The IRS Says It Will Finally Enforce the Rules Barring Pastors Endorsing Candidates from the Pulpit

[riqster]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/07/17/the-irs-says-it-will-finally-enforce-the-rules-barring-pastors-from-endorsing-candidates-from-the-pulpit/

Back in November of 2012, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the IRS because of the government agency’s “failure to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.” Basically, churches were endorsing political candidates from the pulpit and the IRS wasn’t doing anything to stop it. Part of the problem was that there was a vacancy in the position which normally handled those issues.

“This is a victory, and we’re pleased with this development in which the IRS has proved to our satisfaction that it now has in place a protocol to enforce its own anti-electioneering provisions,” said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

“Of course, we have the complication of a moratorium currently in place on any IRS investigations of any tax-exempt entities, church or otherwise, due to the congressional probe of the IRS. FFRF could refile the suit if anti-electioneering provisions are not enforced in the future against rogue political churches.”

More at the link.

[closeupready]

1. Who else would love to use the "vacancy in the position" excuse

when they fail fundamentally to do what they are supposed to?

[unblock]

4. sorry i forgot our anniversary, honey. there was a vacancy in that position.

sorry i was speeding, officer. there was a vacancy in that position.

sorry i neglected to pay my taxes, your honor. there was a vacancy in that position.


hmm, doesn't seem to work for me.

[riqster]

14. Wingnuts always have a vacancy in the position...

...between their ears.

[closeupready]

25. Right, lol? I would have taken a shower, but there was a vacancy in the position.

I would have hit the brakes on red, but there was a vacancy in the position.

Oh, well, I guess the wheels of progress turn slowly.

[navarth]

37. vacancy in the position

is a good one. I'll bet that one gets used a few times.

[Crash2Parties]

116. 2012 + 2014

It was some four or five years prior to 2012 & the lawsuit mentioned that a Federal Judge had ordered them to designate a specific person to sign off on all church investigations. They simply never did, so no investigations could take place.

Kinda makes you wonder if all the GOP/TP IRS noise in the last year was a GOP-projection smoke screen to divert from what they had done (or simply to muddy the waters).

Now that there is a congressional investigation freeze on IRS investigations of the churches, this year will be another open season where priests and pastors are free to warn people about the "threat to their eternal soul" by voting Democrat.

[unblock]

2. a tiny step in the right direction. of course there's an easy way around this.

pastors doesn't personally endorse anyone, they just "open up the floor" to lay people who have "important community announcements".

those lay people then tell about congregation members who are in need of blessings and help, and the importance of voting in november to send that muslin socilist and his librul pals back to kenya.

of course the pastor never invites the known liberals up to make such announcements....

[riqster]

13. True. But any action is welcome.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. This could also put the brakes on "Souls to the Polls."

[riqster]

28. No, that is pure GOTV. The preacher can say "get on the bus and vote"

...he or she just can't add "for candidates x, y, z" and so on.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. But if S2P were shut down which party would be most impacted?

[riqster]

50. If? Obviously Dems. But the ruling doesn't allow it.

Last edited Tue Jul 29, 2014, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Like the Spartans said to Philip of Macedon, "If."

[MADem]

144. Go vote and render unto Caesar is not the same as Go vote...for So and So!!!

So long as the preacher leaves it at "Go vote" and doesn't tell them for whom they should cast their vote, it's all good.

[Swede Atlanta]

115. I agree that is a way around but.....

many poorly educated persons of all colors and lack the ability to engage in critical thought listen to their pastor. They would eat poison or dance with snakes if he/she told them to. To them their pastor has a direct line to Jesus himself.

So yes having church members share their thoughts would be somewhat effective, these people, like small children, look to someone of authority to tell them what to do.

[riqster]

121. Quite true. And conversations that are not part of the pastoral role are OK.

[unblock]

128. the pastor can always lay in on thick when introducing the lay person who will endorse a candidate.

