# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/101 "2005-11-09T02:22:06Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Buh? In the same way that playing chess is not charitable, or singing at an open mic night is not charitable. Chess and singing at an open mike are something that people typically do purely for fun and entertainment. A man singing at an open mike isn’t doing it to help people in need. On the contrary, the purpose of preaching is exactly that–to help those in need. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/102 "2005-11-09T02:26:59Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > On the contrary, the purpose of preaching is exactly that–to help those in need. By that token, I can claim that my posts to the SDMB are to help those in need. You don’t know you’re in need, and don’t know that I’m helping, but I am! Lookee! ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/103 "2005-11-09T02:37:02Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > By that token, I can claim that my posts to the SDMB are to help those in need. You could. But it’s a bad analogy because there no entity analogous to the church; the priest isn’t tax exempt (he pays income tax!) but the church that pays his salary is. > [@](#): > > You don’t know you’re in need, and don’t know that I’m helping, but I am! Lookee! The people listening to the preacher typically do know they’re in need (that’s why they’re listening) and they typically know that the preacher is helping. ---
**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 9, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/104 "2005-11-09T02:41:29Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Chess and singing at an open mike are something that people typically do purely for fun and entertainment. A man singing at an open mike isn’t doing it to help people in need. > > On the contrary, the purpose of preaching is exactly that–to help those in need. Frankly, I’m not sure you’ve been to an open mic night recently–it’s hard to imagine a needier buncha people ;). The thing is, the preacher’s not offering charity: she’s offering advice, or else she’s offering a pep speech. My bartender offers me great conversation and is very insightful, but I don’t think our local watering hole should be tax-exempt. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/105 "2005-11-09T02:47:02Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Chess and singing at an open mike are something that people typically do purely for fun and entertainment. A man singing at an open mike isn’t doing it to help people in need. > > On the contrary, the purpose of preaching is exactly that–to help those in need. Yes, but much like salvation, entertainment is an intangible whose worth cannot be objectively measured. Someone who spends an evening singing to a bunch of people in a bar is doing far more good than someone trying to save their soul, in my view. Why is your intangible more charitable than mine, except for the fact that you have more of an emotional attachment to preaching than you do to singing? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/106 "2005-11-09T03:07:14Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/anti\_war\_sermonChurchs](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/anti_war_sermonChurchs) “The Internal Revenue Service has _warned_ a prominent liberal church that it could lose its tax-exempt status because of an anti-war sermon a guest preacher gave on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, _according to church officials_.” Italics mine. I’ll bet it didn’t. The IRS just plain doesn’t work that way. It _is_ quite possible that someone complained to the IRS, and the IRS sent out an inquiry letter, with the _usual boilerplate warnings_. But in order for me to believe that the IRS “warned” the Church using that rather specific language I’d have to see a certified copy of the IRS letter. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/107 "2005-11-09T03:08:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes, but much like salvation, entertainment is an intangible whose worth cannot be objectively measured. So would it be fair to say that you think something can only be “charitable” if the result can be objectively measured? And do you think that salvation is the only (perceived) result of preaching? > [@](#): > > Why is your intangible more charitable than mine, except for the fact that you have more of an emotional attachment to preaching than you do to singing? Heh. Nearly every part of the service I usually attend is sung. Even the Lord’s prayer. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/108 "2005-11-09T03:11:43Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > The thing is, the preacher’s not offering charity: she’s offering advice, or else she’s offering a pep speech. So advice and pep speeches can’t be charitable? > [@](#): > > My bartender offers me great conversation and is very insightful, but I don’t think our local watering hole should be tax-exempt. The company that employs your bartender does so to make money for itself, not to help other people. The church that employs the preacher isn’t a for-profit entity. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/109 "2005-11-09T03:19:25Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > So would it be fair to say that you think something can only be “charitable” if the result can be objectively measured? Not exactly. If you’re going to argue that certain acts ought to be treated differently under the law, I think you should have to show how they are measurably different from other acts. Singing someone a song has a value, as does a good sermon, but if you’re going to argue that one deserves a tax break and the other doesn’t, you have to show that a sermon is objectively more valuable than a song. Which you can’t do, because that value is entirely subjective: it just comes down to which you prefer. In contrast, a blanket has a concrete worth: giving someone a blanket has a greater objective value than singing them a song or preaching them a sermon: that sort of act should given a tax break. Not the other two. > [@](#): > > And do you think that salvation is the only (perceived) result of preaching? I would argue that it is the only result that is unique to preaching. Its other results (encouragment, community building, aesthetic value) can all be achieved by other means. And, again, those are all intangible benefits. How do you prove that preaching is better at providing those things than any other, taxable endeavour? ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/110 "2005-11-09T03:43:28Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No Country is the last in the list. State = Country, in this respect(Seperation of Church and State). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/111 "2005-11-09T03:44:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think anytime that a priest or minister mentions a candidate by name in the context of a political discussion, he is crossing the line. Mentioning both candidates in the same sermon doesn’t make things any better. I agree. And I think the Catholic churches under the control of the bishops who said they’d deny one of their rituals to Kerry because he is pro-choice should have lost their tax exempt status. But I don’t believe that ever happened. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/112 "2005-11-09T03:46:14Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Singing someone a song has a value, as does a good sermon, but if you’re going to argue that one deserves a tax break and the other doesn’t … I’m not arguing this. I have no problem with musical non-profits (and they do exist). If the organization isn’t motivated by profit, and its purpose is to provide free music, tax break away. My argument is that free preaching is charitable, not that free music isn’t. > [@](#): > > How do you prove that preaching is better at providing those things than any other, taxable endeavour? Those things can also be provided by non-profits. Once again, it’s not the preacher that’s tax-exempt, it’s the church. There are (secular) non-profit organizations that provide encouragement, community building, etc. Also, how is the efficiency of preaching (versus other, secular activities that provide similiar benefits) relevant to whether or not preaching is charitable? Is an act only charitable if it was better at attaining its goal then other acts with the same goal? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/113 "2005-11-09T04:02:08Z")
Preaching is not charitable. Give me a break. You’re trying to leech the definition of “charity” so that it contains no quantifiable or identifiable content. Charity is supposed to be a tangible gift of goods or practical services (medical help, education, etc.) which would be useful and benefit the public as a whole. Proselytization offers no tangible good to anybody, is not _needed_ by anybody and cannot be shown to benefit the public in any way. If anything, it can be a marginal to moderate evil, depending on the circumstances and is done primarily for the psychological gratification of the preachers not the preachees. It’s absurd to say that the government has any more business subsidizing religious proselytization any more than it should give people tax breaks for harranguing strangers with their personal UFO theories. I honestly see no appreciable difference between those two activities. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/114 "2005-11-09T04:20:07Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You’re trying to leech the definition of “charity” so that it contains no quantifiable or identifiable content. Charity is supposed to be a tangible gift of goods or practical services (medical help, education, etc.) which would be useful and benefit the public as a whole. I’ve yet to see a definition of charity that includes either of those qualifiers (or any of the other conditions you set forth in your post). You’re trying to narrow the definition of “charity” so it matches your own personal religious opinions. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/115 "2005-11-09T04:24:56Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No, but I am not naive enough to believe that it is all out of generosity. I have no problem with charity being tax-exempt but it needs to be 100% charity. > > It makes it both charity and advertising. For the record, I would apply the same standard to secular organizations and religious organizations. Then you’d see a complete end to corporate charity. All corporate charity is about advertising and PR. > [@TalonKardde](#): > > And I’m with bricker about that sermon being overly political. I don’t really have a problem with it as long as they keep a similarly strict standard for conservative churches. Churches should be grateful that they get a tax-exempt status to begin with, and if they want to say whatever they want then they should be prepared to rend unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. I was with you up until this point. I think it is a minister’s duty to stand up and denounce immorality where he sees it particularly if it is an organization of which he is a member, as he is with the United States of America. He shouldn’t be using his church to run a campaign for a candidate no, but lots of candidates visit churches around the country all the time, it’s an American institution, expecting it to not go on is ludicrous. One of the reasons that Osama bin Laden dislikes America is because of the seperation of church and state, beause the truly faithful cannot seperate their faith from any part of their being. There is kind of this secular misunderstanding that one’s relationship with God can be turned off at some point, and I do not see any reason at all to respect this belief, tolerate it yes, they are welcome to believe anything they want to believe, but as far as I am concerned secularism is a necessary evil, nothing more, something that is required until humanity has reached a level of understanding where all religions will become one. It is not fair to expect a minister to censor himself because his sermon touches on politics. Jesus was HEAVILY involved in politics. