PDA

View Full Version : Pro-McCain Pastor defies tax-laws and "preaches" his endorsement




Cleverboy
Sep 29, 2008, 12:49 AM
Should politics be pushed from the Pulpit? This election cycle, we know it started coming up with the Rev. Wright sermons, where the IRS investigated claims that Wright shown bias towards Obama in his sermons and distributed literature inappropriately (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/irs_investigating_obamas_churc_2.html), and we also saw a Bishop refuse communion to a politician who had endorsed Obama (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/the-day-i-was-denied-communion.html).

Well... now things are getting serious. After James Dobson, popular host of "Focus on the Family" criticised Obama's faith-themed speech to a liberal Christian group "Call for Renewal" (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/), he was assailed by a group of religious figures that began a website called "JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com (http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/)" to counter his claims. It seemed clear that Obama's appeal to the religious community had injected a very real and credible threat to the core of conservative America.

As such, some pastors have just decided to take it to the NEXT LEVEL. They're challenging the IRS rules on non-political speech in retaining their tax-free status.

The Rev. Fran Pultro shrugged off federal laws restricting his role in partisan politics Sunday, telling 45 people at Calvary Chapel on the King's Highway in Philadelphia that preserving conservative social values was of the utmost importance in this election.

"As Christians it's clear we should vote for John McCain," said Mr. Pultro from the church's stage. "He is the only candidate I believe a Christian can vote for." Mr. Pultro was one of several ministers across the country, citing Scripture and their free-speech rights, who endorsed or criticized a presidential candidate inside their church, in apparent violation of federal tax law, all part of a mass protest led by a conservative legal-aid group.
Partisan Sunday Sermons Test Federal Tax Laws
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122265357171384405.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
And its happening elsewhere:Defying a federal law that prohibits American clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation yesterday that voting for Senator Obama would be evidence of "severe moral schizophrenia." The Reverend Ron Johnson told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee's positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist "in direct opposition to God's truth as He has revealed it in the scriptures." Rev. Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates' views but stopped short of endorsing Senator McCain. Rev. Johnson and 32 other pastors around the country set out yesterday to break the rules, seeking to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship. It seems this fight is one some religious leaders feel it would be far too damaging to lose. With the Supreme Court being SO CLOSE to becoming entirely conservative... winning the White House would be their best bet for eliminating "abortion" at the Federal level (reversing Roe v Wade once and for all), and locking in their concept of a moral America, from a soley ideological basis, in White House. It was this battle of "good versus evil" that got Bush elected twice. The case is once again being pressed harder than ever.

~ CB



NT1440
Sep 29, 2008, 12:54 AM
it really pisses me off when these people try and pull ***** like this. I dont care who your voting for mr minister you do not get to break the law. Religion has infiltrated our politics for far to long (look at all the god speak at both conventions).

shouldnt they be busy touching little children like a "true christian" ?:mad:

SMM
Sep 29, 2008, 01:07 AM
Should politics be pushed from the Pulpit? This election cycle, we know it started coming up with the Rev. Wright sermons, where the IRS investigated claims that Wright shown bias towards Obama in his sermons and distributed literature inappropriately (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/irs_investigating_obamas_churc_2.html), and we also saw a Bishop refuse communion to a politician who had endorsed Obama (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/the-day-i-was-denied-communion.html).

Well... now things are getting serious. After James Dobson, popular host of "Focus on the Family" criticised Obama's faith-themed speech to a liberal Christian group "Call for Renewal" (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/), he was assailed by a group of religious figures that began a website called "JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com (http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/)" to counter his claims. It seemed clear that Obama's appeal to the religious community had injected a very real and credible threat to the core of conservative America.

As such, some pastors have just decided to take it to the NEXT LEVEL. They're challenging the IRS rules on non-political speech in retaining their tax-free status.


Partisan Sunday Sermons Test Federal Tax Laws
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122265357171384405.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
And its happening elsewhere: It seems this fight is one some religious leaders feel it would be far too damaging to lose. With the Supreme Court being SO CLOSE to becoming entirely conservative... winning the White House would be their best bet for eliminating "abortion" at the Federal level (reversing Roe v Wade once and for all), and locking in their concept of a moral America, from a soley ideological basis, in White House. It was this battle of "good versus evil" that got Bush elected twice. The case is once again being pressed harder than ever.

~ CB

I agree with your post, but would also add this. Hitherto, the religious right has been a unified voting block. As such, dorks like Dobson have gained far more importance than their twisted minds actually deserve. if they star being perceived as only representing a smaller group, and not totally unified, their national power will be reduced proportionally. That would be a bitter pill to swallow.

CorvusCamenarum
Sep 29, 2008, 02:28 AM
A minister endorsing a candidate on his own time - perfectly fine.

