Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

[TK Burk]

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26preach.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin) reported: "Defying a federal tax law they consider unjust, 33 ministers across the country will take to their pulpits this Sunday and publicly endorse a candidate for president."

For a minister or church to be under a 501c3, they have to agree to certain IRS guidelines (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html). One of these is to obey the Federal Tax Law that bars religious organizations and other nonprofits that accept tax-deductible contributions from involvement in partisan political campaigns. So if a minister has agreed to these stipulations, can he then break that law by officially supporting a candidate from the pulpit? Do you think the ministers mentioned in the NY Times article is doing the right thing?

[Ferd]

got no problem with it. lets level the playing field.

liberals get away with it all the time and cons get nailed to the wall when they make the mistake of supporting conservitives.

[ManOfWord]

I found out about this a week or two ago. It infuriates me to no end!!! These guys, and I'm quite familiar with their group, do NOT speak for me, neither do I want them to swat the "bees nest", simply because THEY want to endorse from their pulpits. Ministers don't need to use their pulpits for a direct endorsement. There are many other ways to let it be known how you feel about a certain candidate.

I certainly don't want them messing up the church's tax exempt status for the rest of us!! These guys are arrogant, pompous (IMO) and really do believe that they are responsible for George Bush being elected last election. This is an elitist group who really think they have WAY more authority than they really do!

Want to know how I REALLY feel about this? :D

Needless to say, I will not be following their lead!

[Ferd]

I found out about this a week or two ago. It infuriates me to no end!!! These guys, and I'm quite familiar with their group, do NOT speak for me, neither do I want them to swat the "bees nest", simply because THEY want to endorse from their pulpits. Ministers don't need to use their pulpits for a direct endorsement. There are many other ways to let it be known how you feel about a certain candidate.

I certainly don't want them messing up the church's tax exempt status for the rest of us!! These guys are arrogant, pompous (IMO) and really do believe that they are responsible for George Bush being elected last election. This is an elitist group who really think they have WAY more authority than they really do!

Want to know how I REALLY feel about this? :D

Needless to say, I will not be following their lead!

its odd to me that you feel like this.

liberal preachers do this kind of thing nearly every sunday. the IRS generally leaves them alone.

whats wrong with challenging some aspect of the tax exempt law? shouldnt a congregation decide what they want to support?

[Pragmatist]

I personally don't want my pastor or anyone else telling me who to vote for.

[Ferd]

I personally don't want my pastor or anyone else telling me who to vote for.

But do you want the government in control of that decision?

I dont either. but I dont want that decision resting with the federal govenment. I want it resting with me and the people I go to church with.

[ManOfWord]

its odd to me that you feel like this.

liberal preachers do this kind of thing nearly every sunday. the IRS generally leaves them alone.

whats wrong with challenging some aspect of the tax exempt law? shouldnt a congregation decide what they want to support?


I do all the time and I don't thumb my nose at the IRS while doing it. The law is the law and I have no problem with it. I'm not stupid. I well know how to let my feelings be known about a candidate. It has never bothered me. Don't swat the bees nest unless you're certain you can outrun the bees. Arrogance thinks it is faster than the bees.

We will NEVER change our culture through politics or political endorsements. That is the fallacy of the religious right. And remember, I am the Executive Director of a Federal PAC. :D

[Pragmatist]

But do you want the government in control of that decision?

I dont either. but I dont want that decision resting with the federal govenment. I want it resting with me and the people I go to church with.

I guess I don't care enough to put much effort into changing the law. There are things I would call my congressmen about. This isn't one of them.

[Ferd]

I do all the time and I don't thumb my nose at the IRS while doing it. The law is the law and I have no problem with it. I'm not stupid. I well know how to let my feelings be known about a candidate. It has never bothered me. Don't swat the bees nest unless you're certain you can outrun the bees. Arrogance thinks it is faster than the bees.