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/116 "2005-11-09T04:26:53Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > State = Country, in this respect(Seperation of Church and State). Can you tell me where you see the word “seperation” in ‘unit, corps, god, country.’? Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/117 "2005-11-09T04:31:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What I’d like to know is why, as an atheist, my tax dollars are subsidizing your house of worship. Aside from the obvious fact that there are more of you, and you can do whatever the hell you damn well want to the minority in this country, of course. They are not subsidizing my house of worship. They simply aren’t taxing it. What I’d like to know is why you think you own the rights to that land? I don’t believe in land ownership, what gives you the right to say you own that land, other than there’s more of you? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/118 "2005-11-09T04:36:32Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > I’ve yet to see a definition of charity that includes either of those qualifiers (or any of the other conditions you set forth in your post). > [@](#): > > **charity** : > > 1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. > 2. Something given to help the needy; alms. > 3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy. > 4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity. > 5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy. > 6. often Charity Christianity. The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one’s neighbors as objects of God’s love. > (_American Heritage Dictionary_) > > : a gift for humanitarian, philanthropic, or other purposes beneficial to the public (as maintaining a public building); also : an institution (as a hospital or school) or organization founded by such a gift. > (_Merriam-Webster’s_) > > 1: a foundation created to promote the public good (not for assistance to any particular individuals) 2: a kindly and lenient attitude toward people [syn: brotherly love] 3: an activity or gift that benefits the public at large. > (_Wordnet_) > > [Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=charity) What definition are you using? > [@](#): > > You’re trying to narrow the definition of “charity” so it matches your own personal religious opinions. I don’t have any personal religious opinions. I have no religion. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/119 "2005-11-09T04:50:32Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What you think they will all just up and resign instead of collecting taxes from churches? I think they’d have a problem evicting congregations from their churches. > [@](#): > > No, the taxes for the homes are for the government services associated with that home. Taxes for the church are for the government services associated with the church. There is no double taxation there. The argument I would make is that it’s God’s land first, the state’s land second. God definitely trumps the state in all circumstances. > [@](#): > > How does the government charging for the services it supplies impede someone from going to church? You can’t attend a church that is being bulldozed because it’s congregation couldn’t afford the property tax. > [@](#): > > Thats simply not true. Secular authority is clearly above religious authority in terms of the law in America. You are incorrect. Secular authority is above favoring one particular religion over another in America. This does not make it godless. Remember the tax exemption qualifies to Mosques and Temples as well. Freemasonry doesn’t receive tax exempt status because it’s not catering to everyone. The purpose of a church is to be able to catch those in the flock that have run astray, and it has helped many people who were on a treacherous path. In the end you’d be removing the churches from the places where a lot of these lost souls frequent, namely the poorer areas. The church does society a service that would be hindered by taxation. You don’t need the church personally, so you don’t care, so fuck it lets start taxing them right? But how do you know what your life would be like if those christian churches were not there to minister to junkies and alcoholics trying to get their life straight. What if there was no door like that to open to them? > [@](#): > > I know you think I am deficient but in my opinion we are a ways away from a theocracy. I disagree. Erek ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032/120 "2005-11-09T04:52:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But in this case, it’s \*\*clearly \*\*harsher criticism of Bush. Even if you ignore the part about the war, he criticized Bush’s tax cuts \*\*and \*\*his position on abortion. Were there \*\*any \*\*Kerry-specific policies that he criticized? Are you of the opinion that we should remove the tax exempt status of any church that preaches against homosexual unions, as that is clearly a Bush policy? What about churches that have sermons against abortions? As for the OP, as long as the rules are evenly applied across the board, I’m fine with a church losing their tax exempt status. I’d even be a fan of making things a bit tougher for churches, such as removing their status for things such as voter registration drives, which are usually little more than fronts for “getting the vote out” for a particular party or candidate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irs-threatens-church-for-anti-war-sermon/330032.md?page=7)