# IRS Threatens Church for Anti-War Sermon **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 8, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032 "2005-11-08T13:52:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/21 "2005-11-08T15:23:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you really find it so unbelieveable that what I said is correct? What I find unbelievable is that you’re seeing outrage in the posts to this thread, especially outrage out of proportion to what’s occurred in previous threads on this topic. Again, who did you mean by “your” when you were talking about “your outrage”? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/22 "2005-11-08T16:10:46Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Do I think that nowhere on this board someone advocated that position? No, but I think you might be exaggerating the extent that that position was advocated. In fact, I’d say after only 7 posts you jumped the gun quite a bit. Did I? I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > But people on this very board have advocated churches losing their tax-exempt status after those churches PROMOTED the policies of the President or of the GOP. How in the world does that observation exaggerate the extent that the position was advocated? It says that “people on this very board have advocated”. That’s literal truth if I can find two people who said it. And of what relevance is “seven posts”? My question was directed to the OP; I could have posted it as the second post in the thread without changing it one iota. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/23 "2005-11-08T16:12:47Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > What I find unbelievable is that you’re seeing outrage in the posts to this thread, especially outrage out of proportion to what’s occurred in previous threads on this topic. Again, who did you mean by “your” when you were talking about “your outrage”? > > Daniel I was referring to the OP’s position, which is, by inference, against the IRS tactics he refers to. I agree we’re not discussing a foaming-at-the-mouth rant, and perhaps “outrage” is a loaded word here. Still, the OP clearly takes a negative position on the IRS tactics. If the stopper here is “outrage,” I happily withdraw it and substitute “ire”. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/24 "2005-11-08T16:16:36Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Have similar warning been issued to Falwell, Roberson, Dobson, et. al., by the IRS? > > Why am I so sure the answer to that question is “no”? That’s an excellent question. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/25 "2005-11-08T16:21:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think this move by the IRS is foolish, and destined to go nowhere. > > But people on this very board have advocated churches losing their tax-exempt status after those churches PROMOTED the policies of the President or of the GOP. > > Where was your outrage then? What’s good for one is good for the other. If a church promotes political causes or partisan agendas it should lose its tax status, no matter what side of the argument it took. As it stands now, with the noise from pro-war, antigay, pro ID “churches” not getting slapped, this IRS action against the anti war church should be shut down as being openly partisan and a misuse of power. Why? Because it is not being equally applied to churches that do parrot partisan crap. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/26 "2005-11-08T16:30:55Z")
I think we’re missing some crucial facts concerning this case: 1. What was the source of the IRS investigation in the first place? Was the IRS out there looking for such violation, or were they responding to specific complaints from paritioners? 2. Did the surmon mention either candidate by name, even if it didn’t actually endorse either candidate directly? I see a big difference between saying “The wealthy should pay a larger share of the tax burden in this coutnry” and “President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy have made the poor worse off in this country”. Overall, though, I agree with **Diogenes** – let’s get rid of the tax expempt status of Churches and we won’t have this problem. Of course, that has about a 0% chance of actually hapenning… ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/27 "2005-11-08T16:33:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But people on this very board have advocated churches losing their tax-exempt status after those churches PROMOTED the policies of the President or of the GOP. > > Where was your outrage then? Did the people on this board who advocated this work for or otherwise professionally represent the IRS? I seriously doubt “Church’s position pisses off Message Board posters” is quite synonymous with “INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE threatens church for its political views”. Nixon used the IRS as a personal attack dog for his enemies. I wonder who else is doing this… hmmm… could it be… SATAN! No. Satan seems efficient. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/28 "2005-11-08T16:43:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How in the world does that observation exaggerate the extent that the position was advocated? It says that “people on this very board have advocated”. That’s literal truth if I can find two people who said it. And of what relevance is “seven posts”? My question was directed to the OP; I could have posted it as the second post in the thread without changing it one iota. [/QUOTE] I didn’t realize your post was direct soley at the OP. Even still, its a ridiculous point becuase **Fear Itself** is not required to defend each of his positions in every possible thread. The fact that he didn’t do so in a previous thread (which you haven’t even shown he didn’t) has no bearing on whether this thread is valid. If you want to accuse him of a hypocritcal position perhaps, and I ask this in all seriousness, provide a link supporting your position. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/29 "2005-11-08T16:46:30Z")
