Let's get back to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment to the U S Constitution.

[CGL1023]

Senate Parliamentarian Kills Efforts to Lift Rules Against Churches' Political Speech

To be sure, this would have to be undone by the Congress and will have to await the election of individuals that can accomplish this, which is not currently the case. It would take another Trump victory in 2020 and the election of many new conservative faces in congress.

 

[JackRT]

It would take far more than that! It is a constitutional amendment and requires state approval as well. Churches should not be engaged in politics. There is far too much of that already --- it corrupts both the churches and politics about equally.

 

[WolfGate]

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, as a matter of principle, I feel that the prohibition does infringe on the rights established in the constitution.

On the other hand, I don't believe the church should be partisan - and too many church leaders have already shown that given some political influence they will allow their politics to lead their theology. The church should speak out on issues from a biblical perspective, sure. But no party is aligned with God's word, so to actively hold up a party or a candidate is not aligned with the purpose of the church, IMHO.

Perhaps removing the prohibition would be good in the sense that those churches who have gravitated to putting politics first would now be more up front about it and people who seek God before politics could more quickly discern where they should be attending.

 

[WolfGate]

It would take far more than that! It is a constitutional amendment and requires state approval as well. Churches should not be engaged in politics. There is far too much of that already --- it corrupts both the churches and politics about equally.

No, the current prohibition is an IRS regulation related to the churches automatic tax exempt status. The question at hand is if that IRS regulation is constitutional. The Johnson Amendment specifically gave the IRS that authority and so far it has held up. If the courts are going to support it as constitutional, the other way to remove is for Congress to repeal.

 

[JackRT]

No, the current prohibition is an IRS regulation related to the churches automatic tax exempt status. The question at hand is if that IRS regulation is constitutional. The Johnson Amendment specifically gave the IRS that authority and so far it has held up. If the courts are going to support it as constitutional, the other way to remove is for Congress to repeal.

Thank you for the correction. Being a Canadian looking south I do miss some of the political nuances.

 

[redleghunter]

It would take far more than that! It is a constitutional amendment and requires state approval as well. Churches should not be engaged in politics. There is far too much of that already --- it corrupts both the churches and politics about equally.

There needs to be neutrality. There are churches on both ends of the spectrum which pack congregants into buses to head to early voting.

 

[redleghunter]

No, the current prohibition is an IRS regulation related to the churches automatic tax exempt status. The question at hand is if that IRS regulation is constitutional. The Johnson Amendment specifically gave the IRS that authority and so far it has held up. If the courts are going to support it as constitutional, the other way to remove is for Congress to repeal.

Details here:
LBJ and the ban on political activity by religious groups

Not just churches but all non profits.

 

[faroukfarouk]

And what if I don't want to involve myself and others in politics?

(Sorry; I should add that I am in Canada.)

 

[WolfGate]

Details here:
LBJ and the ban on political activity by religious groups

Not just churches but all non profits.

Yes, that is correct.

Churches are in a slightly different situation than other non-profits because 1) of the already mentioned constitutional question and 2) because churches that meet the requirements of a 501(c)3 are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of exempt status from the IRS (many do file for official status for various reasons).

 

[CGL1023]

There needs to be neutrality. There are churches on both ends of the spectrum which pack congregants into buses to head to early voting.

I don't understand how you mean neutrality; if you mean it would be unethical or immoral to have an political opinion, you would not be talking about the US.
It should be OK for people to do anything lawful without regard for the outcome, including support of a political candidate. To me, the example you give is OK if every individual or group has a fair chance to compete. Fairness is all we should ask of the government; that is to say, an equal opportunity not and equal outcome.

 

[WolfGate]

I don't understand how you mean neutrality; if you mean it would be unethical or immoral to have an political opinion, you would not be talking about the US.
It should be OK for people to do anything lawful without regard for the outcome, including support of a political candidate. To me, the example you give is OK if every individual or group has a fair chance to compete. Fairness is all we should ask of the government; that is to say, an equal opportunity not and equal outcome.

To the point at hand, it is lawful for any church to engage in partisan political activity. They just can't do so and receive the tax exempt benefits of a 501(c)3. So each church has a decision to make and almost all have chosen to keep their tax exempt status. Should a church have to meet the requirements of a 501(c)3 to be tax exempt? I can see both sides. On the one hand there is the question of if the Johnson Amendment conflicts with the free exercise of religion clause. On the other side since tax exempt status is intended for organizations that are not partisan but broad in their benefit to society why should a church be different if it doesn't fill that role.

