorist who work to destroy us. I’m confused.

By Brian Curtis

September 27, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this

It’s easy enough for any church to block off monitors, spies, or whatever else they care to call the watchdogs.

All they have to do is give up their unearned and unnecessary tax-exempt status and pay taxes like any other institutution. But as long as they insist on getting special treatment, they’ll have to go the extra mile to earn that privilege.

By Brian Curtis

September 27, 2004 04:20 PM | Link to this

Oops, “institution.” Darn typos….

By Jesse

September 28, 2004 07:23 AM | Link to this

It is amazing to me that so many of you are worried about the tax-exempt status of the church and what political candidate they support, when you care nothing about the giant corporations who receive those same benefits. Why is there no outcry of which candidate the major airlines are supporting when they have not only received an exemption but have taken millions of your tax paying dollars? Why is there so much hatred when it comes to the beliefs and support of one of the few organizations that is not reaching it hands into your pocket and forcing you to support them?

By Robert K. Morris

September 28, 2004 08:52 AM | Link to this

When a pastor condemns homosexuality, this is not congress establishing a reigion. So first Amendment is not violated. Shaunti is right!

By Bob Morris

September 28, 2004 09:03 AM | Link to this

Jesse Jackson has “preached” from pulpits on for years on how to vote. Is he ever monitored?

By Bob Siska

September 28, 2004 09:17 AM | Link to this

Carlton Wyatt:

You know you’re right one one account, my question should have read; “when is the last time you heard about the ACLU defending the 1st admendment rights of a CHRISTIAN organization or practice?” The ACLU has had plenty of cases where they are on the side of other religious organizations, and in many of these instances their legal action has been against a Christian organization or practice…

Isn’t it obvious to you that a liberal organization that sends out letters each election year warning church leaders, and then sends representatives to those churches to “spy” in hopes of catching the pastor saying something amiss, is actually pursuing an agenda themselves??

I wonder how many letters they sent to liberal organizations (i.e. planned parenthood) giving them the same warning? How many meetings have they monitored in hope of catching them saying something too political? I think we both know the answer (0)…

It’s quite hypocritical that many of those who decry “tolerance”, are also very intollerant of views that differ from their own…

By Roy Lee

September 28, 2004 09:23 AM | Link to this

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been preaching politics in churches for many years. Where’s the IRS? Where’s the “separation of church and state” crowd? Seems that if you are part of a protected minority, you are not to be held accountable.

Roy Lee

By Lloyd Walker

September 28, 2004 10:42 AM | Link to this

I, for one, am sick of in your face Christians. Funny, but I didn’t realize that God was a republican. But if the Catholic Bishops are followed, we must vote against any candidate who is pro choice. It might be a sin is the implication. This is rich coming from a church filled with pederasts. What bothers me most is the total lack of faith on the part of the devout. If they are so sure of their creator, the devine origin of the bible, and their place in the universe, why then, do they react so violently to anyone who disagrees with them. Seems to me, that response indicates their own lack of faith, and insecurity.

By Brian Curtis

September 28, 2004 10:47 AM | Link to this

Seems to me that a lot of people are rushing to defend churches and casting this as some sort of politically-motivated “assault on conservatives”… but nobody can say exactly why churches should be exempt from taxation.

Which is the whole reason for this extra monitoring and additional legal requirements. If churches would just admit they’re engaging in political advocacy and surrender their tax-free status, the First Amendment would be all that’s needed to keep out monitors or government regulators.

It’s the churches’ insistence on being exempt from the same tax laws as the rest of us that imposes the additional requirements. So once again, I ask anyone to explain: Why shouldn’t churches be taxed?

By norman ravitch

September 28, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this

The reason why Christians react so viciously and violently when people disagree with their beliefs is that they know their beliefs rest on nothing but fantasy and wishful thinking. That is why Christians need “fellowship” and need churches — to reassure themselves that there are others who share their beliefs, however nonsensical. Beneath every religious believer regardless of particular faith lies the terrible possibility that they may be believing stuff with no substance behind it. The believers need others to convince themselves that they are right. The blind leading the blind.