We will NEVER change our culture through politics or political endorsements. That is the fallacy of the religious right. And remember, I am the Executive Director of a Federal PAC. :D

my point is that this particular regulation seems to be heavy handed.

im not trying to change American culture in any way. but i dont mind when someone makes a challenge.

how are you harmed by this? you dont violate this restriction.

[TK Burk]

got no problem with it. lets level the playing field.

liberals get away with it all the time and cons get nailed to the wall when they make the mistake of supporting conservitives.

I don't see this as just them publically approving or disapproving of a candidate; rather it is more of an issue about their honesty. Remember, by publically speaking in favor of one candidate over another, they are breaking a law that they agreed to uphold. Do you think them doing this is still "no problem"?

[TK Burk]

I found out about this a week or two ago. It infuriates me to no end!!! These guys, and I'm quite familiar with their group, do NOT speak for me, neither do I want them to swat the "bees nest", simply because THEY want to endorse from their pulpits. Ministers don't need to use their pulpits for a direct endorsement. There are many other ways to let it be known how you feel about a certain candidate.

I certainly don't want them messing up the church's tax exempt status for the rest of us!! These guys are arrogant, pompous (IMO) and really do believe that they are responsible for George Bush being elected last election. This is an elitist group who really think they have WAY more authority than they really do!

Want to know how I REALLY feel about this? :D

Needless to say, I will not be following their lead!

Have you ever thought about operating your church as a “Free Church”? When a church operates under that umbrella they are free from the IRS restraints in the 501c3.

[TK Burk]

I personally don't want my pastor or anyone else telling me who to vote for.

I agree!

[TK Burk]

We will NEVER change our culture through politics or political endorsements. That is the fallacy of the religious right. And remember, I am the Executive Director of a Federal PAC. :D

MOW, I agree with you 100%!! The only force that can bring real change is Jesus Christ and His Church!

[TK Burk]

my point is that this particular regulation seems to be heavy handed.

im not trying to change American culture in any way. but i dont mind when someone makes a challenge.

how are you harmed by this? you dont violate this restriction.

Are you a minister that is 501c3? What about your church?

[Ferd]

Are you a minister that is 501c3? What about your church?

I am not a pastor. our church is 501c3.

My pastor (with or without the IRS Regulation) would never endorse any candidate. Our church is one of the most diverse in our area.


I still say that the option ought not be based on government regulation, but insetead be based on desire of the congregation.

[All4one]

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars! When you sign to accept their rules to get tax exempt status, you are binding yourself to that law! Keep your word or pay the taxes!

[TRFrance]

To me, that stuff doesn't belong in the pulpit, but and Democrat politicians have been getting away with using churches as campaign platforms for years, so... what ever.

[ManOfWord]

Have you ever thought about operating your church as a “Free Church”? When a church operates under that umbrella they are free from the IRS restraints in the 501c3.


I feel no restraints. :D

[Brother Price]

If preachers would cease trying to be worldly and carnal, they would know what to do. A man of God need not tell people who to vote for or whatever. If we would teach the people to be led of the Spirit and the Word, and walk in the holiness therein, they would be able to discern correctly and their vote would reflect that.

No pastor has ever been called to preach politics. They have been called to preach the Gospel. Modern churches desire to proclaim purpose driven nonsense and church growth foolishness, when the pastors need to fall on their faces, turn to God in true repentance, get the garbage out of their churches, and proclaim what thus says the Lord.

The call is to preach the Gospel, preach truth. if a man of God has done this, and the soul has truly repented and turned to God, then that soul will vote according to what he sees.

In other words, the choice is clear, and pastors need not tell people who to vote for. I assure you, after all I have seen about Obamanation, I am not voting for that man. No pastor had to tell me to not vote for him. His policies are not godly, he is not godly.

[Steve Epley]

The black church has been doing this since the 60's without any reprocussions.