Lets try this again, if any passing mod wants to kill my previous post that would be great. > [@Bricker](#): > > Did I? > > I said: > > How in the world does that observation exaggerate the extent that the position was advocated? It says that “people on this very board have advocated”. That’s literal truth if I can find two people who said it. > > And of what relevance is “seven posts”? My question was directed to the OP; I could have posted it as the second post in the thread without changing it one iota. I didn’t realize your post was direct soley at the OP. Even still, its a ridiculous point becuase **Fear Itself** is not required to defend each of his positions in every possible thread. The fact that he didn’t do so in a previous thread (which you haven’t even shown he didn’t) has no bearing on whether this thread is valid. If you want to accuse him of a hypocritcal position perhaps, and I ask this in all seriousness, you should provide a link supporting your position. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/30 "2005-11-08T17:11:30Z")
I believe the most recent person around here to talk about IRS challenges to the tax-exempt status of certain churches because of political lobbying was me over in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=337497&highlight=church), and I have no problems at all standing by what I said then: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Catholic bishops leading a signature drive for an amendment to restore discriminatory marriage laws [in Massachusetts] would definitely fall under the head of political “lobbying”, AFAICT. They probably wouldn’t fail the “substantial-part” test because they aren’t spending that much time lobbying, but I think it isn’t inappropriate to start making some noises about the possibility of revoking their tax-exempt status if they go on like this. > > Churches and other tax-free organizations are given their tax-exempt status precisely because they’re assumed to be devoting themselves to the public welfare in a non-partisan manner, without mixing up in specific legislative issues. If they want to use their institutional clout and resources to press for particular political outcomes, let them pay their goddamn taxes like the rest of us. And in that thread, I gave some examples of churches that have in fact lost their [tax-free status](http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_politicsandpulpit): > [@](#): > > A church that supports or opposes a candidate can find itself facing an IRS audit, fines and loss of tax-exempt status. Public information about IRS audits is relatively scarce because the IRS is not permitted to release such information, but here are a few examples of what has happened to some churches and other religious organizations: > > Branch Ministries (The Church at Pierce Creek). Four days before the 1992 presidential election, this church placed full-page advertisements in two newspapers in which it urged Christians not to vote for then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton because of his positions on certain moral issues. The IRS began an inquiry of the church within a matter of weeks. Eight years later, after extensive litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the IRS’s revocation of the church’s tax-exempt status. > > Christian Broadcasting Network. In the mid-1980s, this ministry supported the presidential campaign of its founder, Rev. Pat Robertson, according to the IRS. Ten years later CBN settled with the IRS by agreeing to the revocation of its tax-exempt status for 1986 and 1987, the revocation of the tax-exempt statuses of three former affiliates, making a “significant payment” to the IRS, avoiding partisan campaign activities in the future, placing more outside directors on its board, and implementing other organizational and operational changes to ensure tax law compliance. > > Old Time Gospel Hour. In 1986 and 1987, this ministry affiliated with Rev. Jerry Falwell raised money for a PAC, according to the IRS. After a four-year audit by the IRS, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of the ministry retroactively for 1986 and 1987 and the ministry agreed to pay the IRS $50,000 in taxes for those years and to change its organizational structure so that no future political campaign intervention activities would occur. […] > > A simple search of IRS announcements for the word “church” reveals that on average about one church a year loses its tax-exempt status. As for the questions asked in the OP, I have no real problem with the current guidelines for church political activity (from the same link): > [@](#): > > Churches are allowed to engage in strictly non-partisan election-related activities. For example, churches can encourage their members to register to vote and to vote as long as they do not encourage them to support or oppose particular candidates or parties. Encouraging support of a candidate includes oblique references, such as, for example, referring to a candidate for re-election as President by talking about all of the progress made during the “past 3-1/2 years” immediately before the election and discussing the importance of protecting the “conservative” (or “liberal”) agenda, even if the candidate is not mentioned by name. > > Pastors are also allowed to personally support and even endorse candidates, but they must not use any church resources, such as letterhead, newsletters or facilities, to do so and must make it clear that they are speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of the church. […] > > Churches can speak out on public policy issues as long as such messages are not attempts to urge support for or opposition to any candidate. Churches can also engage in lobbying (supporting or opposing legislation, including ballot initiatives) as long as doing so remains an insubstantial part of the church’s total activities. Neither the IRS nor the courts have set a bright line for what is “insubstantial,” but generally spending less than five percent of the church’s expenditures, time, etc. on such activities should be insubstantial. To know whether the IRS is abusing its mission in investigating the church in the OP’s link, we would need to know what the actual policy message was in the controversial sermon, and whether such advocacy formed more than an “insubstantial” part of the church’s activities. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/31 "2005-11-08T17:20:56Z")