By Bob Siska

September 28, 2004 11:33 AM | Link to this

• Brian: Here is an answer to your question…

The basic concept of 501C is a philosphy that a government should provide some incentive, without directly endorsing, to organizations that primarily exist to benefit the people of the country. Churches certainly fall into that category, and have benefited many through prayer, teaching, counceling, benevolence, etc. The tax incentive extends beyond just churches, in fact many organizations take advantage of the non-profit provision given by the IRS.

In order to qualify for tax-exempt status, the purpose of the organization must be to serve the public good, as opposed to a private interest. Organizations that are exempt under Code section 501(c)(3) are those whose purposes are religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational. They may also foster national or international amateur sports competition, prevent cruelty to children or animals, or test for public safety. The activities of nonprofit organizations are limited in that they must further one or more of the purposes for which they were granted tax-exempt status. Examples of these “charitable” organizations include nonprofit hospitals, educational institutions, youth organizations, community fundraising campaigns, public charities, local housing organizations, historical societies, and environmental preservation groups.

So what’s wrong with this concept? The vast majority of non-profits are run by people who genuinely care about others, and have made sacrifices in order to do what they love. This is certainly true of most ministers, who live on a lower income level and forgo many of the luxuries that they could enjoy had they pursued a secular career.

By Ronald Millsaps

September 28, 2004 11:48 AM | Link to this

I’m appalled (but not surprised) by these left-wing responses. I’m not surprised because after years and years of seeing liberals do their best to impose their unconstitutional will on everyone else and violate others’ freedom, I could only be surprised if they did just the opposite.

Interesting link: http://www.no-apathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

The Catholic church, for example, has every right to call a vote for abortion what it is: a sin. I’m so sick of liberals imposing themselves on the innocent in society, whether it be abortion, public smoking (which also is unconstitutional, in reality), etc..

If this sermon-monitoring idea sounds to you like Nazi Germany, you’re essentially right.

By Brian Curtis

September 28, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this

I’m familiar with the eleemosynary class of institutions that enjoy 501(c) tax exemption—not only churches, but also hospitals, libraries, museums, and so on.

But to earn that status, the organization must NOT be a political advocacy group. The exemption code is quite clear on this. If you tell people who to vote for, you’re not acting as a 501(c) organization any more—and you no longer deserve tax exemption.

Given that churches have not only the right, but (as many here have argued) the absolute responsibility to speak out on political issues—apparently even going so far as to endorse specific candidates and threaten the immortal souls of those who vote wrongly—it’s obvious that they cannot be considered eleemosynary any more.

If churches want to have no restrictions on their freedoms of speech and religion (just like private citizens do), then they need to pay taxes just as private citizens do. But as long as they want the special privilege of not paying taxes, they have to play by the rules of eleemosynary organizations. That means staying out of politics.

By Dave Oliver

September 28, 2004 12:20 PM | Link to this

If a church endorses any canidate I feel their tax exempt status should be lifted. Therefore, probably every African American Baptist church should have their tax exempt status removed at once. They continually endorse the Democrat Parties canidates.

By Tim

September 28, 2004 12:34 PM | Link to this

Social issues and a candidates stance on those issues is relevant to both church members and non-members alike. I do not believe that anyone should tell you who to vote for. However, presenting the facts about a candidate’s stance on the issues, presenting the church’s stance on certain social issues, and allowing people to make their own decision is not a privalege of the church - it is the church’s job! You can agree or disagree with anything - that is your right, but you can’t stop it from being said.

Freedom of speech was created to protect the speech that you hate, not the speech that you like.

When a discussion like this begins, it is always the extreme’s that are compared. Not all Christians are red-necked, white, hate mongers. Just as all liberals are not tree-hugging, God-less hippies. The terms Christian and Liberal are not mutually exclusive. Let’s not let fact that we disagree make us natural born enemies. Disagreement does not have to equal hate!