"now please give a warm and blessed welcome for our most esteemed political analyst and friend, who we are so blessed to have in our very own congregation, whose political wisdom i know is guided by the lord himself, and whom i personally trust completely when it comes to matters of politics."

"thank you father. i have studied the candidates and the issues at great length. as you know i hold my christian values in the highest regard, and i want to cast my ballot for those candidates who best share my values. so i have come to the conclusion that my values lead me to vote straight party line republican, yet again."

[WhiteTara]

3. More republicon obstruction. They are sly and evil.

moratorium currently in place on any IRS investigations of any tax-exempt entities, church or otherwise, due to the congressional probe of the IRS.

[riqster]

12. They fight on multiple fronts.

[barbtries]

39. yep

they'll have that investigation open as long as it takes

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. Yeah because they know black pastors will try and get Dems to vote.

That's what this is about. Don't be fooled.

[riqster]

9. That branch tends to be more GOTV oriented.

The white right-wing churches tend more to the "vote for my guy" approach.

[Brother Buzz]

27. Then there's the Coalition of African-American Pastors

They use the "don't vote for that guy" approach dressed up nicely in a thinly veiled wedge issue.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/coalition-african-american-pastors

[freshwest]

34. The Eric Holder Hate is strong there...

[el_bryanto]

6. This is a step in the right direction

It's good to see.

Bryant

[riqster]

125. Yep. More steps are needed, but this is a big start,

[Skidmore]

7. And on the right, the wailing and gnashing of teeth

will commence.

[historylovr]

8. Yep.

There will be cries of "Persecution!" and "You're infringing on my religious liberty!" I mean if it works, why change tacks, right?

[Punkingal]

10. I didn't know about this lawsuit....

No wonder the Repubs are still all over the IRS. They want to keep their hands tied.

[riqster]

11. Yeah, that seems possible.

[obxhead]

15. I might actually start going to church.

Just so I can rat them out.

[riqster]

16. That is an intriguing idea.

[Baitball Blogger]

24. hee-hee.

They might figure out what I'm doing when I raise my cellphone up to record the sermon.

[riqster]

46. Be careful. The lay leader might be armed.

It's now legal in some areas to pack a piece in church.

[RussBLib]

17. another win for the FFRF!

I am proud to be a long-term member.

[riqster]

18. I may just join up.

[starroute]

19. The fundie churches have an annual defy-the-IRS event

This story about the FFR lawsuit is from a year ago:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/20/irs-faces-lawsuit-for-failing-to-enforce-church-electioneering-ban/

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Western District of Wisconsin on Monday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation against the IRS.

“If it is true that the IRS has a policy of not enforcing the prohibition on campaigning against religious organizations, then the IRS is conferring a benefit on religious organizations (the ability to participate in political campaigns) that it denies to all other 501(c)(3) organizations, including the Foundation,” Adelman wrote.

The Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from intervening or participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate.

But many churches have openly defied the ban without consequences. In an annual event called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” pastors from more than 1,000 churches have challenged the regulation by preaching about political topics. Some pastors even record their overtly partisan sermons and send them to the IRS.

[riqster]

36. That will hopefully slow down a bit, when this decision is operationalized.

[packman]

20. I live in the Florida Panhandle

and was shocked when I first moved here to see the outright and blatant endorsements churches made around election time. I remember the billboard outside a Baptist church that read, "Vote Liberal and suffer in Hell" followed up a few weeks later with " God speaks through the Righteous Party-Republicans".

[riqster]

35. Yeah, we are seeing them in Ohio as well.

Same message on other media as well.

[freshwest]

41. I live in the PNW and saw businesses posting signs saying voters would go to hell voting for Gore...

So I feel your pain!

[joeglow3]

47. That is legal

They can oppose ideas, issues, etc. They just cannot support or oppose a specific candidate.

[packman]

57. I know what you're saying

But-still-the message is loud and clear. A liberal (Democrat and whoever is on that ticket even if not named) is evil. That is really a fine, fine line there when they begin to use well-known labels . When you have a church pastor opposing welfare, birth control, and other well-identified Democratic issues, you have a church pastor endorsing a specific candidate or party. Keep politics out of the church be they ideas, issues, etc.

