http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines

So, this is interesting:</a>

Quote :

"The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election. Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS. In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. <b>Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.</b> But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster." On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church … " The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections. The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article." The IRS cited The Times story's description of the sermon as a "searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq" and noted that the sermon described "tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus.""

Apparently, then, discussing the religious implications of war is reason to make your church not tax-exempt. Now, let me start by saying that I don't think churches should be tax-exempt anyway, unless they're performing charitable operations, in which case those operations should be deductible. Otherwise, I don't see how you can justify allowing a church to be tax-exempt.

That said, however, this church is being threatened for being anti-war. I don't really think of war as politics, but in America today, apparently, being anti-war is considered "intervening in political campaigns and elections." Well, if that's how they want to play it, fine. I assume they'll next be going after

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/11/wkerry11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/ixworld.html

the catholic church for recommending that politicians not be given communion if they are pro-choice and

http://www.justicesunday.como

ther fundamentalist christian churches who support or discourage voting for certain candidates.

I mean, they'll be fair, won't they?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/11/bushs-irs-to-threaten-pope.html
AmericaBlog has an idea:

Quote :

"Perhaps we need to write the IRS and demand they do. Here's the phone number for the IRS' national media office, since we are media and all: 202-622-4000. Tell them you're looking forward to their investigating the Catholic Church's tax status, or do they only go after liberal churches And here's the chief counsel's office: 202-622-3300"

Tie up those lines, people.

11/7/2005 3:16:53 PM

So are the Quakers going to lose their tax exempt status, too?

How about Bush's denomination?

11/7/2005 3:30:48 PM

there are probably a thousand loopholes that most politically active churches know how to use to get around the law

I mean, theyre not going after the black churches that clinton, jackson, etc speak in front of right before elections either.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2005 3:46:01 PM

Maybe it's because this particular church was just careless in the way they phrased their comments. Many of the conservative churches I've seen usually say something along these lines:

Quote :

"The law won't allow me to tell you who to vote for; however, I encourage you to be sure that you vote for a candidate who values the lives of the unborne."

Actually stating a candidate's name is usually bad news, especially during a hypersensitive election. The Reverend should have said something like:

Quote :

"I encourage you, when you're in the voting polls, to vote for someone who will not send our nation wrecklessly into war. Preemption is a dangerous concept and should not be encouraged... *etc*"

Again, I think it's less that it was a "liberal church" that said it but more a careless pastor.

11/7/2005 3:53:51 PM

it wasn't even their pastor, it was a guest speaker.

11/7/2005 3:57:56 PM

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

[/cricket]

Wow, those phone lines are really clogged....

Somehow the polls are skewed enough to make those in the political minority think that they are in the majority. For examples of skewed polls, see the 2004 exit polls....

11/7/2005 4:03:12 PM

what ever happened those baptist churches that were in the news for stuff during the election? any irs trouble for them?

11/7/2005 4:05:29 PM

most churches in the south don't even apply for the tax-exempt status because the government can regulate what they say and how they meet. Most churches just pay their taxes like everyone else. At least that is the way it is around my home in the mountains....

My church does this to avoid situations like these.

11/7/2005 4:07:44 PM

Quakers have nothing to fear... I think most quakers now are a little less anti-war than before. I personally am antiwar, but understand that we can go all French on the world thinking everything will be ok. Guns are bigger and bombs can do a lot more damage then back in the day of George Fox

11/7/2005 5:06:15 PM

Quote :

"Apparently, then, discussing the religious implications of war is reason to make your church not tax-exempt."

If the minister in question had done that, you'd have a point, and a darn good one. But what he said was:

Quote :

"Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."

There is nothing remotely religious in that statement. It is purely political.

Of course, one purely political statement from a minister shouldn't cause a church to lose its tax-exempt status, either, but let's at least call a spade a spade, shall we?

And, of course, at some point we have to establish the boundary: how many political speeches have to be given to a congregation before a church stops being a church and starts becoming a liberal (or conservative) circle-jerk?

11/7/2005 5:10:59 PM

wait,

someone get us a link to the GOP efforts to mobilize fundie churches.

11/7/2005 5:21:18 PM

Quote :

"TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter F > PART I > § 501 Prev | Next § 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. Release date: 2005-08-31 (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. (b) Tax on unrelated business income and certain other activities An organization exempt from taxation under subsection (a) shall be subject to tax to the extent provided in parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter, but (notwithstanding parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter) shall be considered an organization exempt from income taxes for the purpose of any law which refers to organizations exempt from income taxes. (c) List of exempt organizations The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a): (1) Any corporation organized under Act of Congress which is an instrumentality of the United States but only if such corporation— (A) is exempt from Federal income taxes— (i) under such Act as amended and supplemented before July 18, 1984, or (ii) under this title without regard to any provision of law which is not contained in this title and which is not contained in a revenue Act, or (B) is described in subsection (l). (2) Corporations organized for the exclusive purpose of holding title to property, collecting income therefrom, and turning over the entire amount thereof, less expenses, to an organization which itself is exempt under this section. Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (25) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. (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."

