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

pat34lee said:

And, why should any church apply for the 501c3 when it
does nothing for them and can be used against them if
they preach about moral issues and immoral politicians?

Click to expand...

Preaching about moral issues is no problem with tax exempt status. It is what churches should do.

Preaching about immoral politicians is a possible problem if there is an active campaign going on and the said politician is a candidate and referenced by name, picture, etc. Even then, it would be easy to preach about the immorality that is concerning with a candidate without explicitly identifying the candidate. Churches mainly get in trouble when they actively campaign from the pulpit for or against a candidate.

Really, the only thing a church having official 501(c)3 does for them is to give people who donate a sense of certainty that their donations are tax deductible. That is really all. Churches are automatically considered tax exempt if they meet the criteria of 501(c)3 and can lose that automatic consideration if they do not meet the criteria of 501(c)3 regardless of if they ever had official recognition or not.

Yekcidmij said:

I think the risk comes in assuming that religious leadership would be able to stick to prioritizing theology over political goals and stick to the word of God. But right out of the gate it seems that may be a bad assumption because nobody seems interested in giving up a tax exempt status. It seems the interested parties are looking out for their own interest, which is fine, but it immediately calls into question the ability to be objective in their interpretation of the word of God and prioritizing it over political issues.

Click to expand...

Do you live in a closed community away from the effects
of politicians, whether local, state or federal? I don't, and
neither do most people in churches. That means that the
people we elect and what they do affects us all, including
preachers, pastors and everyone else in churches.

Please read my post on the prior page on how the 501 is
unnecessary for churches. They don't need it, and if it is
revoked or they opt out of it, they still hold tax-exempt
status unless deprived of it by due process, in court.

Any church whose leadership fails to uphold morality in its
members or in the politicians who they help elect is failing
its duty to God, much less the congregation.

WolfGate said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is a misunderstanding.

The Johnson Amendment of 1954 relates strictly to United States Code Title 26 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations.

Bona fide churches have always been exempted from most taxes from pre-Constitution dys--they were before the Johnson Amendment and they still are.

Bona fide churches do not have to be organized under 501(c)(3) to have that traditional tax exemption.

The trick is that the IRS gets to define on a case-by-case basis what a bona fide church is, according to the preponderance of its regular activities and finances. A traditional church--pastor preaching to a congregation every week and doing little else, most money coming from congregational offerings, most money turning around in regular congregational activies--has no worry about that. That kind of organization doesn't actually need to be organized under 501(c)(3) to be tax-exempt, and those pastors are totally free to preach all the politics they want from the pulpits.

But there are a lot of quasi-church organizations, organizations where "church" is just a small part of their overall operations, that might not be ruled "churches" by the IRS. Those are organizations that have to worry about an IRS ruling that they are not a bona fide church, so they organize under 501(c)(3) and are under the Johnson Amendment.

In fact, back in the 90s an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who was an Air Force chaplain won a court case against the Air Force, which attempted to prevent him from preaching politics to his congregation in the military chapel. The chaplain won the case--the government could not control his religious speech even on a government installation.

RDKirk - I suggest you read IRS publication 1828. It will clarify a few things for you. A few key points

RDKirk said:

That is a misunderstanding.

The Johnson Amendment of 1954 relates strictly to United States Code Title 26 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations.

Bona fide churches have always been exempted from most taxes from pre-Constitution dys--they were before the Johnson Amendment and they still are.

Bona fide churches do not have to be organized under 501(c)(3) to have that traditional tax exemption.

Click to expand...

Correct. From 1828

Tax-Exempt Status Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):
- the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
- net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
- no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
- the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and
- the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

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.

Although there is no requirement to do so, many churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS because this recognition assures church leaders, members and contributors that the church is recognized as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits. For example, contributors to a church that has been recognized as tax exempt would know that their contributions generally are tax-deductible.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

The trick is that the IRS gets to define on a case-by-case basis what a bona fide church is, according to the preponderance of its regular activities and finances. A traditional church--pastor preaching to a congregation every week and doing little else, most money coming from congregational offerings, most money turning around in regular congregational activies--has no worry about that. That kind of organization doesn't actually need to be organized under 501(c)(3) to be tax-exempt, and those pastors are totally free to preach all the politics they want from the pulpits.

Click to expand...

However, this statement is in error. While churches do not have to have 501(c)3 status to be considered tax exempt, they do have to meet the requirements of a 501(c)3 to be tax exempt. That is also stated in the section I quoted above.

pat34lee said:

Name any country that did better.

Click to expand...

Canada did somewhat better but still failed miserably as a Christian nation.

WolfGate said:

Preaching about moral issues is no problem with tax exempt status. It is what churches should do.

Preaching about immoral politicians is a possible problem if there is an active campaign going on and the said politician is a candidate. Even then, it would be easy to preach about the immorality that is concerning with a candidate. Churches mainly get in trouble when they actively campaign from the pulpit for or against a candidate.