[Crash2Parties]

133. I was shocked

when so many Catholic priests and bishops in 2012 directly endorsed Romney and went so far as to say that voting for Obama would risk a person's "eternal soul". Everyone seems to have forgotten their newspaper editorial columns and YouTube videos proclaiming the same. My folks' parish actually sent out printed comparisons of the two candidates with the sunday bulletin & relatives across the country confirmed they'd received similar notices.

[MADem]

147. Just remember this "God speaks through righteous Republicans" is an anagram for

Republicans Egads Ugh Shot Pork
Republicans A Hotdogs Perks Ugh
Republicans Ad Huge Ghost Porks
Republicans Ad Pokers Hogs Thug
Republicans Shagged Thou Porks
Republicans Hogsheads Tug Pork

And that's using ALL the letters!! You could have a lot of fun with a church sign ....!

[7wo7rees]

21. Finally! nt

[Baitball Blogger]

22. Hallelujah!

[riqster]

33. Praise The Lord and pass the casserole.

[Squinch]

26. About time!

[riqster]

30. Got that right.

[herding cats]

29. Ever heard of The Pacific Justice Institute?

You may know them for their Prop 8 stance in California. They know every trick in the book to get around this and they have published a pamphlet to teach churches how to use them.

http://www.pacificjustice.org/uploads/1/3/1/7/13178056/thechurchandpoliticspjibooklet.pdf

From Wikipedia.

The Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is a conservative legal defense organization in California, USA.[1][2]

PJI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that provides pro bono representation in matters involving the exercise of religion and other civil liberties.[3] It is headquartered in Sacramento and has four other office locations in California, in the cities of Santa Ana, Oakland, Riverside, and San Diego.[4] It was founded in 1997[2][5] by its current president, Brad W. Dacus,[5] a graduate of the University of Texas School of Law.[6][7] It has supported the recitation of "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools,[2][8][9][10] homeschooling,[11][12] and the enforcement of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.[13][self-published source?]
In 2013, Media Matters for America described the Pacific Justice Institute as the "LGBT Misinformer Of The Year", because it had publicised a press release containing false claims against a transgender student in Colorado, as a part of the Institute's campaign against the School Success and Opportunity Act.[14]
In 2014, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the Pacific Justice Institute as a hate group.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Justice_Institute

Right Wing Watch has a plethora of articles featuring this lovely little group of haters.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/pacific-justice-institute

I'm not saying this isn't good news, just that most truly politically active churches of any size are already prepared for it.

[riqster]

31. 'Twas ever thus. Rules and rule-breakers are always playing their cat-and-mouse games.

Interesting link and post, thanks!

[Crash2Parties]

134. They lie and attack children, too.

California passed AB1266 last year, a law to protect the education and privacy of transgender kids. Guess who was right there to fight it? PJI. Figured they made five years of good salaries off Prop 8, trans kids just might be their next meal ticket. All it takes is a constant stream of scare tactics aimed at churchgoers. They tested the waters for attacking trans kids in Colorado, where they & the groups they work with went so far as to make up stories for the media and even reveal the identity of an underage transgender student. Put her on suicide watch once the hate started getting sent her way. Cristan Williams @ transadvocate.com did an amazing job of carefully documenting their tactics and lies and was responsible for so many media outlets making retractions when it turned out PJI's lies were false.

Nasty people. All in the name of God, too...

[Javaman]

32. I will now commence with the holding of the breath. nt

[riqster]

40. Please don't. Congressional Repub actions are blocking implementation.

[Javaman]

42. I knew I would start turning blue before long. ;) nt

[riqster]

45. Breathe, dammit, Fred, breathe!!!

[Terra Alta]

38. So does this mean churches can no longer give their congregation pamphlets

Detailing the difference between the candidates(such as their views on things like LGBT rights and abortion) and say "vote your Christian values" without actually endorsing a specific candidate?

