Preaching Politics from the Pulpit

[Evo]

This isn't about Obama. It's about the flagrant abuse of authority of preachers preaching politics to their followers. People that go to church are pretty much taught since a small child that a member of the clergy is always to be trusted, if you have a problem, are in trouble, in need of direction, you should talk to your pastor, priest, rabbi, etc... These people have captive audiences that will believe to some degree everything they say.

I have nothing against a religious figure talking about religion. I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all.

This is the latest preacher that should have kept his mouth shut.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pfleger

CHICAGO - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that he was "deeply disappointed" by a supporter's sermon at his church that mocked Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Chicago activist, also apologized for last Sunday's sermon at Obama's church, in which he said Clinton's eyes welled with tears before the New Hampshire primary because she felt "entitled" to the Democratic nomination and because "there's a black man stealing my show."

In video circulating on the Internet, Pfleger said the former first lady expected to win the nomination before Obama's sudden popularity.

"She just always thought that, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white.' ... And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama." And she said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show,'" Pfleger said at Trinity United Church of Christ.

He then went on to parody Clinton, sobbing and wiping his face with a handkerchief.

"She wasn't the only one crying," he said. "There was a whole lot of white people crying."

This got on the news because it was at Obama's Church. This kind of thing seems to be going on in quite a few churches, just gauging from the churchgoers in my office.

How do you feel about preachers preaching politics?

[BobG]

I think atheists can take hope that they'll get an atheist candidate for President sooner than they think. Candidates will start to claim they're atheists just to avoid embarrassment.

[drankin]

I think preachers should be able to say anything they damn well please. It's called freedom of speech. When the government starts telling preachers what they can say and cannot say we are in trouble.

People need to take responsibility for who they trust to teach them morals and values. Not the government or whomever you were thinking would prevent a preacher from speaking his mind, Evo.

[Benzoate]

This isn't about Obama. It's about the flagrant abuse of authority of preachers preaching politics to their followers. People that go to church are pretty much taught since a small child that a member of the clergy is always to be trusted, if you have a problem, are in trouble, in need of direction, you should talk to your pastor, priest, rabbi, etc... These people have captive audiences that will believe to some degree everything they say.

I have nothing against a religious figure talking about religion. I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all.

This is the latest preacher that should have kept his mouth shut.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pfleger

This got on the news because it was at Obama's Church. This kind of thing seems to be going on in quite a few churches, just gauging from the churchgoers in my office.

How do you feel about preachers preaching politics?


I agree with you , but be realistic: You cannot control the thoughts of each individual has about their preacher. They've are going to have to make up their own minds about whether are not all their values are based on what they're preacher says. Not all clergy men who talk about politics are bad . Martin Luther King being a famous example. If he did not talk about human rights in his church and motivate people to make a social change, Jim Crow laws would still be in existence.

Sadly though, there are probably a heck of a lot more Jerry falwell's than Martin Luther Kings. Furthermore, I don't think you should attack the preacher so much. Many of these clergymen would not have the political power they've have if not fore the mindless sheep that continue support these kinds of people. What is a head without its body? Blame the sheep , not the sheperd .

The root of the problem is that a lot of people failed to think rationally about what comes out of their preacher's mouths and mindlessly eats whatever their preacher feeds them.

[Vanadium 50]

If political action is part of their religious beliefs, I have no problem with that. Society - via the state - shouldn't attempt to regulate what is preached in a church.

However, the price the church should pay is loss of its 501(c)(3) status.

[drankin]

If political action is part of their religious beliefs, I have no problem with that. Society - via the state - shouldn't attempt to regulate what is preached in a church.

However, the price the church should pay is loss of its 501(c)(3) status.

I can agree to this to some extent. If a preacher has an opinion that is political in nature then he should be able to voice it without consequence. But what of all the other non-profit organizations that are political in nature, should those go without the tax status?

Edit by Evo - I removed your reference to Jesus. This is about religions pushing political views. This is not about your favorite religion.

[Evo]

I think preachers should be able to say anything they damn well please. It's called freedom of speech. When the government starts telling preachers what they can say and cannot say we are in trouble.

