Alisha Harris of World blogs on a law firm that has asked the IRS to scrutinize one of the firm’s clients, a pastor who delivered a political sermon. Harris writes that the firm, The Becket Fund, “maintains that a pastor should even be able to endorse or condemn certain candidates from the pulpit, as long as he is speaking privately to his congregation.” The tricky IRS code has only been on the books since 1954. One of the Becket Fund lawyers said, “For a hundred and seventy odd years of our history, people were allowed to speak freely without fear of losing any tax exemption and our country was not turned into a theocracy because of it, not even close.”
I agree. I don’t know what problems must be overcome in our current tax code, but I don’t understand why pastors or non-profit organization leaders must mussel themselves on specific political issues or people. People should be able to talk openly about anything, especially government.
Agreed. Though it may not be the best practice for pastors to endorse candidates (that is, at least, debatable), it is an assault on the liberties given by God, and theoretically protected by the Constitution, to deny these fundamental rights.
Actually, I’m not sure that it is.
There are many good reasons a number of churches have chosen to refuse recognition as non-profit organizations. This is because, in order to register as a tax-free charity (and thus get preferential treatment by the government), you have to agree to certain rules–that is, become in some ways accountable to “Caesar.”
Those churches that DON’T sign the agreement aren’t bound by it. They can say whatever they want, campaign however they want, &c. They just have a different tax situation, with less preferential treatment.
Whether political participation ought to be one of the terms of the agreement is another question–but saying this is a freedom of speech violation is a bit like saying my freedom of speech is taken away when I’m forced to whisper in a public library.
(Actually, come to think of it, I’ve never been forced to whisper in a public library. Which is rather sad. What’s the world coming to when even LIBRARIANS can’t be stodgy traditionalists?)
I think the issue is that, in America, we’ve always believed Jefferson’s dictum that the power to tax is the power to destroy. When a church drops its tax exemption, it may gain certain freedoms, but it puts itself at other risks.
I confess I don’t know the details of the whole system or even why some organizations can be tax-exempt. Maybe taxing an organization or exempting it is a bad idea to begin with, but I think this law firm has a point in challenging the way the tax code is being applied. We see some candidates preach in churches and never hear that the IRS came down heavy on them afterward, but we do hear that a congregation circulated an information flyer about an election and the IRS nailed them for it. I think the IRS should back off, generally speaking, and allow organization to talk about what they want.