The Southern Baptist church I grew up in did this all the time and I wonder how they got away with it.

[riqster]

44. I believe they can, but may have to change specific wording.

Depends on exactly how things are phrased.

[Crash2Parties]

136. Not really; a candidate does not even have to be named.

2007-25 I.R.B., p. 1424, specifically the discussion of "Issue Advocacy vs. Political Campaign Intervention."

"Even if a statement does not tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate."

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2007-41.pdf

gleaned from comments on DK,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/28/1137574/-Catholic-Church-reving-up-its-beat-down-the-Democratic-vote-operations

[riqster]

141. Thanks!

[freshwest]

48. Question: Why sue the GOP starved IRS and not the Congress?

Of course, I know they can't sue Congress, that was rhetorical. It ends up as an attack on an agency that is under Congressional control.

While this makes good press for the group suing, it does nothing to remove the theocrats from office. Sorry, but it comes off as more IRS bashing to me.

[riqster]

51. Because the IRS has almost never enforced this bit of tax law, Repub house or not.

In this case, the bashing is justified.

[freshwest]

58. And enforcement would likely be found unConstitutional by any American court of any era.

This will fail due to the First Amendment, which is very broad in its meaning and its application despite many abuses of it. The ACLU would likely oppose it, too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of tax exemption for any churches, but I've never seen anyone win against the First, and the public view of its meaning toward religion, which has always been twisted by religious voters.

Without a move to enforce atheism as Russia once did, the churches will keep thriving,no matter what they do. They have always been the alternative to all forms of government rule, and conspired and overthrown them. They outlast every government in the history of the world. And they cannot be reformed from outside forces. That's my logic.

Without strong citizen support for government by the people, we don't stand a chance of reining them in. It's depressing to me.

[riqster]

62. Possibly. Or the court could issue a very narrow ruling about political pulpit speech.

[freshwest]

110. Well, not *this* SCOTUS. They're making it up as they go along.

[riqster]

112. Yes, and some of the rectally-derived rulings have been narrowly drawn.

[jberryhill]

72. Please explain to me the First Amendment issue?

Newspapers, movie theaters, and all sorts of speech venues are taxed.

There is nothing wrong with taxing an establishment which collects money for what is essentially speech. The entertainment industry is protected in their speech by the First Amendment. They are not free from being taxed.

The tax exemption for churches is the same as for other non-profit organizations under 501(c)(3). They are tax exempt so long as they don't engage in politics.

Why do you believe the First Amendment gives some special tax-free status to churches, which it does not confer to newspapers or television stations?

[napi21]

80. AFAIK, churches and other "charities" are tax exxempt because they survive by

contributions and if that money was taxed, it's like taxing those contributors AGAIN. Double taxation, ya know.

[jberryhill]

81. So is the money paid for admission to a movie

I pay taxes on my income, and I buy a newspaper. The newspaper pays taxes on its income.

I'm not sure you understand the phrase "double taxation".

[napi21]

88. The theater is a for profit business. Charities are not. (or not supposed to be) nt

[jberryhill]

96. So what?

You seem to be confused.

First off, there are a lot of "non-profit businesses". All that means is that they don't pay shareholders. The guy who runs Goodwill Industries is extremely wealthy, for example.

Not all "non-profit businesses" are tax exempt. There are a lot of political non-profits, and they pay taxes.

"Non-profit business" is not a phrase which is congruent with "charity".

The tax code of this country provides a tax exemption to some non-profit businesses, so long as they do not participate in politics. If they participate in political activities, they pay taxes just like all political non-profits.

Churches are not tax exempt because of the First Amendment. They are tax exempt because they fall in with other non-political non-profit organizations. They LOSE that status when they participate in politics.

But your understanding is pretty amusing.

There is no difference between going to a theatrical performance, and paying money to do so, and going to a church, and paying to do so. In the first example, the money goes into the pocket of the theater owner who pays expenses and keeps the rest. In the second example, the money goes into the pockets of whomever runs the church, who pays expenses and keeps the rest.