People need to take responsibility for who they trust to teach them morals and values. Not the government or whomever you were thinking would prevent a preacher from speaking his mind, Evo.I disagree. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. While it is usually used to protect religion from Government, religion shouldn't be a part of politics.

http://pewforum.org/religion-politics/

[drankin]

I disagree. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. While it is usually used to protect religion from Government, religion shouldn't be a part of politics.

http://pewforum.org/religion-politics/

It's not to prevent religion from having political views it's to prevent GOVERNMENT FROM BEING RELIGIOUS. That's a compete perversion of the "seperation of church and state".

[Evo]

It's not to prevent religion from having political views it's to prevent GOVERNMENT FROM BEING RELIGIOUS. That's a compete perversion of the "seperation of church and state".Did you read what I said?

Also, since you say "it's to prevent government from being religious" you still think it's right for religious groups to try to make religion an inseparable part of politics?

[Benzoate]

I disagree. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. While it is usually used to protect religion from Government, religion shouldn't be a part of politics.

http://pewforum.org/religion-politics/

Why can't preachers expressed their political beliefs? They are citizens of this country just like everyone else. The consititution does not (or should not)allow laws to made based on religious beliefs. That is the essense seperation of church and state.

[Evo]

Why can't preachers expressed their political beliefs? They are citizens of this country just like everyone else.Of course they can express their beliefs, outside of their official capacity which is to teach the word of God. When they abuse their position within the church to push their own personal political agendas, they've gone too far, IMHO.

Go back to my OP I have nothing against a religious figure talking about religion. I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all.I feel that if the government should stay out of religion, religion should stay out of Government. I personally feel that there is way too much religious interference and control over our politicians.

[drankin]

Did you read what I said?

Also, since you say "it's to prevent government from being religious" you still think it's right for religious groups to try to make religion an inseparable part of politics?

Why shouldn't religous groups be part of politics? There is a myriad of groups that are part of politics. Why single out religous groups as opposed to environmental groups, for example? That's straight communism.

[Evo]

Why shouldn't religous groups be part of politics? There is a myriad of groups that are part of politics. Why single out religous groups as opposed to environmental groups, for example? That's straight communism.If churches want to lose their privileged status and become a lobbying group, then that's different. They want their cake and eat it too.

[Andre]

... if the government should stay out of religion, religion should stay out of Government...

100 Points. We have a long way to go.

[drankin]

If churches want to lose their priveledged status and become a lobbying group, then that's different. They want their cake and eat it too.

Think of all the non-profit NON-RELIGIOUS organizations that have political agendas. Got to strip them too.

Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean those who do should lose their right to free speech when it involves politics. Don't you see what that is?

[phyzmatix]

I think preachers should be able to say anything they damn well please. It's called freedom of speech. When the government starts telling preachers what they can say and cannot say we are in trouble.

I disagree. Preachers/reverends/ministers (whatever you call them) have a lot of sway with their followers or "flock" and can influence them immensely...I do not think it's appropriate for people in these positions to propagate or openly support a specific political candidate, party or ideal.

Apartheid (http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/53.htm) is a classic example of why religion and politics shouldn't be mixed.

[phyzmatix]

Think of all the non-profit NON-RELIGIOUS organizations that have political agendas. Got to strip them too.

Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean those who do should lose their right to free speech when it involves politics. Don't you see what that is?

Green Peace can't sabotage your chance at an afterlife if you decide to go against what they preach...You can't compare the two...Religious organisations hold a lot more power over their followers...

[Ivan Seeking]

Churches have every right to speak out on issues of morality and ethics, but when they start pushing for a particular candidate or degrading others, then they should lose their tax exempt status.

[phyzmatix]

Churches have every right to speak out on issues of morality and ethics, but when they start pushing for a particular candidate or degrading others, then they should lose their tax exempt status.

Well-said.

[drankin]

Green Peace can't sabotage your chance at an afterlife if you decide to go against what they preach...You can't compare the two...Religious organisations hold a lot more power over their followers...

But religion is not a recognized political organization. It holds no real power in itself. What you guys are suggesting is censoring belief systems. That = communism.

Fortunately, as long as the Constitution is the basis of our government, we won't see this kind of thing happen.

[Benzoate]

If churches want to lose their privileged status and become a lobbying group, then that's different. They want their cake and eat it too.

if you are inferring that are exempted from paying taxes, then yes I do agree with you. Churches should be taxed because a preacher receives a salary just like every other profession. We walk different paths when you say that the government should regulate what a preacher says if he is considered to have to much power. That facism in its sleepy form.

