iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Steve Siebold

GET UPDATES FROM Steve Siebold
 

Pulpit Freedom Sunday -- Should the Church Be Tax-Exempt?

Posted: 10/02/2012 3:15 pm

An army of more than 1,000 pastors from around the country will take on the IRS this coming Sunday by participating in what's being called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Under the Johnson Amendment, tax-exempt organizations, including churches, are not allowed to endorse any candidate running for elective public office. The real issue behind Pulpit Freedom Sunday is whether or not free speech reigns irrefutably over tax-exempt organizations, or should groups such as churches be permitted to make political recommendations to its members? And beyond that, the even larger question is why are churches still classified as tax-exempt?

Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian organization behind Pulpit Freedom Sunday, says it's unconstitutional and pastors are being censored, and the church across America is being silenced. They're encouraging pastors to preach politics this Sunday, and to record the sermons and mail them to the IRS. The group is hoping the IRS will follow through on its threats of removing the tax-exempt status of a church caught preaching politics, so it can bring the matter to a judge to decide, because they say a judge is likely to see it as a clear violation of the First Amendment.

In general, the government should not have the right to suppress free speech. Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans. However, in regards to Pulpit Freedom Day, the church can't have its cake and eat it too. If it wants to be classified as a tax-exempt organization, then it needs to play by the rules and abstain from preaching politics.

Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code describes what the government considers to be an eligible nonprofit, religious group. "A tax-exempt religious organization is a legal entity or vehicle created and operated exclusively for religious purposes, no part of the net earnings of which insures to the benefit of any private individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in or interfere in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

With that said, the church in America saves roughly 71 billion dollars annually by being tax-exempt. Imagine how much food that could buy to feed the hungry, or how it could help those less fortunate. This might be acceptable if the church was actually encouraging strategies to reduce human suffering, irresponsible behavior that harms others, ending violence in our neighborhoods and other critical issues. Churches do not serve the common good; they propagate ancient supernatural mythology that brainwashes people into believing the unbelievable and impedes social and scientific progress.

Not only that, but when you have church leaders living the lap of luxury in million dollar homes and flying around in private jets, why exactly is the church tax-exempt? An example of this is Kenneth Copeland, a televangelist from Texas.

Copeland owns a gigantic 18,000 sq. foot lake house on Eagle Mountain Lake in Newark, Texas, complete with an onsite airport. In 2007, Copeland was accused of using his $20 million Cessna Citation X jet for personal vacations and friends, and luckily his second private Citation jet was denied tax-exemption after Copeland refused to submit to disclosure laws for the state of Texas.

Critical thinking questions whether this kind of prosperity puts the focus on money or God? Conveniently for Kenneth Copeland, he practices what's been coined "Prosperity gospel," which teaches that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will always increase one's material wealth. Ironically, the Bible contradicts this idea, and in Proverbs 23:4 says, "Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, cease from your consideration of it."

It's time for the government to stop subsidizing religion and phase out this special privilege of tax-exemptions to churches. Pastors and church leaders need to make a choice: feel free to talk politics all they want from the pulpit, but be willing to pay the consequences.

The IRS needs to get tough with churches and enforce the law, and be willing to fight the matter in court. It's shameful enough that churches are already off the hook for paying their fair share, so considering what they get away with they should just play it smart, keep quiet and stay out of politics.

Technically speaking, when a 501(c)(3) church openly speaks out, or organizes in opposition to, anything that the government declares legal such as same sex marriage or abortion, it is already putting its tax-exempt status in jeopardy. The church knows the IRS will rarely come after them, so they continue to push the limits.

For now churches will remain tax-exempt, and while by law they aren't supposed to be pushing messages on politics and certain other agendas, it seems some will, especially this coming Sunday. The sad part is very few Americans possess much knowledge on Christianity beyond what their pastor tells them on Sunday. It's been estimated that fewer than 10 percent of professed Christians have actually read the entire Bible, and only a fraction of those have seriously studied it. Most people believe because they have been brainwashed to believe.

The bottom line is people need to start thinking for themselves. Do your own research, engage in critical thinking and come to your own conclusions. Don't let your pastor or anyone else who may be misinformed make the decision for you. When you cast your ballot this November, make the choice that you believe is best for America because it's what you believe, and not because it's how your pastor or anyone else told you to vote.

 
FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 27
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
modurhead
if you do not know something look it up
04:25 PM on 11/10/2012
yes they should pay taxes it looks like favoritism and we should be equa;
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
modurhead
if you do not know something look it up
04:03 PM on 11/10/2012
yes,i thought their god / jesus blessed america why cant they pay their share instead of leaving it to the poor people while they make millions off of the weak,heal,tax the churches/cults
12:44 PM on 10/09/2012
I doubt the tax dollars will be spent well by the IRS, they rather thrive on suffering :} Setting a yearly income level for taxation makes perfect sense. I know that in America we still have a lot of small "grass roots" churches where the pastor still works an outside job and takes little to no income from the church. A simple number such as $150,000 could be put in place so that any church making over that amount is liable to pay taxes as any other American has to and should. Sadly most pastors still do not understand that Jesus never once stood for politics and that it was politics that had him crucified and it is politics that will crucify Christianity in America. The "christian" leaders in America have become nothing more then a Sanhedrin of vipers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
framefiller
Left of Attilla the Hun, but still left
03:02 AM on 10/08/2012
The Johnson Amendment in the IRS code for non-profits has largely been affected by a ruling from the federal courts, that keep the IRS from enforcing the political non-profit rule. So, this about something that doesn't matter in the US anymore. All of the pastor's and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church can proclaim what ever political viewpoint, and it is perfectly fine to keep on violating the Johnson Amendment in the IRS code. So, anytime that a church of a specific faith wants to become a political entity with the object of becoming an American theocracy, they can proceed without fear of repercussions. We should now strike the "Freedom of Religion Amendment" of our US Constitution as being useless.
05:21 PM on 10/05/2012
"This might be acceptable if the church was actually encouraging strategies to reduce human suffering, irresponsible behavior that harms others, ending violence in our neighborhoods and other critical issues. Churches do not serve the common good."