11/7/2005 8:59:15 PM

While I don't disagree with the law, I think it's fucking ridiculous to single out one church. So many churches talk about politics, give out voting guides, et cetera. wtf?

11/7/2005 9:04:10 PM

So all those churches that President Bush campaigned in should also loose their tax exempt status!

oh, wait, but they were for Bush! So I guess it must be ok in that situation...

Its sad that the governement has become so arbitrary and capricious especially now, thanks to President Bush!

11/7/2005 9:12:17 PM

Don't know if I'd lay all the blame on Bush, and I can't stand that cunt.

Yank all the tax-exemptions for all the churches for all I care. With churches getting the size they are now they're now businesses in competion with private services, not to mention the land they aren't paying taxes on.

Dem or Repub, it doesn't matter to me. They should keep this shit out of churches or ante up like the rest of us.

11/7/2005 9:17:03 PM

Quote :

"Tell them you're looking forward to their investigating the Catholic Church's tax status, or do they only go after liberal churches"

ummm k

11/7/2005 11:32:57 PM

FYI: Exemption Requirements
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

Quote :

"To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."

When did this "sermon" take place? Nov 1, 2004? They are talking about the already elected president. I don't see how this can fall under a campaign umbrella. And in response to to the question about why the IRS (read - not Bush deciding who to go after and who not to go after - seriously the IRS is going to go after anyone with money) doesn't look into the churches that you see Bush, Clinton, Sharpton, Jackson, etc. campaigning from - maybe they are not tax exempt.

I think corporate tax loopholes are a bigger problem than tax exempt churches, go figure.

11/8/2005 7:27:09 AM

Quote :

"there are probably a thousand loopholes that most politically active churches know how to use to get around the law I mean, theyre not going after the black churches that clinton, jackson, etc speak in front of right before elections either. "

"Political speaches" at churches, even those directly related to an election campaign, that keep people locked into the fake left-right paradigm are ok as far as the FEDs are concerned. That is no threat to the agenda of the elite that control the government. The elite control both parties, and both parties implement their agenda.

Quote :

"The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election."

They are using the IRS to intimidate this church because they are speaking out against the elite's agenda...IE, THE IRAQ WAR. This kind of speech at a church is a hindrance to their plans and agenda. They don't want this kind of speech to spread to other churches around the country (even though it does NOT violate the applicable psuedo-law related to tax-exempt status). Therefore, they need to intimidate a few churches in high-profile cases, and have their controlled media broadcast it to make sure other churches get the message.

Oh, by the way, as I'm sure you've noticed....both the republiCONS and democRATS are in favor of the war in Iraq.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 9:59 AM. Reason : 1]

11/8/2005 9:56:59 AM

Quote :

"When did this "sermon" take place? Nov 1, 2004? They are talking about the already elected president."

you do realize that election day will NEVER be November 1st, right? The sermon was on Oct 31, 2004, TWO FUCKING DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, DIPSHIT. That is a HUGE political statement right there, and its not even covert or subtle. Its one thing to say "war is bad, and we should try and avoid it, especially pre-emptively." Its entirely another thing to say "DUBYA, YOUR WAR IS BAD AND ILLEGAL AND SADDAM POSED NO THREAT!"

Quote :

"the catholic church for recommending that politicians not be given communion if they are pro-choice"

note the inherent difference here. The catholic church, as a whole, is saying "if you hold this viewpoint, then you are not welcome here." That is distinctively different than PREACHING against any candidates or their policies. Its a grey-area, to be sure, but it is certainly different than the aforementioned case. Plus, the pro-choice / pro-life issue is not strictly a party-affiliation issue, but truly is a moral issue, something which I think the church is qualified to use as a basis for restriction of membership (ie, communion). And while ant-war / pro-war is also not a partisan issue, there is far less of a moral issue than is abortion, and its far more likely to be intertwined w/ politics as well...

Quote :

"ther fundamentalist christian churches who support or discourage voting for certain candidates."

hey, take em out, especially if they are naming names or giving a list of who to vote for. However, simply saying "this church believes that, according to established doctrine, such and such a principle would be contrary to our faith" shouldn't be grounds for losing tax-exempt status. Saying "supporting political doctrine X is wrong," however, should be grounds for losing the status.