What you are missing in your "not supposed to be" is that charities are not supposed to be endorsing politicians either. If they do, they get taxed. There is nothing special about whether it is a "church", a "fraternity", or any other species of non-profit business. In order to maintain their tax exempt status, they have to stay out of politics.

[riqster]

84. Nope. Different parties involved. The exemption is based on an assumption of charitable activities.

And is conditional based on the eschewing of political advocacy.

[Iggo]

49. Yeah, sure.

[riqster]

52. I know. It's more a baby crawl than a baby step.

[santamargarita]

53. I would love to see these damn mega-churches lose their tax status!

Starting with who ever replaced, closet boy hypocrite, Ted Haggart.

[riqster]

55. Me too.

[djean111]

54. And a lawsuit to say that this is restricting free speech is already in the wings, I would bet.

Or maybe freedom to exercise religion or some other thing. They know SCOTUS will cooperate.

[riqster]

56. There might already be one in progress.

Remember, this is not a new rule: the issue was the IRS' failure to enforce an existing rule.

[grahamhgreen]

60. It's not free. They are receiving compensation for not politicizing sermons.

[grahamhgreen]

59. About time

[riqster]

61. S'truth.

Little and late. But better'n nothing.

[DonCoquixote]

63. I will believe it when I see it

As Churches in America tend to override the government.

[djean111]

64. Yup.

[TNNurse]

65. Since many churches and "Christians"

In this country clearly defy the Constitution and separation of church and state, I suspect there will be a struggle. They are terrible Americans and I will be glad to tell them so.

If your preacher, minister, or whatever name they go by are telling you how to vote...... big hint, you are not really in a church, you are in a political meeting and you should have the integrity to admit it.

End of my sermon for the day.

[riqster]

66. Agreed.

[Iggo]

68. That's about the nicest way of putting it.

[TNNurse]

70. I am southern

My mama taught me to be nice. For a Liberal Democrat like myself living in RED East TN, it is often hard. I had a Great Aunt who taught me to say "I believe you are mistaken", not "You are wrong". It sounds nicer but it means the same thing.

[Zorra]

67. Time to start infiltrating known fascist congregations with mini-cams. nt

[riqster]

69. I like it, I like it.

There's usually some spy gizmo in SkyMall...

[Zorra]

77. There's a lot of amazing mini-spy camera technology out there these days, and

a decent set-up is not all that expensive.

Should be a relatively easy catch, if we can make it through the christo-militia services without losing our sanity.

[riqster]

78. I once dated a Brit, and she wanted to attend a tent revival. Thought it would be fascinating.

She never even made it past the entry flap. The religious weirdos freaked her out.

[jberryhill]

74. Why? Most of them post recordings or videos of their services these days

[Zorra]

95. Got any good videos of them supporting candidates, etc? It will make the job easier if you do. nt

[jberryhill]

97. Here you go

Oh, I see, you want OTHER people to go get these "hidden camera recordings" of churches, when plenty of them post their stuff right on YouTube.

[Zorra]

99. You have a problem with people investigating churches illegally supporting RW candidates? nt

[jberryhill]

103. What?

As I pointed out above, you can do so quite efficiently by going to church websites and listening to their own posted videos and audio recordings of their sermons.

That is not only easier than going to a selected church each week, but allows you to cover several churches in one go.

So, I guess if we are making paranoid accusations, you have a problem with doing so in a much more time-effective manner than what I suggested.

Okay, so, how many churches do you plan to go to this month?

[Zorra]

105. I'm still curious about why you seem to have such a problem with people investigating RW churches.

Your argument is not reasonable. Only a very few churches post their shit on line.

I'm sure you realize that.

[jberryhill]

106. I don't have a problem with it

And I checked the nuttballiest ones in my area, and they all have recordings online.

Why do you refuse to go to them and record them?

[Zorra]

108. Now you're making shit up. nt

[jberryhill]

109. Oh, okay, you have done this or plan to do it then?

Online political discussion has no shortage of "Hey, how about if somebody else does X".