[Light]

got no problem with it. lets level the playing field.

liberals get away with it all the time and cons get nailed to the wall when they make the mistake of supporting conservitives.

So you have no problem with lying ?? Anyway you try to cut it if you sign your name to something that has rules you are agreeing with the rules. If you break the rules you are a liar, you said you would abide with them.

[Steve Epley]

So you have no problem with lying ?? Anyway you try to cut it if you sign your name to something that has rules you are agreeing with the rules. If you break the rules you are a liar, you said you would abide with them.

The Constitution overrides any clause in any regulation of any branch of the government such as the IRS. Freedom of speech is the 1st admendment!

[Light]

The Constitution overrides any clause in any regulation of any branch of the government such as the IRS. Freedom of speech is the 1st admendment!

So br Eply according to you, a man's word doesn't matter any more because the constitution give him the freedom of speech, even if the free speech is a lie????
The constitution does not override any document that gives certain benefits if you give your word and sign that doc.
This is the argument the UPC ministers use to secretly have a TV in their home after signing the affirmation statement.

[Steve Epley]

So br Eply according to you, a man's word doesn't matter any more because the constitution give him the freedom of speech, even if the free speech is a lie????
The constitution does not override any document that gives certain benefits if you give your word and sign that doc.
This is the argument the UPC ministers use to secretly have a TV in their home after signing the affirmation statement.

The Constitution is the American Caesar we render to not some governmental regulation that is always evolving. If the UPC made some regulation against the the Constitution of the org. then I would agree.

The 1st amendment trumps a regulation every time.

When pastoring I never did endorse a canidate nor party so this is not personal with me.

[TK Burk]

The Constitution is the American Caesar we render to not some governmental regulation that is always evolving. If the UPC made some regulation against the the Constitution of the org. then I would agree.

The 1st amendment trumps a regulation every time.

When pastoring I never did endorse a canidate nor party so this is not personal with me.

So a preacher can sign an agreement for which he has no plans of keeping? Wow!

You do know that neither a church nor a minister has to be under a 501c3 to be tax exempt, right? But if they want the "benefits" a 501c3 offers, then they must agree to uphold its stipulations. So, are you really saying that if a preacher agrees to uphold those laws, they do not have to keep their word? :blink

[TK Burk]

The Constitution overrides any clause in any regulation of any branch of the government such as the IRS. Freedom of speech is the 1st admendment!

What about what the Bible says about lying? Does the Constitution override that also? Please, explain how your statement is not against what God said in Revelation 21:8?

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

[Light]

So a preacher can sign an agreement for which he has no plans of keeping? Wow!

You do know that neither a church nor a minister has to be under a 501c3 to be tax exempt, right? But if they want the "benefits" a 501c3 offers, then they must agree to uphold its stipulations. So, are you really saying that if a preacher agrees to uphold those laws, they do not have to keep their word? :blink

Br. we live in a world now that even those that preach and teach Acts 2:38 don't think they have to keep their word.
I was talking with a well know preacher about post trib and he told me and I quote " I agree with you but if you tell anyone I will deny saying it".
I would never go into a business deal with this man or trust his ministry.

[TK Burk]

Br. we live in a world now that even those that preach and teach Acts 2:38 don't think they have to keep their word.
I was talking with a well know preacher about post trib and he told me and I quote " I agree with you but if you tell anyone I will deny saying it".
I would never go into a business deal with this man or trust his ministry.

"You cain't pray a lie." - Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

[TRFrance]

The Constitution overrides any clause in any regulation of any branch of the government such as the IRS. Freedom of speech is the 1st admendment!

Well, there are laws that forbid you to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. So even freedom of speech has its limits.

[Ferd]

So you have no problem with lying ?? Anyway you try to cut it if you sign your name to something that has rules you are agreeing with the rules. If you break the rules you are a liar, you said you would abide with them.

