Here's what happens when you remind churches not to make political endorsements

[Joe Republic]

... lest they lose their IRS tax exemption.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Joe Republic]

P.S. sorry about the clickbait title.  Trying to describe this story in 80 characters or less was nigh impossible.

[user12345]

Imagine the sh*t storm the far right media would create if the government tried to stop any of this.

[memphis]

The puppetmasters who run organized religion don't just think they are above the law. They know they are above the law and they are, rightfully, quite smug about it. Laws are for little people. Out of pure curiosity, I wish they had stated which Memphis church they contacted. It really could be any of them, black or white.

[AggregateDemand]

People can create a tax-exempt political organizations (AU is one of them), but tax-exempt churches cannot make political endorsements?

The people at AU are despicable hypocrites.

[DrScholl]

They should have named names of who sent the nasty notes. These sort of stories are pointless without calling people out directly by name.

[Replicator]

Imagine the sh*t storm the far right media would create if the government tried to stop any of this.

Far right media that went 88% for Clinton and 92% for Kerry.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is one reason why we shouldn't be granting organizations tax-exempt status.  And by that I mean all non-profits, not just religious ones.  They should be free to say what they want politically and we should be free to not support then thru a tax subsidy.

[Joe Republic]

People can create a tax-exempt political organizations (AU is one of them), but tax-exempt churches cannot make political endorsements?

The people at AU are despicable hypocrites.

AU is a house of worship now?

Also, while you might be in some position to be calling others hypocrites, you are certainly in no position to call anybody else despicable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People can create a tax-exempt political organizations (AU is one of them), but tax-exempt churches cannot make political endorsements?

The people at AU are despicable hypocrites.

AU is a house of worship now?

Joe, I presume the late hour interfered with your reading skills as AD clearly wasn't calling AU a house of worship.

AD, for them to accurately be called hypocrites, you'd need to point out some races where AU endorsed candidates.  While it's a fine line between advocating political positions and advocating political candidates, the law governing 501(c)3's makes it a fairly clear line.  So long as they don't endorse particular candidates, 501(c)3's can engage in political activity.

[AggregateDemand]

Joe, I presume the late hour interfered with your reading skills as AD clearly wasn't calling AU a house of worship.

AD, for them to accurately be called hypocrites, you'd need to point out some races where AU endorsed candidates.  While it's a fine line between advocating political positions and advocating political candidates, the law governing 501(c)3's makes it a fairly clear line.  So long as they don't endorse particular candidates, 501(c)3's can engage in political activity.

I've set up 501c3's previously, including some for religious organizations so I still have familiarity with the regulations, which actually prohibit 501c3's from intervening in any political race to support/oppose a candidate. The rule is vague and 501c3's break the rule 24/7/365, including AU. Therefore, I accuse AU of hypocrisy.

The no-endorsement-regulation is the somewhat enforceable provision within the regulations, but AU knows that churches are actually exempt from 501c3. What is AU doing, if not trying to meddle directly in the political process on behalf of complainants who have a vested interest in specific elections?

I can differentiate between the form of intervention and anti-intervention, but substance-over-form (tax doctrine) says AU are the same as other 501c3's who meddle in political races.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Imagine the sh*t storm the far right media would create if the government tried to stop any of this.

They need to just do it.

Oh, is the government skeerd? They're the government, and they're supposed to govern.

[Joe Republic]

People can create a tax-exempt political organizations (AU is one of them), but tax-exempt churches cannot make political endorsements?

The people at AU are despicable hypocrites.

AU is a house of worship now?

Joe, I presume the late hour interfered with your reading skills as AD clearly wasn't calling AU a house of worship.

No issues with reading skills here; perhaps with your deduction skills, though.  This may come as a quaint piece of trivia for you and the other Southerner, but in Normal America we have a rather important concept called 'the separation of church and state'.  The IRS helps enforce this by allowing churches to remain outside of the political sphere via tax subsidies, provided that they themselves do not stray inside the political sphere with partisan endorsements from the pulpit and whatnot.  Pretty neat system, all told.

My earlier question was to ask if AU are now considered a house of worship.  If so, then yes there's a pretty awful case of hypocrisy indeed.  If not, then you guys are both misunderstanding a pretty basic foundation of our nation's government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People can create a tax-exempt political organizations (AU is one of them), but tax-exempt churches cannot make political endorsements?

The people at AU are despicable hypocrites.

AU is a house of worship now?

Joe, I presume the late hour interfered with your reading skills as AD clearly wasn't calling AU a house of worship.

No issues with reading skills here; perhaps with your deduction skills, though.  This may come as a quaint piece of trivia for you and the other Southerner, but in Normal America we have a rather important concept called 'the separation of church and state'.  The IRS helps enforce this by allowing churches to remain outside of the political sphere via tax subsidies, provided that they themselves do not stray inside the political sphere with partisan endorsements from the pulpit and whatnot.  Pretty neat system, all told.

My earlier question was to ask if AU are now considered a house of worship.  If so, then yes there's a pretty awful case of hypocrisy indeed.  If not, then you guys are both misunderstanding a pretty basic foundation of our nation's government.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why freedom of religion exists if you think that freedom of religion means that religious groups should stay out of politics.  The principal behind the limitations on the political activities of tax-exempt churches has nothing to do with freedom of religion but that government shouldn't fund political electioneering, either directly or indirectly via tax subsidies.  Frankly, even without the politicking aspect, I'd prefer if non-profits were not granted tax loopholes but treated the same as any other organization as there a quite a few 'non-profits' that in reality are run mainly for the financial benefit of their management, but given the reality, I'll settle for as strict a limit on non-profit political activity as is achievable.

Or perhaps you have the misunderstanding that "freedom of religion" is the same as "freedom from religion".

[tpfkaw]

It's a funny country we live in, where "Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" can seamlessly become "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State," remaining all the while a sage source of perfect reason.