By Boscoe Roads

September 28, 2004 12:37 PM | Link to this

If Norman Ravitch is right, Christianity is a the world’s biggest scam. After all it has lasted 2000 years. In year 700 there was a priest who had doubts of the real presence of Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. One day at Mass he prayed that his doubts would be removed. As he said the words Consecration the Host turned into Flesh and the Wine turned into Blood. What type of Flesh and Blood was it? In 1970 the Holy See ordered a through scientific investigation using spectroscopic analysis, high powered microscopes and advanced medical technology. The most illustrious scientist, Professor Odoardo Linoli, eminent professor in anatomy and pathological and clinical microscopy, headed the investigation and was assisted by Professor Ruggero Bertellie of the University of Sienna. The investigation showed the Host had turned into flesh, into a fine slice of a human heart, and was incorrupt, as though it had just been taken form a heart. The analyses were conducted with unquestionable scientific precision and were documented with a series of photographs. Other scientists were asked by the Holy See to verify these findings. When all of the data was accumulated, the scientists were in accord: “Without reservation, this is a slice of tissue from a human heart, as though it had been expertly sliced by a surgeon’s scalpel through the center of the heart. And, though subject to decay as all flesh is for 1298 years, it remains incorrupt.”

By Linda Anderson

September 28, 2004 12:50 PM | Link to this

We would not be having this discussion if the Religious Right had not become a wing of the Republican Party. The efforts of the Religious Right to impose their morals on the rest of America was the beginning of this issue. I am a Christian however one branch of Christianity does not have the right to court political parties to do their will. The first church I would start with would be Jerry Falwell’s. He is now advising pastors how to preach and provide political input without violating the tax-free status. Separation of church and state should be enforced even if it means pulling the tax-free status of a church, mosque, or synagogue. Ministers are there for a purpose which is not making political endorsements or telling their congregation who to vote for.

I agree with Diane’s ending regarding Caesar and God.

By norman ravitch

September 28, 2004 01:03 PM | Link to this

I guess there is no nonsense Boscoe Roads will not believe.

By Vincent

September 28, 2004 01:12 PM | Link to this

Wow. I didn’t know tha Shaunti knew every single member of the watchdog groups is on a mission to promote what church leaders speak out against. Must have taken a few days to interview every last one of them. This is another example of trying to instill fear into the minds of people who don’t think. (Better do something, or those people will corrupt the minds of the preachers!) PLEASE.

If the church folks want to enjoy tax free status, then they have to play by the governing rules. Cannot have cake and eat it too.

And, as far as any concern that is brewing these days about the sudden limiting of freedom of speech, thank Bush and his Patriot Act for that.

By the way, did everyone read where Bush’s Hometown Paper in Crawford, TX endorsed Kerry and Edwards today? Check it out: http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

By Ronald Millsaps

September 28, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this

If it weren’t so sad, it would be laughable how the left wing imposes its will upon us all and has challenged and violated so many rights— even those that are supposed to be UNALIENABLE— and then accuses the right wing of doing the same thing. Honestly, the left-wing agenda is a far-greater threat to our nation than terrorism is.

By norman ravitch

September 28, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this

According to an important book by Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, in Germany before and under Hitler the Protestant Churches were in effect the Nazi Party at prayer. The closeness of German Protestantism and National Socialism is shocking, the more so since it has been concealed by pious nonsense about the non-existent struggle of Christians against Nazis and vice versa. In America with the churches becoming the venue of rightwing propaganda, the churches will be the semi-fascist Republican party at prayer. Beware!

By Ronald Millsaps

September 28, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

This is simply the act of persecuting Christians. As angry as I get at the left-wing for imposing its will, I have to blame Christians more for taking it. If Christians would stand up for what’s right, the liberals would back off. However, separation of church and state has been misinterpreted grossly, to say the least, and we have so many problems all over the world from the persecution of Christians. Contrary to the sensationalism of the left, America is a Christian country. Only when Christians stand up against our freedom of religion being violated can we expect this Nazi-like attack to stop. It’s that simple. The more we condone it, the more we invite it.

By Boscoer Roads

September 28, 2004 02:52 PM | Link to this

In reply to Norman Ravitch….You must have read a different version then I did Norman. Richard Steigmann-Gall clearly shows that time and again it was the Catholic Church, whether it was the Vatican or on the Diocesan level, that consistantly stood in opposition to Naziism’s anti-life programs like the T4 program (the purposeful killing of the mentally ill) and the eradication of Jews, Gypsies, and others. Richard Steigmann-Gall also shows that many of the Catholics who embraced Naziism either abandoned their Catholic faith, became quasi-pagans, or converted to Protestantism. Richard Steigmann-Gall argues persuasively that the Nazis did not reject Christianity, but reinterpreted it to fit their own ideology. The Soviets, as well as others, have used the same tactic. The Soviets went so far as to ban the rite of Confirmation. Not the every Sacrament, just that one. Why? If this is such nonsense what are they afraid of?