Brother Light, I am not a pastor. with our without this rule, my pastor would not, from the pulpit indorse anyone or any party or even point... pointedly toward his "Bibilical" concepts like on the subject of abortion. BECAUSE we are a very diverse congregation and our people support many different polictical views.

That is our right... BUT it is NOT the governments right (in my humble opinion) to tell any of us what we can and cannot say... ESPECIALLY about politics.

I would no more deny Reverand Jerimiah Wright the right to say what ever he wants, than I would any conservitive preacher.

It isnt the business of the government to tell us what we can and cannot say. Especially on 2 very important even sacred subjects. FAITH and POLITICS.

These men who have put themselves on the line have not lied. They have challenged a law, and they have informed the authorities of their actions.

They have taken (in my humble opinion) a sacred stand on the very principles this nation were founded on. God bless them for it.

And if EVERY single one of them were endorsing Barak Obama, I would feel exactly the same.

Peace to you my brother.

[Ferd]

So a preacher can sign an agreement for which he has no plans of keeping? Wow!

You do know that neither a church nor a minister has to be under a 501c3 to be tax exempt, right? But if they want the "benefits" a 501c3 offers, then they must agree to uphold its stipulations. So, are you really saying that if a preacher agrees to uphold those laws, they do not have to keep their word? :blink

There is an old saying.

When laws are unjust, just men must not obey them.

I would agree with you that these men were in violation of the law if they were slinking around violating this regulation and trying to get away with it.


That isnt what they are doing. they are taking a JUST stand in full view of the regulators, intending to make this an issue. if they lose, they will pay the price. If they win, they will have won a victory for all of us.

[TK Burk]

There is an old saying.

When laws are unjust, just men must not obey them.

I would agree with you that these men were in violation of the law if they were slinking around violating this regulation and trying to get away with it.


That isnt what they are doing. they are taking a JUST stand in full view of the regulators, intending to make this an issue. if they lose, they will pay the price. If they win, they will have won a victory for all of us.

Nice saying, but in this case, it does not apply.

This is not about their patriotism or about their Christian rights; this is about them reneging on their word.

No offense, but do you understand what a 501c3 is? Maybe that's the problem? There is NO LAW that says a church or a minister HAS to be under a 501c3. The US Constitution already makes every church and minister exempt if they qualify as a "free church." But if a man or church wants the "benefits" of a 501c3, then they have to agree to obey its rules. These men agreed to those rules. They gave their word, and in return the Government allowed them to operate as a 501c3. If we took what you're saying as being true, then it’s acceptable to lie for financial gain. Do you really believe that?

If these preachers want to endorse a candidate all they have to do is drop their 501c3. Afterward, they could say all they want and would not be breaking any laws. Instead, what these guys want is to have their cake and eat it too. How can a lie ever represent Truth?

At the heart of this matter is the fact that a preacher is never allowed to lie...under any circumstance. Yet these guys are using the guise of their “American rights” as an excuse to do just that. The kicker is that they claim they’re doing this to help the government. Have they forgotten what the government is? Can’t they see past the marbled buildings, and see the people that work within its system? How much positive impact do you think those preachers will have with government employees that know they lied to the government?

[Steve Epley]

The church I pastored did not have a 501C3. I would not endorse a canidate however If a man chooses to I think the 1st Admendment of a regulation it is thoer choice I think the Constitution supercedes any regulation.

[Brother Price]

Can someone explain the advantages 501c3 has over Free Church?

[Jeremy]

A: What a bunch of hypocrites. Loose the tax exemptions or obey the regulations. Seems pretty simple for a honest hearted christian to me.

B:Churches that don't have community programs don't deserve to be tax exempt anyway. Doesn't seem like they do anyway. They are not charities, so why should they be tax exempt?

[TK Burk]

The church I pastored did not have a 501C3. I would not endorse a canidate however If a man chooses to I think the 1st Admendment of a regulation it is thoer choice I think the Constitution supercedes any regulation.

Even one you give your word to uphold?