[drankin]

if you are inferring that are exempted from paying taxes, then yes I do agree with you. Churches should be taxed because a preacher receives a salary just like every other profession. We walk different paths when you say that the government should regulate what a preacher says if he is considered to have to much power. That facism in its sleepy form.

From what you are saying all non-profit organizations should be taxed. Because most everyone working in those organizations are getting paychecks.

[phyzmatix]

It holds no real power in itself.

:bugeye:

What you guys are suggesting is censoring belief systems.

No-one said anything about censoring people's beliefs. I have no issues with people following whatever philosophy or doctrine they please. My problem is that preachers, like teachers, are in positions of authority and can abuse this power very easily since their congregations already perceive them as people somehow "closer to divinity than your average person" and could interpret their (the preachers) personal opinions as that of whichever deity they represent. Nothing has as much power over the religious as their religions...

[Gokul43201]

In my opinion, organized religion is a government protected scam, similar to the (tax exempt) California State Homeopathic Medical Society, but much bigger and much more influential.

[drankin]

:bugeye:



No-one said anything about censoring people's beliefs. I have no issues with people following whatever philosophy or doctrine they please. My problem is that preachers, like teachers, are in positions of authority and can abuse this power very easily since their congregations already perceive them as people somehow closer to divinity than the norm and could interpret their personal opinions as that of whichever deity they represent. Nothing has as much power over the religious as their religions...

I agree they have a powerful influence. But they are not a government organization. What is being suggested here is government regulation of non-government organizations. As far as tax status, that's a different topic with it's own bag of gotchas, I don't care if churches are taxed or not. But for government to regulate what an organization, religious or otherwise, speaks to it's members is completely un-constitutional. Completely communistic.

[Ivan Seeking]

Think of all the non-profit NON-RELIGIOUS organizations that have political agendas. Got to strip them too.

Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean those who do should lose their right to free speech when it involves politics. Don't you see what that is?

I think the difference is that something like Greenpeace is exempt because it is non-profit, whereas churches are exempt because they are churches. And it is already a matter of law. Churches have been investigated and their tax-exempt status revoked.

[Benzoate]

From what you are saying all non-profit organizations should be taxed. Because most everyone working in those organizations are getting paychecks.

But some churches are making a profit. Preachers earn salaries . their are mega churches that have atm machines , book stores and gymnasiums.

[mathwonk]

I am afraid I essentially agree with gokul. It makes me sad though. i thought the civil rights movement was an exception to my opposition to church involvement with politics, but reading Taylor Branch's 3 volume history of the civil rights movement, changed my views.

In fact most of the established clergy, both black and white, including daddy king (martins own father), opposed much of the civil rights movement.

The leader of the (black) national baptist church even cast mlk jr. out of that body with all his followers, and the catholic church arranged to have activist catholics removed or called back from southern states at the request of segregationists.

most white churches in the south refused to allow integrated groups to worship, and most black churches refused to allow voter registration classes to use their buildings, and many which did had their churches burned, often by local law officers and registrars who also belonged to the KKK.

there were a few committed religious people in the movement but they generally acted against the direction of their superiors in the established churches. i.e. there do exist genuinely religious people, and they often belong to the established church, but the church establishment often does not welcome those actions which are motivated by their religious beliefs.

in the case cited, obama's pastor was not discussing religion at all in his sermon, but rather he was playing the political race card with his parishioners, whom he was underestimating and insulting by doing so.

martin luther king's experience in the civil right movements shows there is nothing new in the fact of a real leader like obama having to fight the prejudices of both races, as well as understand their frustrations, to make change feasible.

I recommend reading the recent history of the civil rights movement to illuminate this campaign. Only 40 years ago, the FBI was heavily involved, often illegally, in the harrassment of civil rights leaders, including uncovering and exposing embarrassing information.

It makes me wonder if the govt was involved in digging up tapes of reverend wright. if that sounds like nutty conspiracy theory, recall that the sanctified bobby kennedy himself approved the wiretapping and bugging of MLK Jr, and J Edgar Hoover ordered leaks of (only) the embarrassing bits. An enormous frustration of Hoover's was the fact that extensive investigation of financial matters only confirmed that MLK was extremely scrupulous in that regard, and essentially poverty stricken, with no swiss bank accounts or any other ill gotten hoards.