A minister endorsing a candidate on his church's time - not fine, and said church should lose their tax-exempt status until they sack the minister, punt him out the door, and find someone who can play by the rules.

Cleverboy
Sep 29, 2008, 06:01 PM
Do you think there's enough political will to strip a church of its tax-exempt status? Does anyone think we're on the edge of a precipice here? I mean, there's no two ways about it. They want this to be decided in their favor, and then its GAME ON for politics and religion! That just seems like the ultimate "F-U" to the fabric of our culture here in America. I mean, pretense aside, if religious leaders could endorse and promote candidates... I'm sure they'll be some resistance inside the church, but if you thought churches were corrupt before... you haven't seen anything yet.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOglIxiBY7ZLeg1lwDIiP5kwkcuAD93GK2BG0

Five of the six supported Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The sixth, Wiley Drake of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., said: "According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama." Drake was not among the pastors Alliance Defense Fund selected for the protest and was acting independently.

The five others reported to the IRS were Jody Hice of Bethlehem First Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga.; Paul Blair of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla.; Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn.; Francis Pultro of Calvary Chapel Kings Highway in Philadelphia; and Luke Emrich of New Life Church in West Bend, Wis.

The IRS has said it would "take action as appropriate." The agency does not comment on specific complaints.

~ CB

Macaddicttt
Sep 29, 2008, 06:17 PM
I was shocked when I got to Mass the other week and there were signs up endorsing two propositions on the ballot in November. Apparently (at least in California) you can endorse propositions as a church, but not candidates. I had no idea. I was happy that our priest merely urged us to do a lot of praying and before casting our vote, and he definitely didn't say it in any way that could be construed as a pitch for one candidate or the other.

These guys, though, should most definitely lose their tax-exempt status.

Propositions: eh... maybe?
Candidates: Definitely no.

leekohler
Sep 29, 2008, 07:43 PM
Sorry- time to pay the tax man. And hell yes, there's the political will to strip these people of their exemption.

Cleverboy
Sep 30, 2008, 10:04 AM
A series of awesome rebuttals to this protest. I like this one best.
She goes right to the heart of equal treatment for religious and non-religious groups. Boom. Can't get clearer than that.
AMY MARTIN, executive director, Earth Rhythms

This issue is not about separation of church and state. It's about lobbying. I am the executive director of a nonprofit, soon to be tax exempt, group called Earth Rhythms that presents spiritual events. As such, my group is prohibited from lobbying. When spiritual leaders endorse candidates that is lobbying. If churches are allowed to lobby, then tax-exempt groups should be able to as well. Or conversely, if churches desire to lobby they should forfeit their tax-exempt status.

The government tells all kinds of groups, business and individuals how to manage their affairs; churches shouldn't feel singled out. This limit on lobbying certainly curtails my free speech, a constitutionally guaranteed right. But those are the rules and that is the compromise that was created to address a problem: those who benefit from the government by being tax exempt should not be in the position to influence it.

Polls consistently reflect a desire from the American people for less lobbying in government. Let's not encourage more, but scale back what's already there to honest level of expression, instead of the conduit of coercion it is now.http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/texas-faith-should-we-allow-po.html

~ CB

Queso
Sep 30, 2008, 10:42 AM
Why the silence from the Scientologists? Surely they would like to tell us who to vote for?


;)

Motley
Sep 30, 2008, 12:22 PM
Why the silence from the Scientologists? Surely they would like to tell us who to vote for?


;)

A vote for Obama is a vote for Xenu?

GorillaPaws
Sep 30, 2008, 01:08 PM
Just for clarification, by "tax exempt" we're talking about not only an institution not having to pay taxes, but also people who contribute donations to that institution to be able to write off those donations as well, right?

nbs2
Sep 30, 2008, 01:14 PM
Just for clarification, by "tax exempt" we're talking about not only an institution not having to pay taxes, but also people who contribute donations to that institution to be able to write off those donations as well, right?

Yes. At least that's the proper interpretation.

As a 501c3, donors to these churches can deduct their donations, but lobbying is restricted. As a 501c4, which these churches are approaching, they may lobby, but donors cannot deduct their donations. However, the churches would be able to lobby just like any other tax exempt organization.

Organizations like AOPA, the NRA and moveon.org are 501c4s

mactastic
Sep 30, 2008, 03:51 PM
I'm guessing these guys think that with the recent tilt of the SCOTUS to the right, that now is the time to rock this boat and see if they can get a favorable ruling before a potential Obama presidency has a chance to put his imprint on the Court.

solvs
Oct 5, 2008, 05:15 PM
Distinguishing Between Religion and Fundamentalism (http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/09/28/amthinkerfail/)