At the very least, the church will be out a few hundred thousand bucks in legal fees, but there is an outside chance the whole church will lose tax-exempt status.
Now, I’m on record as having a relatively benign view of politicians speaking in church, but this is usually a hot topic around here, and most people seem to feel differently.
Personally, I’m of the view that the church by all rights should be allowed to keep its tax-exempt status. However, this was too close to the line according to the law, and Obama made this a problem by straying from church topics and explicitly campaigning during the speech.
He made campaign promises and policy statements - and that crossed the line.
Looks like I have a few gaps in my own education. It’s always been my understanding that prior incidents of the IRS calling tax-exempt status into question revolved around sermons to individual congregations, not speeches to national bodies of a church itself. Am I mistaken in this?
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying genocide, war and hunger aren’t church topics?
Perhaps he said “vote for me” in some part of the speech you didn’t quote. Anyhow, I thought the issue was churches endorsing a candidate, not a candidate just speaking. I skimmed the speech and did not find one instance of anyone being asked to vote for him. Mind quoting what you think the politicking is?
I have no doubt that someone complained and that the IRS is investigating, though I can’t see the WSJ article to find out who. The issue with Huckabee was that the minister specifically endorsed him, IIRC, not that he spoke in a church.
It is okay for the Republicans to garner official endorsements from the religious right, provide Federal funds to faith based programs while supporting a president who considers Jesus Christ the most influential philosopher, creationism acceptable academics, and stem cell research an assault on human life. Now, a church might be punished because a potential Democratic nominee spoke to the congregation?
There is something really wrong with this picture :rolleyes: whether there is a legal argument or not concerning the content of Obama’s speech and possible violations of tax exemption rules.
These are the IRS instructions (PDF). They are not very clear, but it appears that if a candidate campaigns, then the forum ought to be one where other candidates are similarly invited to speak.
I don’t know that the General Synod did this. Again, I’m only reporting about a complaint and an investigation, not commenting on the merits of such.
If it wasn’t a campaign appearance, then purely partisan appeals (like, say, closing Gitmo or providing universal health care) are forbidden, and the candidate is enjoined to speak in a more general fashion. It is clear at least that Obama did not do this.
I don’t think the IRS will pull the status, but let’s be clear - if they do, every single UCC church in the country loses it - not just the national body.
He specifically stated that Guantanamo should be closed. That’s a clearly political topic. Still, I don’t see how that’s any more political than abortion, and no one would claim that abortion is not a religious topic in this country.
If the content of the speech is what merited the investigation, and the speech crossed the line, what line were you talking about, if not the line between OK and not OK as far as political speech in religious settings is concerned?
Shutting Guantanamo is not just a Democratic position. Even some Repubs that slavishly follow the line want it closed.I do not agree it is a political problem but a moral one in a church where it should be.
I indicated in my OP that I wouldn’t support harsh penalties for the church, but that the content of Obama’s speech seemed to go beyond what was permissible.
Did the priests who said Kerry should not get communion for being pro-choice get investigated? I don’t recall it. I’m saying that should have been, but it would seem closer to an endorsement than inviting someone to speak.
If I were the UCC, I’d invite all the candidates. If they did, and if the others turned them down, does that make it okay? The speech was made 6 months before the first primary also.
As for me, I consider the US running a concentration camp where people are deprived of rights and sometimes tortured to be a moral issue, not a political one. But that’s just me.