By Boscoe Roads

September 28, 2004 03:27 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis wrote …”I’m familiar with the eleemosynary class of institutions that enjoy 501(c) tax exemptionâ€â€?not only churches, but also hospitals, libraries, museums, and so on.” Brain, all those other organizations receive government funds. Churches do NOT receive government funds. Church funds come from donations given to the Church. So how come a Church is not allowed to endorse a candidate that shares their views when they do not receive money from the government. Why can the CEO of a local hospital endorse a politician but Churches can’t when hospitals receive tax money? Sounds like a double standard.

By R.S.

September 28, 2004 03:56 PM | Link to this

Hmmm, Mr. Millsaps, something just does not jive. You claim to be anti-Nazi, yet you seem to display a typical Nazi trait; anti-Semitism. When you are constantly going on about the U.S. being a Christian country, are we Jews given to understand that we are not welcome in YOUR land? Maybe you’d like to herd us up & shove us into death camps & subsequently gas chambers, aka Nazi Germany circa the Holocaust??

By Brian Curtis

September 28, 2004 04:08 PM | Link to this

To Boscoe Roads, re federal funding: Interesting point! I’ll have to reconsider the issue in that light.

By norman ravitch

September 28, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this

To: Boscoe You have not read carefully or widely. The Pope destroyed the Catholic Center Party in Germany which had before 1933 been anti-Hitler. Thereafter while the church on occasion opposed the Nazis when its own power was in question, it did nothing for the Jews or other enemies of the Nazis. The Catholics so feared being called anti=German that they became 150% pro war and pro Hitler.

By Spurgeon

September 28, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this

“Planned Parenthood of Central Texas, Inc. is a not-for-profit, 501c3 organization” and so are most of the other chapters! Do a search for Planned Parenthood and Kerry —they are backing him! Why isn’t the IRS cracking the whip on all 501c3s? Because they’re not churches/no one is reporting them.

If they were truly concerned about 501c3 violations, they could find many on the internet; why work so hard by attending church services? The answer is clear: they are anti-religious and they’re more concerned about harming churches than reporting violators of the law.

However, churches should obey the law in as much as it does not contradict God’s law.

By James

September 28, 2004 07:41 PM | Link to this

I believe that churches should be able to preach whatever dogma that they want. I also believe that political organizations should be able to support any candidate or party that they want. If you are going to a church that is taking on the civic role of a political organization then you shouldn’t mind it having to pay the same taxes as other political organizations. When an organization of any kind throws its support behind a political candidate or party it is acting as a political organization and not a church. The law is very clear on this - churches get a free pass and can enrich their leadership as much as they want. They can buy luxury autos, fine furnishings, and magnificent mansions. Churches can take its inner circle members on all expense paid luxury vacations totally tax free. The IRS looks the other way the entire time. However, when the ‘church’ starts acting like a political organization they are voluntarily changing their role. The law clearly states that they are then required to contribute their share of the costs of the police, fire, military, and other expenses that they were previously getting free off the backs of Joe Citizen.

By Judy Reidinger

September 29, 2004 08:42 AM | Link to this

Oh come now, Diane - worrying that someone who went to a church service specifically to spy might hear something that would make them think? Need protection from those insidious Christians who might have something worthwhile? Should Martin Luther King, the Abolitionists, etc. have stayed silent on social issues they felt were important? “Render to Caesar”…yes indeed, and I’m all in favor of separation of church and state, and against campaigning from the pulpit - but part of “rendering to God” is working to bring more justice and love into the world, not for Christians to just huddle with each other.

Judy Reidinger (flaming liberal Democrat - AKA Shaunti’s mom!)

By Terry M. Adams

September 29, 2004 09:01 AM | Link to this

How many have bothered to read the guidelines set for 501(C)?

If you have, how do consider anything that is preached from the pulpit; within the confines of the church - in violation of 501(C) tax-exempt status?

But beyond that, how would anyone in good conscience believe that the church cannot address anything that is considered a “political” issue, when our society continues to make more and more societal issues - “political” ones? Are we to make ALL issues of society; political ones, then dictate to the church that they cannot speak out on ANYTHING - otherwise they’re involiving themselves in “political issues”…?