Really, the only thing a church having official 501(c)3 does for them is to give people who donate a sense of certainty that their donations are tax deductible. That is really all. Churches are automatically considered tax exempt if they meet the criteria of 501(c)3 and can lose that automatic consideration if they do not meet the criteria of 501(c)3 regardless of if they ever had official recognition or not.

Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is correct, and a church's tax exempt
status is not based on whether or not they preach about
politics or political figures from the pulpit.

Two parts of the first amendment apply here: freedom of
speech and freedom of religion. Preachers are not required
to give up either when they are preaching.

pat34lee said:

Your last paragraph is correct, and a church's tax exempt
status is not based on whether or not they preach about
politics or political figures from the pulpit.

Two parts of the first amendment apply here: freedom of
speech and freedom of religion. Preachers are not required
to give up either when they are preaching.

Click to expand...

pat34lee - that is your opinion on what should be based on the Constitution, sure, and an opinion that legitimate arguments can support. However, the courts have seen it another way when applied to tax exempt status for churches. Right now that is reality, hence the attempts to change legislation that started this thread.

WolfGate said:

pat34lee - that is your opinion on what should be based on the Constitution, sure, and an opinion that legitimate arguments can support. However, the courts have seen it another way when applied to tax exempt status for churches. Right now that is reality, hence the attempts to change legislation that started this thread.

Click to expand...

Reality is what is written in the law and Constitution,
regardless what the courts seem to think sometimes.
There is nothing they can use to hold pastors liable if
they preach about politics or political figures. Now, if
that is all they talk about, then a case could be made
that they are not preaching, but politicking only.

pat34lee said:

(snip)

Churches were the original town halls, schools and generally
where the people met for anything important, from births,
marriages, deaths, communions, baptisms, elections, trials, etc.

Click to expand...

True, of course I could see your point if: A) they were STILL the focal point of cities. and B) I suspect they held the meetings for the other things before, after, or on days they weren't having Church. It sounds like you've confused the church building (where they did that other stuff) and the Church (which met in that building on Sundays) there's a difference.
tulc(understands the confusion, people still get them mixed up even today)

WolfGate said:

RDKirk - I suggest you read IRS publication 1828. It will clarify a few things for you. A few key points



Correct. From 1828



However, this statement is in error. While churches do not have to have 501(c)3 status to be considered tax exempt, they do have to meet the requirements of a 501(c)3 to be tax exempt. That is also stated in the section I quoted above.

Click to expand...

If you'll notice, the IRS has never attempted to test in court whether the Johnson Amenedment (which was an amendment to a law, not to the Constitution) can override precedents over the last two centuries which have affirmed unlimited church freedom of speech. I even mentioned one precedent.

RDKirk said:

If you'll notice, the IRS has never attempted to test in court whether the Johnson Amenedment (which was an amendment to a law, not to the Constitution) can override precedents over the last two centuries which have affirmed unlimited church freedom of speech. I even mentioned one precedent.

Click to expand...

But the IRS has revoked tax exempt status from churches for engaging in partisan politics or political lobbying. Both those who had filed to be listed in the 501(c)3 database and those who had not. I no longer have specific case information with me for those or I would reference them. Revocation articles are simple to find - what is not usually clear in the articles is if the church had filed for status or just been working under the automatic "meeting the requirements of".

The Church at Pierce Creek revocation (for ads opposing Bill Clinton) was a court case which upheld the ability to revoke a churches tax exempt status for political campaign involvement when they ran full page ads in national newspapers telling the church to beware of Clinton. They were a church that had filed for and been granted 501(c)3 status. Under the situation you propose, if the IRS revoked 501(c)3 status they would simply go back to being a bona fide church without recognition and still be tax exempt. Which is not the case.

Regarding the orthodox rabbi case you referenced, can you cite any further information? I would be interested in reading that one to see how it aligns. I did a search but the closest I could find was an air force orthodox jew who filed suit to wear his yarmulke in uniform on free speech grounds.

WolfGate said:

The Church at Pierce Creek revocation (for ads opposing Bill Clinton) was a court case which upheld the ability to revoke a churches tax exempt status for political campaign involvement when they ran full page ads in national newspapers telling the church to beware of Clinton. They were a church that had filed for and been granted 501(c)3 status. Under the situation you propose, if the IRS revoked 501(c)3 status they would simply go back to being a bona fide church without recognition and still be tax exempt. Which is not the case.

Click to expand...

Actually it's not as bad as all that.

"On May 12, 2000, the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
sided with the IRS' decision to revoke a tax-exempt letter ruling from the Church
at Pierce Creek located in Binghamton, NY. However, the Court ruling shows that
the IRS has very little authority over churches. The ruling underscores the fact
that churches do not need to fear the loss of their tax-exempt status. "
http://www.drbentownsend.com/Documents/PierceCreek501TaxLoss-Staver.pdf