The other question is should churches be partisan. IMHO, I do not see how a church identifying itself with a political party is in any way in keeping with the Great Commission or with not being of the world. Churches should (and can as tax exempt) preach all they want about issues. I fail to see how looking at issues biblically would result in a church always aligning with a particular party or candidate in an election. And the churches alignment should be perfect with God's word. That alone should direct a church to speak out on issues but not get themselves tied (whether in reality or by perception) to one political party or the other.

 

[tulc]

I think if churches want to be part of the political process they should pay taxes. If they are willing to do that I think they should go right ahead and be as political as they want. It's the idea they can be political AND be tax exempt I don't like. If you want to play, you got to pay!
tulc(thinks that seems fair)

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Senate Parliamentarian Kills Efforts to Lift Rules Against Churches' Political Speech

To be sure, this would have to be undone by the Congress and will have to await the election of individuals that can accomplish this, which is not currently the case. It would take another Trump victory in 2020 and the election of many new conservative faces in congress.

History will repeat itself, remember the inqusitions when church and state were united

"When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result."

From Maranatha - Page 195

 

[JackRT]

Sinclair Lewis in It Can't Happen Here (1935) wrote --- "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

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.

No favor is to be given to a religion or denomination as it concerns the law, any religion or denomination can be freely expressed. Then the people themselves, regardless of religion or denomination can express themselves and organize their efforts politically.

It's difficult to know where to draw the line religiously and politically. But I think if the law is about non-profit organizations not officially having partisan political stances; it would be favorable to religious houses or charities to exclude them. I don't think paying any tax is a prohibition, if it's not unjustly high and discriminate to hinder religious expressions. Religious people are free to speak, organize, and politicize; but it's a choice if through religious organizations and whether it's worth the non-profit tax exempt status.

 

[Yekcidmij]

No, the current prohibition is an IRS regulation related to the churches automatic tax exempt status. The question at hand is if that IRS regulation is constitutional. The Johnson Amendment specifically gave the IRS that authority and so far it has held up. If the courts are going to support it as constitutional, the other way to remove is for Congress to repeal.

Right. And the Johnson Ammendment doesn't apply to Churches only, but to all 501(c)(3) organizations. Good spin by Britebart though.

I would say it seems a little self serving to want to be tax exempt because of religious status yet use that religious status to take part in the political process. Automatically, incentives and motives of such organizations are called into question. Why would an organization subject to the Johnson Amendment want it repealed? Freedom of speech could be a legitimate motive - but it could also be cover for a desire for more influence and power while enjoying financial opaqueness and tax free earnings. Sounds like a pretty good deal if you're the interested party.

 

[pat34lee]

I think if churches want to be part of the political process they should pay taxes. If they are willing to do that I think they should go right ahead and be as political as they want. It's the idea they can be political AND be tax exempt I don't like. If you want to play, you got to pay!
tulc(thinks that seems fair)

Exactly wrong. The church is the people of a community.
They don't lose their rights to discuss politics when they
enter a building. Anyway, what better place to discuss
the morality and the lack of it in certain political parties
and individuals in government?

 

[pat34lee]

Right. And the Johnson Ammendment doesn't apply to Churches only, but to all 501(c)(3) organizations. Good spin by Britebart though.

Do you know that no church needs a 501c3 to remain
tax-exempt? The Johnson Amendment was created by
LBJ in order to get the churches to shut up, because he
knew that informed Christians were against his policies.

The IRS even says that if a church can qualify for the 501,
they don't need it.

Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
"Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically
considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of
tax-exempt status from the IRS. "
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Page 2 (6/40 in pdf file)

 

[FireDragon76]

It's OK for churches to take stances on public policy issues but it's not OK for churches to endorse candidates or engage in partisan politics.

The US government has historically been very liberal on this point, tolerating alot of behaviors that flirt with breaching this norm.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Do you know that no church needs a 501c3 to remain
tax-exempt? The Johnson Amendment was created by
LBJ in order to get the churches to shut up, because he
knew that informed Christians were against his policies.

Not that I know LBJ's motives, but I won't try to defend him.

The IRS even says that if a church can qualify for the 501,
they don't need it.

Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
"Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically
considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of
tax-exempt status from the IRS. "
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Page 2 (6/40 in pdf file)

Ok..... and....?