The Church has spoken out on the issue of ‘Marriage’ for ever and a day. Now that same-sex marriage has been made a “political issue” - the Church has to be silent so as not to involve itself in politics. Right?

By Randy Hayes

September 29, 2004 09:21 AM | Link to this

Good morning Mr. Ravitch, I am responding to your messages in particular, because you seem to be the most opposed to Christianity. First of all let me say you seem very intelligent and I’m sure very well educated. However, on the subject of Christianity and a creator, I don’t believe you have “thought it through”. I have thought it through! A few years back, being a logically thinking person, I to debated on whether a creator or God existed. After thinking about this for a extended period of time, I figured it out. The final conclusion is, no matter how far back in time you go, billion of years, longer, everything that exists, the sun, earth, universe, even life itself, came into existence at some point. Since things don’t appear out of thin air(laws of physics)without some help ,a creator does absolutely exist. One would have to doubt the laws of physics not to believe in a creator or God. Now I do know that most Americans do believe in God. According to different polls, it’s somewhere between 94% and 97%. So this is only for the small percentage of people who are not believers. I don’t want to insult the intelligence of the great majority who are believers. On Christianity, there are four facts that make this absolute! First, Jesus’ body never being found, despite thousands of attempts by people trying to discount his resurrection. Second, the discovery of the Dead Sea Schrolls in 1947, proving that the old testament which described the messiah(456 aspects), predated Jesus’ birth. Third, the fact that 11 of the 12 disciples(Judas being replace by Paul)dying horrible deaths and all they had to do was deny Jesus being the messiah(none did)and finally the fact that over 500 people witnessed Jesus after his resurrection(saw him and talked to him, the most famous being, doubting Thomas, who doubted no more). There are many more examples of Jesus being the Messiah, but time doesn’t allow me to go into those.
One other fact I know from expericence, you can’t argue anyone into heaven. So I won’t try. I will however, pray for you. Hoping your heart will soften to the truth, that your eyes would be opened to the facts and you will ask Jesus into your heart. Have a great day.

By Brian Curtis

September 29, 2004 09:31 AM | Link to this

Mr. Hayes: Not to be disrespectful, but what does that have to do with whether churches should be getting entangled in political advocacy and how that affects their tax-exempt status?

I dislike the fact that churches feel restricted in their freedom of expression in this area… but that’s the price you pay if you want to be tax-free. If churches are uncomfortable with drawing such lines and submitting to verification of their compliance, why don’t they just give up their tax-exemption status and be treated like any other organization?

By Randy Hayes

September 29, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this

Mr. Curtis, Good morning to you. My earlier comments were inspired by Mr. Ravitch calling Christianity “superstition”. If you read much earlier in the text, a day or two ago, you will see my feeling on churchs taking tax exempt status. I believe churchs should stop taking tax exemptions. The reason being, that would get rid of “false” churches, ones that confuse people. Many times false churches, I believe, lead people down the wrong path, at a critical time, when they are looking for the creator of this world. Have a super day!

By Brian Curtis

September 29, 2004 09:54 AM | Link to this

Fair enough.

By Mia

September 29, 2004 10:36 AM | Link to this

I am a moderate conservative African-American and I live in Warner Robins, Georgia(Houston County). I attended(past tense)a Black church that often welcomed politicians to attend worship services where they were given an opportunity to address the congregation. The candidate would simply introduce themself and state the office they were seeking. Prior to the election of Sonny Perdue, a Houston County native, most of the candidates seeking office who visited the Black churches were liberal canidates. However, the tide is changing. More rural Georgians including those in Houston are leaning toward right. Perhaps this is because their position on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion more closely align with the Republican Party. In this election year many more candidates making church appearences have been conservative. The “Black Pulpit” in Warner Robins changing along with the community. One’s party affliation is not solely determined by race. Rather, other factors such as the benefit any elected official brings to his hometown and the elected official’s position on social issues affect how inidividuals vote. Although I am a Christian foremost and a conservative voter second I was offended my the Pastor’s statement that we must go with God and vote for George W. Bush. The sweeping generalization that many Black churches are liberal is incorrect.
In this discussion of charitable organizations and 501(c)3 status it is imperative to recognize that granting tax exempt status to religious groups can have dire consequences. For example, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization has been suspected of supporting terrorism. The granting of tax exempt status to religous and charitable organizations offers a great benefit and no such benefit should be granted without proper supervision and limits on certain activities. Without “watchdog” groups the funding of terrorism through the above mentioned organization would not have been discovered. Charitable and religious organizations are very influential and whether that influence be good or bad tax exempt status should not be enjoyed without regulation. It is our responsibility as Christians to uphold values such as honesty and integrity. By following the rules that govern tax expemt status we set an example to all non-believers and that example should be what softens people and opens their minds and hearts to Christ.