**Kimstu** : I don’t see how the example of an anti-SSM sermon is contrary to the current guidlines. Are you saying they violate those guidelines, or are (were) you advocating expanding thost guidelines to cover policy related topics as well? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/32 "2005-11-08T17:22:47Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I didn’t realize your post was direct solely at the OP. Even still, its a ridiculous point because **Fear Itself** is not required to defend each of his positions in every possible thread. The fact that he didn’t do so in a previous thread (which you haven’t even shown he didn’t) has no bearing on whether this thread is valid. If you want to accuse him of a hypocritical position perhaps, and I ask this in all seriousness, provide a link supporting your position. You won’t see him provide a link, because that would expose the weakness of his argument. [In this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5029710), I called for the IRS to cancel the tax exempt status of churches who were **actively campaigning for George Bush** in the 2004 election. There is a vast difference between using the resources of a tax exempt church to organize a campaign, and expressing anti-war views from the pulpit. I see no hypocrisy in repeating my call for those churches to be sanctioned by the IRS, while at the same time being “outraged” at the persecution of a church based solely of its moral views about war. If \*\*Bricker \*\* thinks he has a leg to stand on, I am sure he will provide cites and arguments to support his claim that I have somehow been inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/33 "2005-11-08T17:44:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t see how the example of an anti-SSM sermon is contrary to the current guidlines. Are you saying they violate those guidelines, or are (were) you advocating expanding thost guidelines to cover policy related topics as well? 😕 > [@Kimstu](#): > > Catholic bishops leading a signature drive for an amendment to restore discriminatory marriage laws [in Massachusetts] would definitely fall under the head of political “lobbying”, AFAICT. They probably wouldn’t fail the “substantial-part” test because they aren’t spending that much time lobbying, but I think it isn’t inappropriate to start making some noises about the possibility of revoking their tax-exempt status if they go on like this. So the political activism I was talking about in that thread wasn’t just “an anti-SSM sermon”, it was **collecting petition signatures for an anti-SSM amendment to the state constitution**. Yes, AFAICT, that is **definitely** “contrary to the current guidelines” for limiting political lobbying on the part of churches. As I pointed out, though, even that kind of overtly and specifically political campaigning would not result in the loss of a church’s tax-free status, as long as they weren’t doing too much of it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/34 "2005-11-08T17:54:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > So the political activism I was talking about in that thread wasn’t just “an anti-SSM sermon”, it was **collecting petition signatures for an anti-SSM amendment to the state constitution**. Yes, AFAICT, that is **definitely** “contrary to the current guidelines” for limiting political lobbying on the part of churches. > > As I pointed out, though, even that kind of overtly and specifically political campaigning would not result in the loss of a church’s tax-free status, as long as they weren’t doing too much of it. How did you determine that they were “doing too much of it”? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/35 "2005-11-08T17:59:38Z")
It would be simpler, cleaner, and more fair to just do away with the tax exempt status altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/36 "2005-11-08T18:13:08Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > [In this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5029710), I called for the IRS to cancel the tax exempt status of churches who were **actively campaigning for George Bush** in the 2004 election. There is a vast difference between using the resources of a tax exempt church to organize a campaign, and expressing anti-war views from the pulpit. Okay, but you’re leaving something out: > [@the article](#): > > The Rev. George F. Regas did not urge parishioners at All Saints Episcopal Church to support either President Bush or John Kerry, but he was critical of the Iraq war **and Bush’s tax cuts.