We have come a long way, but still have far to go.

[Evo]

What is being suggested here is government regulation of non-government organizations..No, you are the only one suggesting that.

[drankin]

No, you are the only one suggesting that.

How else do you suggest that churches are prevented, as is your opinion in the OP?

[Ivan Seeking]

Were churches prior to 1954 taxable? No, churches have never been taxable. To be taxable a church would first need to be under the jurisdiction, and therefore under the taxing authority, of the government. The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it.
http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

So if they are exercising religion, they are entitled to tax exempt status. But if they become a political machine, they are not exempt. To me it appears that this is where the separation of church and state works both ways.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against free speech. And churches are not tax exempt because they are non-profit.

[Evo]

How else do you suggest that churches are prevented, as is your opinion in the OP?By them returning to what they are supposed to be? By a public outcry that churches need to be churches and not political campaigners and lobbyists.

[Evo]

http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

So if they are exercising religion, they are entitled to tax exempt status. But if they become a political machine, they are not exempt.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against free speech.Well said again.

[drankin]

By them returning to what they are supposed to be? By a public outcry that churches need to be churches and not political campaigners and lobbyists.

Good luck with that campaign. Public outcry would have to be significant. And even then, a particular church might simply call it persecution, something they are called to suffer.

Religious leaders are always going to have political views and speak them to those that will listen. It's up to the individual to determine what they hear and won't hear. Rev Wright for example, he's a wacko but he has/had a lot of influence over his congregation but is free to speak his mind. Public outcry didn't do much to stop him.

[Gokul43201]

What is being suggested here is government regulation of non-government organizations.The government already regulates most non-government organizations - organized religion is probably among the least regulated. I would love to see Antitrust laws, Health Regulations, Consumer Protection Laws, etc. enforced on organized religion.

For starters, can we get the UDAP (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm) (Unfair & Deceptives Acts & Practices) laws to apply to Churches?

[phyzmatix]

Completely communistic.

I think this is the fourth time you mention this so obviously, living in a communist country is of great concern to you. Let's put your mind at ease a little.

According to Merriam-Webster:
[communism is] a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Which basically means that, even if government does, to some extent, regulate what religious or non-religious organisations preach to their followers, it doesn't mean you'll suddenly find yourself in a country run by the dreaded "red danger".

The UK for one has passed laws against extremist speech...I really think some situations/scenarios warrant government interference. If my neighbours suddenly start an organisation propagating the extermination of all physics students, I'd like my government to interfere...quickly...

[phyzmatix]

The government already regulates most non-government organizations - organized religion is probably among the least regulated. I would love to see Antitrust laws, Health Regulations, Consumer Protection Laws, etc. enforced on organized religion.

For starters, can we get the UDAP (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm) (Unfair & Deceptives Acts & Practices) laws to apply to Churches?

Bravo! :wink:

[lisab]

Public outcry would have to be significant.




No, it could be as quiet as the stepfalls of the parishioners leaving the church, and not coming back.

[drankin]

The UK for one has passed laws against extremist speech...I really think some situations/scenarios warrant government interference. If my neighbours suddenly start an organisation propagating the extermination of all physics students, I'd like my government to interfere...quickly...

I agree with you here, I just don't get the relationship between churches talking politics and churches talking physics student genecide.

[drankin]

I agree with you here, I just don't get the relationship between churches talking politics and churches talking physics student genecide.

And that would be "commusitic", j/k/

[drankin]

No, it could be as quiet as the stepfalls of the parishioners leaving the church, and not coming back.

That would simply happen. Noone goes to church against their will. From what I've heard (rumor), Rev Wrights church had a decline in attendance after the exposure.

[Ivan Seeking]

The government already regulates most non-government organizations - organized religion is probably among the least regulated. I would love to see Antitrust laws, Health Regulations, Consumer Protection Laws, etc. enforced on organized religion.

For starters, can we get the UDAP (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm) (Unfair & Deceptives Acts & Practices) laws to apply to Churches?

This gets pretty dangerous given that one must draw the legal line on faith.