By Boscoer Raods

September 29, 2004 12:01 PM | Link to this

In reply to Norman Ravitch: On the Contrary Mr. Ravitch I read just fine and the information you have is wrong. On Christmas Day, 1942, Pius XII became the first international figure to publicly condemn what later became known as the Holocaust, thereby earning the enmity of the Nazi regime. In a broadcast entitled The Rights of Man, Pius XII asked: “Are the nations to stand by inactive while this disastrous process goes on?” “Surely,” he continued, “all men of courage and honor ought to unite in a solemn vow … to devote themselves to the service of the human person and of a divinely ennobled human society…. Humanity owes this vow to those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or gradual extinction.” ,the Gestapo was angered by this message. A Gestapo report accused Pius XII of “speaking on behalf of the Jews” and declared that the speech was “one long attack on everything we stand for.” The Nazis had identified Pius XII as their enemy. Moreover, in the official Nazi publication Das Reich, the pope was called a “full Jew.” This was in keeping with Hitler’s view of Christianity as an enemy of Nazism. As early as 1933, Hitler had announced: “There is no future with the churches…. One is either a Christian or a German. One cannot be both.”

By moveon

September 29, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

I’ve seen this question asked a number of times, “Why do churches have ‘tax exempt’ 501(c)(3) status?

Churches are not for profit organizations funded exclusively with after tax dollars. Why then should funds be taxed again? Churches are not out to make a profit. They are supposed to serve the community in which they are placed, just as the YMCA, or other community groups and associations. Their exemption from taxes is about economics, not politics.

It’s strange that there is so much anger over some activist Protestant preachers advocating a specific vote, when there are Muslim Clerics around the world telling their followers to kill Americans. Can one assume that this activity does not occur in America Mosques? Why aren’t we monitoring them simply to assure our very own safety?

It was ‘activist preachers’ that stood up for civil rights and their leaders in the south. One wonders what would have happened if they had been spied on.

By norman

September 29, 2004 01:39 PM | Link to this

Roscoe believes all the lies and coverups the Catholic church has used for decades about Pius XII and the Nazis. Just like the Church has covered up the sexual abuse problem, it has covered up all its sins. But the day of reckoning is coming.

By Boscoe Roads

September 29, 2004 03:02 PM | Link to this

Actually Norman the information I used came from recorded history. And you’re right there will be a day of reckoning. And if you’re right I’ll have wasted alot of time on my knees praying, but if I’m right you could wind up with an eternity of regret. I’ll take my chances were I am.

By Bhorsoft

September 30, 2004 08:20 AM | Link to this

Although the Archbishop of the Atlanta did not name any specific candidates, he did tell the Catholic congregation who they should and should not vote for base on key Catholic issues. Should the Catholic Church in Atlanta lose its tax-exempt status because the Archibishop is telling Catholics how to vote? Just thinking out loud… Yes, I’m Catholic.

By Tad Boomer

September 30, 2004 03:49 PM | Link to this

It gives me chills to have read in the AJC that Jerry Falwell says that the Christian Coalition is a remake of the Moral Majority and that they have been quietly working in the background the last 20 to 25 years to take control of the Republican Party. All American’s made this possible with the tax exempt status that churches enjoy. I personally object to the practice of letting churches have a tax free ride especially when they are no longer content to teach spiritualism in the church. Why should I as a taxpayer, subsidize the church in its quest to control the legislation of this country.