I have no problem with removing their tax exemption (as noted in my comments above), but the hardcore fundies make their OWN recordings of this stuff and send it to the IRS as a dare:

http://www.speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702?utm_source=WallBuilders+Mailings&utm_campaign=fb9737110e-Pulpit+Initiative&utm_medium=email

It's not something they hide.

Here's a whackadoodle church not far from me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/delaware-church-anti-gay-marriage-sign-_n_3155761.html


Good candidate, right?

Here's the index of their recorded sermons:

http://www.glasgowchurch.com/sermonseries/

And here's their archive:

http://vimeo.com/channels/588179

Now, this is really easy, and you don't even have to get out of the chair you are in right now.

But, hey, if you think it is easier to trek on over there with a recording device every Sunday, I certainly won't stop you. But lots of churches record all of their sermons to make available to regular attendees who are sick, shut-in or missed a service for whatever reason.

[Zorra]

113. I just found out the IRS might actually FINALLY start busting christo-fascist churches for

violating their non-profit status terms. So, the question in your subject line is (as you already know) ludicrous. But yes, I am seriously considering taking action, if it has a reasonable possibility of being productive The next election is coming up shortly, putting the fear of losing money into RW hate organizations might be fun!

It looks like that bunch in the first video will be easy pickins.

The sermons from the last two links do not appear to violate the terms of non-profit status. Hate, and hate speech, is not a violation of those conditions.

I have been involved in quite a few direct actions in my lifetime; most recently, I am visible as a participant in many youtube videos of Occupy direct actions in several cities. (No, I'm not going to point myself out for you on these videos).

I really, really, don't understand what got you so upset over this idea. It's hard for me to understand why simply suggesting that "we" might consider employing action to stop RW churches from using the pulpit would elicit such a vehement negative response. Struck me as really odd, ya know? It's usually the couch sitters who flip out at the very suggestion of actually taking action; probably, I imagine, a guilt response from watching others on TV who actually do something.

Hopefully, if the IRS is serious, and we get a few of these churches get busted and lose their non-profit status, they'll stop their campaigning.

I'm done here. Buh-bye!

[Crash2Parties]

135. And the Roman Catholic Church...

Just do a YouTube search for,

bishop paprocki obama

...among others. More hints & analysis from 2012 @ DK
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/28/1137574/-Catholic-Church-reving-up-its-beat-down-the-Democratic-vote-operations

[flying-skeleton]

71. Means nothing

As much as this is a step in the right direction, it is false hope.

Any such prosecution by the IRS will involve lengthy investigations, public condemnations by the religious right etc. etc. So as a result, no gov't agency will have the stomach, let alone the will, to go down this path, least of all ... the often hated IRS.

[riqster]

76. The linked article makes it clear that no actions are impending.

But the agreement is still significant.

[GOLGO 13]

73. Is there an action number I can call to report these lawbreaking dead-enders?

I want to help in the cause of freedom from the tyranny of the church.

[riqster]

75. A couple of links:

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/How-Do-You-Report-Suspected-Tax-Fraud-Activity%3F

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Whistleblower-Informant-Award

[GOLGO 13]

90. Thank you new friend.

I want to keep my beautiful politics away from these nasty, un-American death-cults.

[Initech]

79. About damn time!

There's more than a few mega churches where I live that will definitely deserve to lose it. I'm looking at you, Saddleback. Don't let the door hit your bigoted, bully ass on the way out!

Rick Warren can join Scott Lively when they await trial at the Hague for international crimes against humanity for what they did to Uganda.

[riqster]

87. From your lips to the IRS' ear.

[Xyzse]

82. Friggin A. Really? I thought they mentioned this years back, and I haven't seen it.

So, I would love for it to happen, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[riqster]

86. The suit was filed a while back. The IRS caved recently.

[Xyzse]

102. I see. Here's to hoping, but till it happens, I am a wee bit skeptical.

[riqster]

104. Same here.

[TBF]

83. They won't endorse from the pulpit -

but they will say whatever the hell they want at the pot luck dinners, every impromptu event ...

