# ADF's Pulpit Initiative - Churches Challenge the IRS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2008, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789 "2008-09-30T02:08:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Orr\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ee59a6/32.png) [@Orr\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orr_G)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/1 "2008-09-30T02:08:05Z")
Standard disclaimers apply: apologies if there is already a thread started on this that I missed, and please be gentle with me on my first GD OP. From here: [Pastors To Preach Politics From The Pulpit : NPR](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95003709) > [@](#): > > September 24, 2008 · On Sunday, more than 30 pastors across the country are expected to preach a sermon that endorses or opposes a political candidate by name. This would be a flagrant violation of a law that bans tax-exempt organizations from involvement in political campaigns. And from the ADF Website: [Alliance Defending Freedom](http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/churchandstate.aspx?cid=4491) > [@](#): > > The Pulpit Initiative is a legal effort designed to protect the First Amendment rights of pastors in the pulpit. As part of the effort, pastors participating in Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Sunday, September 28, 2008, will deliver to their congregations sermons of their own that apply Scripture to the subject of candidates for government office. The sermons are intended to restore a pastor’s right to speak freely from his pulpit without fearing censorship or punishment by the government. By standing together and speaking with one voice, it is our hope to recapture the rightful place of pastors and churches in American life. For debate: Well, anything relevant, I suppose. Should churches be allowed to support specific candidates and initiatives without risking their tax exempt status? Should doing so be protected as free speech, or should it be considered inappropriate for its potential impact on free elections in the US? Should the matter continue to be under the purvue of the IRS, or should legislators and the courts more directly address the issues at hand? Will this protest be an issue for this year’s elections? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/2 "2008-09-30T02:21:13Z")
You got your constitutionally protected freedom of worship and freedom of speech, but I am unfamiliar with a constitutionally protected freedom from taxation. Preachers are undeniably free to say whatever they like from the pulpit. Whether a church is taxable or not is entirely up to how tax laws are written by legislators and enacted by the IRS. So what’s the debate, exactly? I would be very surprised if there were even the ghost of a constitutional argument here. There is, on the other hand, a tax policy issue, but I don’t see that forbidding tax exempt entities from direct political campaigning is bad tax policy. Indeed, allowing direct campaigning raises the specter of faux-religious groups being formed specifically to campaign, which strikes me as rather repugnant. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/3 "2008-09-30T02:32:21Z")
I’m a member of the United Church of Christ, Obama’s church. So, I"ve sat through plenty of political sermons. May as well allow the pastor to actually endorse the person they want to win. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/4 "2008-09-30T02:50:08Z")
If they want to play, they have to pay. Charge 'em. Tax the “church” to hell and back to heaven, I say. Otherwise I’m starting my very own Church of the Sacred Cow so I can collect money and not pay taxes, too. Oh, and welcome to GD, George. ---
**Author:** ![Orr\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ee59a6/32.png) [@Orr\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orr_G)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/5 "2008-09-30T13:17:49Z")
Thanks, **Bo**. I think there’s definitely at least a ghost of a constitutional argument being raised, in that what the ADF is protesting involves a federal agency making rules about free speech and about religious organizations. Kinda First-Amendmenty, it seems to me. \What I don’t know is whether this action or this group will actually create enough traction to get courts, legislators, and/or the public to consider a change to the IRS regulations, although that certainly seems to be what the ADF is aiming for. From here: [Alliance Defending Freedom](http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WhatIsPI.pdf) > [@](#): > > The Pulpit Initiative is… > > - a bold defense of the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses > > - about protecting core religious expression > > - only related to what a pastor says from his pulpit, for example, on a Sunday morning (i.e., not about voter guides, candidate appearances, or other “political” activities) And > [@](#): > > The bottom line is that no enforcement agency of the federal government should be telling a pastor what he can or cannot say from his pulpit about the Bible and his church’s teaching on the issues of the hour – even if the pastor’s sermon applies Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections. Such agencies certainly cannot condition tax‐exempt status—a status churches have always been constitutionally guaranteed since our founding—on the surrender of cherished First Amendment rights. Are they right in claiming the tax-exempt status of churches is constitutionally guaranteed, regardless of any direct campaigning or endorsement from the pulpit? Should it be guaranteed? What about other political activities by tax-exempt religious organizations (faux or not), no matter how repugnant? Or, in another light, are these guys just a bunch of blowhards who will, rightly, fail to affect any significant change to the current pragmatic solutions (compromises?) in place to regulate the tax status of political campaigning organizations? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/6 "2008-09-30T13:36:52Z")