** Had the sermon been on one of these issues or another, it would be far less problematic: it would be as if a Baptist preacher railed against the Papacy from the pulpit, or against the Nanny State from the pulpit. I’d think that preacher was a git, but I wouldn’t call for his specific church to have their tax status pulled. But if the Baptist preacher, on the day before the election, railed against John Kerry’s Papist views and against the liberal Nanny State, I’d say they crossed a line. This church was, on the day before a major election, railing against two policies whose only common theme was their advocacy by one of the candidates. I’m having trouble seeing how that doesn’t qualify as campaigning. **Bricker** , I appreciate the clarification. I still think you’re being too quick to imply hypocrisy, though. Hypocrisy, like racism, ought to be something you accuse folks of only when there’s very strong evidence; neither should be a charge that you throw out at the start of a debate in hopes that it’ll stick. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/37 "2005-11-08T18:18:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How did you determine that they were “doing too much of it”? 😕 I didn’t. In fact, I explicitly said that I thought they probably weren’t: > [@Kimstu](#): > > They probably wouldn’t fail the “substantial-part” test because they aren’t spending that much time lobbying Are my posts not making sense or something? You and I seem to have suddenly developed a serious communciatoin prqwblxm her. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/38 "2005-11-08T18:22:36Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > You won’t see him provide a link, because that would expose the weakness of his argument. > > [In this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5029710), I called for the IRS to cancel the tax exempt status of churches who were **actively campaigning for George Bush** in the 2004 election. There is a vast difference between using the resources of a tax exempt church to organize a campaign, and expressing anti-war views from the pulpit. I see no hypocrisy in repeating my call for those churches to be sanctioned by the IRS, while at the same time being “outraged” at the persecution of a church based solely of its moral views about war. > > If \*\*Bricker \*\* thinks he has a leg to stand on, I am sure he will provide cites and arguments to support his claim that I have somehow been inconsistent. I think that link speaks for itself. In it, you criticized: [ul][li]arranging for pastors to hold voter-registration drives[/li][li]talking to various religious groups about the campaign[/li][li]holding a “citizenship Sunday” at church[/li][/ul] And suggested that this put the church’s tax-exempt status in jeopardy. Now, you’re OK with a church, on the eve of the election, speaking specifically against the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts. I believe the inconsistency is self-evident. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/39 "2005-11-08T18:26:06Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Had the sermon been on one of these issues or another, it would be far less problematic: it would be as if a Baptist preacher railed against the Papacy from the pulpit, or against the Nanny State from the pulpit. I’d think that preacher was a git, but I wouldn’t call for his specific church to have their tax status pulled. > > But if the Baptist preacher, on the day before the election, railed against John Kerry’s Papist views and against the liberal Nanny State, I’d say they crossed a line. > > This church was, on the day before a major election, railing against two policies whose only common theme was their advocacy by one of the candidates. I’m having trouble seeing how that doesn’t qualify as campaigning. I disagree LHoD, although its impossible to tell without knowing exactly what the preacher said. If its something along the lines of “The Rich should help the poor and our tax structure should reflect that” then I think thats clearly on the safe side. If he had tacked on “and Bush’s tax cuts do the opposite of that and should be opposed” then I agree he is treading towards dangerous territory. Its impossible to preach about any social issues without directly or indirectly referencing government policy. If preachers can’t speak out against war and economic equality then you have removed two pressing moral issues for them to preach about. I think that we should get rid of tax-exempt status for churches but if we are going to have it I think we ought to err on the side of allowing pastors to preach and only take action when it clearly steps over that line. The other thing that you are neglecting to mention is that these churches in **Fear Itself** ’s previous thread were being directed directly by the Bush campaign. The preachers is this case (presumably) gave his own opinion. I think that is a major difference becuase it crosses the line from pastor expressing his opinion to shill for a canidate. Its the same thing with providing material or financial aid directly to a canidate. It is no longer a church expressing its opinion but an organization campaigning for a canidate. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/40 "2005-11-08T18:29:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think that link speaks for itself. > > In it, you criticized: > > [ul][li]arranging for pastors to hold voter-registration drives[/li][li]talking to various religious groups about the campaign[/li][li]holding a “citizenship Sunday” at church[/li][/ul] > > And suggested that this put the church’s tax-exempt status in jeopardy. > > Now, you’re OK with a church, on the eve of the election, speaking specifically against the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts. > > I believe the inconsistency is self-evident. Seeing as he didn’t cite speaking out as a canidates views as grounds for losing tax exempt in the first thread I fail to see the inconsistency. His opinion, if I may take the liberty of summarizing, direct collusion between a political part and a church is not ok while a preacher preaching about a topic that pastors have been speaking of for millenia is ok. Both are valid and not contradictory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032.md?page=3)