By Boscoe Roads

October 1, 2004 08:13 AM | Link to this

Tad Boomer the Church does not receive any funds from the government! The Government does NOT subsidize the Church! The church gets money from its parishioners who have already paid tax on their money. If you expect the income from parishioners to be classified as income for the Church then think about what happens when you want to give a family member money for whatever reason. Should that money also be taxed? Just because an organization receives a tax-exempt benefit from the government does not give the government the right to decide what that organization can speak about. This would be similar to the government telling a hospital its staff cannot speak about a certain medical procedure simply because that hospital has a tax-exempt status.

By Ronald Millsaps

October 1, 2004 10:47 AM | Link to this

I would hope “R.S.” wouldn’t approve of Christians being thrown to lions, but his/her irrational response earlier in response to my statement about America being a Christian country was senseless.

It’s true that this country was founded upon the Bible. Due to time constraints, here’s a link I would like to present: http://www.bible.com/answers/aamerica.html to those who would disagree with that and/or who have been taught differently in a secular classroom.

It’s sadly ironic how people will mention the First Amendment when it’s being abused by the pornography industry, the music industry, etc., but then will attack the mention/reference of God in courthouses, schools, currency, etc.. To say the least, this is hypocritical, and these people need to look at the principles this country was founded upon and not attack freedom of religion.

If the ACLU had it its way, we wouldn’t refer to God at graduations, on our currency, in our schools, in The Pledge of Allegiance, or anywhere else. Now, churches are being targeted for sermon-monitoring. There’s something very wrong with this picture.

By Brian Curtis

October 1, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this

Yes… and what’s wrong is the assumption that Christianity is the state religion of America, and that government can and should be explicitly Christian in its operations.

Both of these conceits violate the First Amendment.

As to “subsidizing” churches, Mr. Boomer is correct. A tax exemption is, in fact, a subsidy—in that the services and utilities a church enjoys for free are paid for by the rest of us citizens. Churches are getting all benefits of being part of our society, yet they’re not paying their fair share. And now they’re complaining that the government is holding them to the requirements for such a privilege!

There’s a simple solution, of course—quit claiming tax exemption. Once a church has the same status as any other taxed institution, they don’t have to worry about additional requirements and legal verifications… and they can say whatever they want, no matter how obnoxious or inappropriate.

By Boscoe Roads

October 1, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this

The citizens of the U.S. DO NOT pick up the tab for ANY cost required for operating the Church. The Church is given a tax-exempt status because its income is dependent upon tax paying citizens that donate. If you don’t beleive me ask the IRS that’s exactly what they’ll tell you. If you don’t want to pick up the light bill for a Church don’t donate! Did you even think about that before you hit “Post”?

By moveon

October 1, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this

All “Churches” get the exemption. It is not just Christian churches that are tax exempt. I wonder why Mr. Curtis and Mr. Boomer are so worked up and consider ‘churches’ and ‘Christian’ interchangeable. Why is no one calling for the Synagogues and Mosques to lose their tax exempt status as well?

By Brian Curtis

October 1, 2004 04:09 PM | Link to this

Perhaps because they’re not loudly proclaiming who their congregations should vote for?

If they are, of course, they should likewise lose their tax-exempt status.

And subsidies take on more forms than just paying operating costs. Churches own land that they pay no tax on; they enjoy utilities and services (such as fire departments, police, courts, roads, etc.) that they don’t pay for; and they’re defended by a military whose bills they don’t chip in for. These costs are all paid for somebody, and that “somebody” is the rest of society. Ergo, a tax break = a subsidy.

By Boscoe Roads

October 4, 2004 10:11 AM | Link to this

If tax-exempt status = subsidy then the services you speak of are given to organizations other than just Churches. If you want to remove the tax-exempt status then remove it for all organizations! But I can see we break it down to the basic fundamental element…Poor me, they don’t pay their fair share! Well then remove their tax-exempt status and the millions, and I mean literally MILLIONS that are given away to the poor, can be deducted from their taxes. And then when Churches are running in the red, the public can be taxed to subsidize their losses just like major corporations are. Be careful what you wish for it could cost you more just for the sake of supporting a political candidate. FYI Fire dept taxes are usually local taxes and Churches Do pay for those services because they support the community in which they’re located. The tax-exempt status is for Income taxes (501 = IRS).

By moveon

October 7, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

To Brian Curtis,

If Al-Sadir is preaching hate from the Mosques in Iraq, what makes you think it’s not happening here?