[TRFrance]

Churches that don't have community programs don't deserve to be tax exempt anyway. Doesn't seem like they do anyway. They are not charities, so why should they be tax exempt?

Being a charity , or having community programs is not what qualifies a group to be tax exempt. Being a Not For Profit organization is what makes them tax exempt.

[Jeremy]

I am not sure what "not for profit" means or how churches qualify when preachers are getting wealthy running churches (of all kinds. This has nothing to do with Apostolic or any other name brand) and the buildings are costing millions of dollars. I kind of think uncle Sam should get a chunk of that $100,000.00 stained glass window.

Again, I am admitting my ignorance in this area though. I know my old pastor was very good about this whole deal. He talked about how other ministers would abuse it, and that is what got me thinking the whole thing was kind of weird.

His example was that he bought a lawn mower that he would be using to mow the church (several acres at least)but would also mow his personal property with it. He chose not to go TE with that because he would be using it too, but said a lot of pastors have would do differently. I just kind of thought, why would they not pay the 6.5% anyway? How does buying it for a religious group entitle them to a tax break.

Every other not for profit group I can think of is community oriented and/or charitable organizations.

[TK Burk]

I am not sure what "not for profit" means or how churches qualify when preachers are getting wealthy running churches (of all kinds. This has nothing to do with Apostolic or any other name brand) and the buildings are costing millions of dollars. I kind of think uncle Sam should get a chunk of that $100,000.00 stained glass window.

Again, I am admitting my ignorance in this area though. I know my old pastor was very good about this whole deal. He talked about how other ministers would abuse it, and that is what got me thinking the whole thing was kind of weird.

His example was that he bought a lawn mower that he would be using to mow the church (several acres at least)but would also mow his personal property with it. He chose not to go TE with that because he would be using it too, but said a lot of pastors have would do differently. I just kind of thought, why would they not pay the 6.5% anyway? How does buying it for a religious group entitle them to a tax break.

Every other not for profit group I can think of is community oriented and/or charitable organizations.

Jeremy, no offense, but you really need to study on this subject before forming an opinion. Your post makes it clear that you do not understand what qualifies as non-profit.

Also, it’s evident that you do not know the ministers that I do. Those guys give a whole lot more than they monetarily gain. If you were also out there in the trenches you'd understand....

[Brother Price]

We want to preach politics and anything else from the pulpit except what we are called to preach, and then wonder why no revival.

[Aquila]

The church as most of us know it is nothing but another political action committee anyway, an informally associated wing of the RNC. I've heard ministers speak in code for years, like cowards, to try to tell people who to vote for. Just get out with it. Let the church speak as a political group. It ceased being a real church decades ago.

People need to know that if they aren't Republican....they are unwelcome in the church. Because frankly, that's the TRUTH.

[Jeremy]

The Constitution is the American Caesar we render to not some governmental regulation that is always evolving. If the UPC made some regulation against the the Constitution of the org. then I would agree.

The 1st amendment trumps a regulation every time.

When pastoring I never did endorse a canidate nor party so this is not personal with me.

Head to the air port and talk about a bomb and see how far you get with that line of logic. Lol.

Besides, you're still ignoring what he asked about these people lying and breaching an agreement.


Jeremy, no offense, but you really need to study on this subject before forming an opinion. Your post makes it clear that you do not understand what qualifies as non-profit.

Also, it’s evident that you do not know the ministers that I do. Those guys give a whole lot more than they monetarily gain. If you were also out there in the trenches you'd understand....

A: No offense was taken since I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was admitting ignorance and discussing my LACK OF UNDERSTANDING. You would have to be a special kind of stupid to miss that.

B: I don't care that much, so no, I don't need to study it out. I did ask some questions though, (which you failed to answer) which was my attempt to get a little better grasp of it all.

C: I am not speaking of your personal situation and never implied it in any way.

I am not even sure you actually read what I said.