[riqster]

85. A symbolic victory, perhaps, but still a victory.

[TBF]

89. Sure - and there are some very good humanitarian

churches out there doing good work. I do think as a whole however churches are going to have to realize at some point that they are losing members and shape up on their own. People are less and less likely to buy what they're selling at this point.

[lunasun]

91. Great

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. keep in mind that many African-American churches have played an important role on many election days

This IRS position can be used against Democrats just as well as Republicans.

[riqster]

93. GOTV and registration are not covered here.

Just advocacy on behalf of specific candidates.

[whistler162]

139. Shhhh... don't interrupt the high fiving

with thinking.

[MADem]

146. Black churches know how to walk the line--it's the wingnut churches that have trouble in that regard

And what's with the "Shhhhh" stuff?

You don't think it's a good thing that someone puts those brakes on the Boykin types?

[UTUSN]

94. R#75 & K for, excellent, EXCELLENT, *EXCELLENT*!1 n/t

[riqster]

100. Thanks!

[valerief]

98. Are some pastors going to endorse liberal candidates? Is that why they're now enforcing

the law?

[riqster]

101. I expect some have been.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

107. 30 years (at least) too late. nt

[riqster]

111. Oh yeah. Still welcome. Still significant.

[Ruby the Liberal]

114. Where do we file violations by these tax free 501c orgs?

[riqster]

122. Post 75.

[ReRe]

117. Marking this to return to...

...sort of an emergency right now. I'm afraid it will be gone by the time I get back!

This has been one of my main gripes for about 20 years: endorsing political parties (specifically Republican Party) from the pulpit. I don't go to church to hear politics. it's the main reason I don't go anymore! Back later.

[riqster]

118. Hope all turns out well.

[madokie]

119. They should have been doing this all along

we have separation of Church and State for a reason and the reason is NOT only for tax purposes.

[riqster]

123. Yep. This is like having your 100-year old uncle finally admit he's an alcoholic.

Yeah, great, but dammit, why didn't you respond to the previous 45 interventions???

[riqster]

124. Not that good, I'm afraid.

They have promised to start obeying it soon.

[Politicalboi]

126. Now we need them to

Get big money out of elections.

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.

In 1959, under the administration of Dwight Eisenhower, the meaning of this section was changed dramatically when the IRS decided the word “exclusively” could, in effect, be read as “primarily.”

This would kill the GOP come November.

[ReRe]

127. Ok...

I'm back, and I read it. First off, they have been promoting politics from the pulpit for at least two decades. It just didn't start in 2012 when FFRF sued them. And I will give this the test one of these days, since an election is coming up. (What a better time to test than now, leading up to an election!) Wish there was a number to call to report it if it happens again. (And it will, according to the right-wing-Christian Librerty Council.) Thanks, riqster. This is indeed very good news, if the IRS is telling the truth. They should forfeit their tax-free status if they are caught doing it. (Guess I'll have to take my little digital recorder with me.)
Politics does NOT belong in Church.

[riqster]

129. Check post 75 for reporting links.

Glad you're back, hope all is well.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

130. About time!!! How long did that take? nt

[riqster]

131. Too.

[whistler162]

140. Well when did African American preachers

start preaching civil rights from the pulpit?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

148. I'm sorry but I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the OP. Please explain nt

[blkmusclmachine]

132. What the "F" took you all so long?!!!

[riqster]

137. Fear is the F word in this case, I suspect.

[MADem]

138. About time.

Perhaps activists need to dress up like good cloth-coat wearing Republicans and film the basstids...because you KNOW they can't help themselves.

[riqster]

142. Not a bad idea.

[MADem]

143. Send in Aunt Bee with a camera in one of the flowers in her hat!!!

"Andy....Andy!!! You've got to arrest Reverend Wingnut--he's talking up those teapartiers again...did you hear me, Andy?!!!"

[riqster]

145. Our luck, Barney would answer the phone.