Quote :

"what ever happened those baptist churches that were in the news for stuff during the election? any irs trouble for them?"

well, considering that there haven't been any cases mentioned where the church itself gave a directory to the bush campaign, then I don't think there is a problem. Individual members doing so? Not a problem. The church urging individual members to do so? That would be a problem...

Quote :

"Quakers have nothing to fear..."

yep. especially since they are a group which is traditionally against any war, not just the wars waged by a particular politician or political party.

Quote :

"So all those churches that President Bush campaigned in should also loose their tax exempt status!"

then I suppose the ones where Jesse Jackson and Clinton campaigned should also lose their status, right? come on... a church is a perfect gathering place for people, so it makes perfect sense for a politician to use the building for just that. using the pulpit to spread his message is quite different. I do hope you can comprehend the difference between the literal building and the figurative pulpit.

Quote :

"With churches getting the size they are now they're now businesses in competion with private services"

remind me again what "business" churches conduct? are they selling sweatshirts for a profit or something? Are they manufacturing widgets? come on, man...

11/8/2005 10:05:30 AM

Quote :

"you do realize that election day will NEVER be November 1st, right? The sermon was on Oct 31, 2004"

My bad. For some reason I had 2005 in my head. I mean why is this coming out almost exactly a year later? No need to go postal. That is why I was asking when the sermon was.


[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 10:30 AM. Reason : -]

11/8/2005 10:28:47 AM

aight. I'd still have issues with the sermon if it had been delivered seven days ago as well, though.

11/8/2005 11:00:00 AM

Stepping in on churches would hurt Dems as much as it does Republicans, maybe even more. Black churches are very evective at getting people out to vote and in a state were over 95% of blacks vote Democrat its gonna be felt if their political advocacy is limited.

I do know that I've never heard my pastor mention public policy in any manner. Regardless of who is in office they do remind people to pray for those making decisions and for the men and women who are in harms way. We did have one guy in our fellowship group who started sending Dobson/Family group boycott emails around and it was quickly stopped. Most of the people I know at church want no mixing of their church and politics.

11/8/2005 11:03:27 AM

The elite that control the government and both parties don't care if political speeches are given to keep people locked into the phony left/right, republican/democrat paradigm. They care if speeches are given in churches that hinder or go against their agenda.

They admitted they're going after this church because of an anti-war speech. That's why they've sicked the IRS on them. This explains the lack of speech against abortion (and speech concerning other issues) in churches. The churches know not to go there (or go too far) or they'll have the IRS nocking at their door as well.

11/8/2005 11:20:33 AM

gtfo

11/8/2005 2:57:05 PM

Quote :

"With churches getting the size they are now they're now businesses in competion with private services"

How so? Are churches selling office furniture now?

11/8/2005 3:40:45 PM

Maybe!

11/8/2005 3:41:59 PM

Poor use of words on my part, I freely admit after reading my first post. I was aiming more toward how churches, especially large ones, are making bank for their own properties and promotion than for any altruisitic outcomes. Think televangelism.

When a church has their own McDonald's in the foyer, non-profit status goes out the window.

Again, sorry for the dipshit sentence.

11/8/2005 4:40:36 PM

i am quite interested in seeing a church with a "McDonald's in the foyer." and I don't feel like googling it. Televangelists are quite a different breed than the regular church in america. Televangelists are usually about making money... thus, they should be taxed.

11/8/2005 4:53:06 PM

http://www.christianpost.com/article/church/2216/section/intentional.evangelism.and.holistic.ministry.is.key.to.mega-church.success/1.htm


2/3's of the way down.

Quote :

"Televangelists are usually about making money... thus, they should be taxed."

What's the fucking difference?

11/8/2005 7:45:08 PM

It never ceases to entertain me to watch, ah, certain camps when they see someone making money: they just have this insatiable urge to take it away.

Ultimately it appears that you hold your position simply because you do not like certain types of religious institutions, and that's not really tenable. I don't like all kinds of sects, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start punishing some/all of them.

11/9/2005 1:27:23 AM

Quote :

"It never ceases to entertain me to watch, ah, certain camps when they see someone making money: they just have this insatiable urge to take it away."

What a fucking cop out. If Joe Donuts makes money he's taxed on those profits. What's the problem with taxing churches who make Tejas bank as televangelists?

I'm not an damn atheist by any stretch, but qualifying all churches as totally non-profit is silly.

11/9/2005 8:28:51 AM

Not all churches are tax-exempt nonprofit, dumbass. Also, simply because a church "makes bank" doesn't mean they are no longer not-for-profit. Take away status for United Way, NAACP, and other charities/organization first if you think churches have crossed the line.

11/9/2005 9:35:34 AM