I can't speak for all churches, but my church and many churches I know funnel thousands of dollars into programs and agencies that DO reduce human suffering, end violence, build community, feed the poor, bring medical relief, etc.
Just one example: our local food shelf receives most of its financial support from area religious institutions.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RhymesWithRight
No, I don't get my news from Fox or Limbaugh.
09:40 PM on 10/04/2012
Some 200 years ago, the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland noted that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Our First Amendment, on the other hand, makes it clear that the government has no authority to destroy a church, especially because of what is taught from the pulpit as a matter of doctrinal interpretation, as that would constitute an infringement of both the free exercise and establishment clauses. It therefore seems beyond dispute that no governmental entity has the power to tax a church or to regulate what is said from the pulpit of a church -- provided the First Amendment is still in force in America.
11:27 AM on 10/11/2012
The problem with your comment is that some places should not be defined as churches. There has to be some requirement to be labeled a church. Otherwise, I'll just call my house a church and me a pastor to get out of paying taxes. When you start telling people who to vote for, you are no longer a church, therefore your argument doesn't apply.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RhymesWithRight
No, I don't get my news from Fox or Limbaugh.
09:40 PM on 10/13/2012
1)  There can be some standards on what constitutes a church -- but abiding by government diktat regarding the contents of sermons or religious education programs should always be illegitimate.

2)  I'd have to differ with you -- for example, I'd argue that pastors should have been free to declare from the pulpit that a vote for David Duke in the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election was a grave sin against God.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackinthegreen
immoderated
03:25 PM on 10/04/2012
It's simple. If you want to get to operate as a tax-free charity, you can't use your organization for political campaigning. This has never been a controversial issue in America - until now.

Write your Congressional Representatives. Tell them you want these corrupt churches stripped of their status as charities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackinthegreen
immoderated
03:24 PM on 10/04/2012
Tax the church. It's the only answer.
05:37 PM on 10/03/2012
I am a pastor. And while you are more than free to say that "Churches do not serve the common good; they propagate ancient supernatural mythology that brainwashes people into believing the unbelievable and impedes social and scientific progress." (which is the myth you prefer)

You are quite wrong to associate our whole profession with people like Copeland and other televangelists. For every one televangelist (millionaire or not), there are 100,000 pastors who have salaries which are worth much less than they could get in the business world, because ours is a job of service rather than financial reward. Not only do we give back to our churches, we seek to make our communities better places.

Yes, we are not all good apples, but neither are we all bad apples. Any articles you write which include the extreme as a strawman are not worth inclusion in the pubic debate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CrazyThisIs
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind
03:44 PM on 10/03/2012
You are entitled to your free speech. However, as with all decisions, you pay the consequences for what you say and where you say it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CrazyThisIs
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind
03:22 PM on 10/03/2012
Amen!
10:33 AM on 10/03/2012
There's also a compromise -- let small churches keep their tax exempt status, but pick an amount -- say, $1 million clear profit -- beyond which a chuch loses that status.
10:18 AM on 10/03/2012
If churches start paying taxes....then they can endorse whoever they wish. Although it's ridiculous for anyone not to believe that they do that all year long. If they press for a change in the law, more power to them. Until then, follow the law like everyone else.
12:23 AM on 10/03/2012
preaching politics from the pulpit is unbelievably ignorant! A preacher is to preach the context of biblical text, not endorse a candidate

Matthew 15 17-20
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
12:09 AM on 10/03/2012
I was with you right up until "Churches do not serve the common good;...". Even as an atheist, I disagree with this. While they do "propagate ancient supernatural mythology..and impede social and scientific progress", I believe that every religion has the ability to make better people of their followers. Yes, there are way too many who use religion to justify their agendas of hatred toward others. However, just because some choose to use religion for evil doesn't mean that religion itself is evil.

With that being said, I do agree that churches should follow the rules. Separation of church and state goes both ways. Churches tax-exemption means that government can't involve itself in church affairs. Church leaders agree this is a good thing. But you can't have it both ways. Separation also means that churches should not have the right to involve themselves in government affairs. If churches want the government to stay out of their churches, they need to stay out of politics. This is NOT a free speech issue, it's a separation of church and state issue. Ministers are free to endorse candidates....but they must do it OUTSIDE of their churches. If they want to endorse a candidate, they have every right to do so in their role as private citizens. But when they are acting as a minister, they should not be able to do so. People go to church for spiritual guidance, not to be told who to vote for.