> [@Orr\_G](#): > > Thanks, **Bo**. > > I think there’s definitely at least a ghost of a constitutional argument being raised, in that what the ADF is protesting involves a federal agency making rules about free speech and about religious organizations. Kinda First-Amendmenty, it seems to me. > > \What I don’t know is whether this action or this group will actually create enough traction to get courts, legislators, and/or the public to consider a change to the IRS regulations, although that certainly seems to be what the ADF is aiming for. > > From here: [Alliance Defending Freedom](http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WhatIsPI.pdf) > > And > > Are they right in claiming the tax-exempt status of churches is constitutionally guaranteed, regardless of any direct campaigning or endorsement from the pulpit? Should it be guaranteed? What about other political activities by tax-exempt religious organizations (faux or not), no matter how repugnant? > > Or, in another light, are these guys just a bunch of blowhards who will, rightly, fail to affect any significant change to the current pragmatic solutions (compromises?) in place to regulate the tax status of political campaigning organizations? Let them say what they want. I agree that tax exempt status should not not hinge on what they say politically from the pulpit. That was Johnson’s thing wasn’t it? I don’t think they should be tax exempt but that’s another matter. Some believers will accept their pastors opinion and some won’t. I remember a story four years ago about a pastor in some southern church making some ridiculous statement about voting for Bush means you’re a real Christian and several members walked out. Let the congregations decide what kind of discussion and sermons they want. I think any kind of dialog can be helpful. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/7 "2008-09-30T14:14:59Z")
> [@Orr\_G](#): > > Should the matter continue to be under the purvue of the IRS, or should legislators and the courts more directly address the issues at hand? I don’t quite get what you mean by this - the legislators have already spoken on this issue - it’s a law passed by Congress that’s in issue. The IRS is the executive agency charged with enforcing this law, but the IRS didn’t just make it up - it was enacted by Congress and is potentially enforced by the courts, if a complaint is lodged. [QUOTE=Congress of the United States] **§ 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.** **(a) Exemption from taxation** An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401 (a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502 or 503. … **(c) List of exempt organizations** The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a): … **(3)** Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. [/QUOTE] [US Code, Title 26, s. 501](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000501----000-.html) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/8 "2008-09-30T14:39:49Z")
Let churches have no special privilege as churches, but the exact same tax status as other organizations purporting to be not-for-profit, and let them be subject to the exact same rules, including those regarding political activity. That’s fair all around. ---
**Author:** ![Orr\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ee59a6/32.png) [@Orr\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orr_G)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/9 "2008-09-30T14:46:11Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I don’t quite get what you mean by this - the legislators have already spoken on this issue - it’s a law passed by Congress that’s in issue. The IRS is the executive agency charged with enforcing this law, but the IRS didn’t just make it up - it was enacted by Congress and is potentially enforced by the courts, if a complaint is lodged. Thanks for the handy cite. I just meant to ask if the legislators should consider speaking on the issue again, modifying the relevant tax law, which seems to me what the ADF’s goals would require. I apologize for any unintentional loaded wording on my part. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/10 "2008-09-30T14:52:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Let churches have no special privilege as churches, but the exact same tax status as other organizations purporting to be not-for-profit, and let them be subject to the exact same rules, including those regarding political activity. That’s fair all around. If you actually read Section 501, you will see that that is already the case. “Religious” is included along with “charitable” and “scientific,” but the section still requires that the purpose of the organization must be exclusively for that purpose. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/11 "2008-09-30T15:03:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If you actually read Section 501, you will see that that is already the case. “Religious” is included along with “charitable” and “scientific,” but the section still requires that the purpose of the organization must be exclusively for that purpose. Yes, but I was referring to the churches’ tax status at **all** levels – including local property tax. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/12 "2008-09-30T15:14:37Z")
I have never agreed with the tax exempt status. Watching the Father drive his new Cadillac to his huge church bought home nestled nicely outta the way from the row homes of his parishioners, kinda bugged me. I also think that if my preacher would start spouting politics I would walk out, it’s like politics in GQ, it’s not what I am there for. Doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with the views. I hope the IRS rewrites the tax code, let’s them campaign. Make them pay taxes on everything except the money being actually used as a charity for others. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/13 "2008-09-30T15:56:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Let churches have no special privilege as churches, but the exact same tax status as other organizations purporting to be not-for-profit, and let them be subject to the exact same rules, including those regarding political activity. That’s fair all around. That’s the situation right now. The IRS also assumes that churches, in general, are a benefit to the community, non-political, and commonly involved in acts of charity (running soup kitchens, keeping kids out of crime, organizing community activities) and so should get the same tax benefits as charities. Churches in this country must be careful not to exceed their basic status as nonpolitical nonprofit organizations or risk losing their tax-exempt status. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/14 "2008-09-30T16:09:49Z")
Sounds like the churches are taking out a dare on the IRS to have the political acorns to enforce the statute. I can imagine that a number of religious leaders see the possibilities as either (a) if the IRS dares not act in the first place, the statute becomes dead letter; or (b) if the IRS **does** act, then they get to rend their garments, pour ash on their hair and cry “persecution!”, “War on Christianity”, etc., funds are raised, articles are published, memberships are energized and eventually the elected politicians knuckle under and cut the IRS off. They are counting on that there will not be the political will in this country for alternative © Elected legislators tell noncomplying churches to take a hike. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/15 "2008-09-30T16:18:03Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Sounds like the churches are taking out a dare on the IRS to have the political acorns to enforce the statute. I can imagine that a number of religious leaders see the possibilities as either (a) if the IRS dares not act in the first place, the statute becomes dead letter; or (b) if the IRS **does** act, then they get to rend their garments, pour ash on their hair and cry “persecution!”, “War on Christianity”, etc., funds are raised, articles are published, memberships are energized and eventually the elected politicians knuckle under and cut the IRS off. They are counting on that there will not be the political will in this country for alternative (c) Elected legislators tell noncomplying churches to take a hike. Interestingly, the first people who have declared their intention to protest the ADF to the IRS–even before the ACLU–have been a number of other religious leaders. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/16 "2008-10-09T19:29:09Z")
A shameless bump- has anyone heard anything about this since? Is the ACLU getting involved? Has the IRS made a statement? ---
**Author:** ![Brunhilda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cdc98d/32.png) [@Brunhilda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brunhilda)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/17 "2008-10-09T20:01:40Z")
I think that this is going to have to come down to a Supreme Court case. The free establishment clause, which provides for freedom of religion does not mention the issue of taxation. However, there is an early supreme court case that established that the power of taxation could lead to the destruction of the taxed entity. For this reason, when the Federal government taxed state governments, the states took the case to the supreme court and got the tax on state governments defeated. I am googling it and it isn’t coming up. If we accept that premise from that case, then the power to tax a church leads to the power to destroy the church, which means that congress has made a law that gets in the way of the practice of religion. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/18 "2008-10-09T20:11:31Z")
> [@Brunhilda](#): > > I think that this is going to have to come down to a Supreme Court case. The free establishment clause, which provides for freedom of religion does not mention the issue of taxation. However, there is an early supreme court case that established that the power of taxation could lead to the destruction of the taxed entity. Do you know which case, exactly? I would love to read the opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/19 "2008-10-09T22:29:27Z")
> [@Brunhilda](#): > > I think that this is going to have to come down to a Supreme Court case. The free establishment clause, which provides for freedom of religion does not mention the issue of taxation. However, there is an early supreme court case that established that the power of taxation could lead to the destruction of the taxed entity. For this reason, when the Federal government taxed state governments, the states took the case to the supreme court and got the tax on state governments defeated. I am googling it and it isn’t coming up. You’ve got it flipped: the Court held that the states could not tax a federal agency, in this case the Second Bank of the United States. The case was [M’Culloch v. Maryland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland). The Court made two very important conclusions: 1. the Constitution gave the fedral government the power to establish a bank; 2. once established, the Bank was not subject to state taxes, because that would enable the states to nullify the bank, hence the dictum, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789/20 "2008-10-09T22:51:45Z")
Never mind. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adfs-pulpit-initiative-churches-challenge-the-irs/465789.md?page=2)