[phyzmatix]

I agree with you here

Great! Problem solved.

I just don't get the relationship between churches talking politics and churches talking physics student genecide.

I was simply using a ridiculous concept as an example with which to try and get the point across, since I didn't want to use stereotypes that some may find offensive. The idea is that you focus on the implications of such a hypothetical situation, not to take each word literally.

[drankin]

The jist of what we have here is that because religion is influential in politics it should be denounced... by public outcry.

If that's the extent of the opposition, fair enough.

[Gokul43201]

The jist of what we have here is that because religion is influential in politics it should be denounced... by public outcry.

If that's the extent of the opposition, fair enough.Can you explain, in a little more detail, why that is fair? There must be a more complete argument behind that gist that I'm missing. After all, social science and political science classes are also influential in politics. Moreover, if religion were less influential, not for lack of trying, but simply due to incompetence, would that exempt them from denouncement?

[Art]

I find it hard to see how religion and politics can be separate. They are one and the same thing. Churches are not simply bible reading classes. Religion is about how people live their lives and the way that is decided is through politics. The state and politics are not synonyms and so I do not see any incongruity between allowing a church's leaders to express political views from the pulpit whilst still supporting the separation of church and state. They are two entirely different things.

For any non-religious person to try and define the boundaries of a religion strikes me as somewhat odd in concept and dangerous in practice. It is the members of the congregation who should have the final say on what is and what is not acceptable behaviour by their pastor and whether or not his/her opinions are in concert with whatever holy scriptures they subscribe to.

[drankin]

Can you explain, in a little more detail, why that is fair? There must be a more complete argument behind that gist that I'm missing. After all, social science and political science classes are also influential in politics. Moreover, if religion were less influential, not for lack of trying, but simply due to incompetence, would that exempt them from denouncement?

I'll try, if I understand your question. It's completely fair to openly condemn religious leaders for preaching politics to their followers. Even incite public outcry whether the religious leaders are incompetent or not. Seems fair to me.

(not sure if I'm answering your question)

[drankin]

I find it hard to see how religion and politics can be separate. They are one and the same thing. Churches are not simply bible reading classes. Religion is about how people live their lives and the way that is decided is through politics. The state and politics are not synonyms and so I do not see any incongruity between allowing a church's leaders to express political views from the pulpit whilst still supporting the separation of church and state. They are two entirely different things.

For any non-religious person to try and define the boundaries of a religion strikes me as somewhat odd in concept and dangerous in practice. It is the members of the congregation who should have the final say on what is and what is not acceptable behaviour by their pastor and whether or not his/her opinions are in concert with whatever holy scriptures they subscribe to.

Well said!

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it hard to see how religion and politics can be separate. They are one and the same thing. Churches are not simply bible reading classes. Religion is about how people live their lives and the way that is decided is through politics. The state and politics are not synonyms and so I do not see any incongruity between allowing a church's leaders to express political views from the pulpit whilst still supporting the separation of church and state. They are two entirely different things.

Not according to the IRS. I think there is a fair argument to be made that a church can act as a de facto political organization. So it is not that churches have to pay taxes, it is that for-profit political organizations do.

Otherwise, what is to stop any political entity, or any organization for that matter, from hanging a sign out saying "The Church of".

If I preach to my customers, can I be the Church of Systems Integration? Really I work for free and people just donate to my cause.

[drankin]

Not according to the IRS. I think there is a fair argument to be made that a church can act as a de facto political organization. So it is not that churches have to pay taxes, it is that for-profit political organizations do.

Otherwise, what is to stop any political entity, or any organization for that matter, from hanging a sign out saying "The Church of".

If I preach to my customers, can I be the Church of Systems Integration? Really I work for free and people just donate to my cause.

You bring up a good point. How does the government distinguish what is a church and what is not? What are the requirements to be a "church"?

[mathwonk]

this has come up also in regard to drug use, which e.g. the "native american church" used to claim was part of their heritage and religion, in the case of peyote rituals.

the current flap in texas is also relevant since some churches claim polygamy is holy in their system, as also some religions claim subjugation of females is scriptural.

these are not easy issues to settle. almost any kind of insanity has someone claiming it to be religious practice.

it may be argued that any group that declares war on anyone who dares speak words or display signs or visuals they disagree with, is not really a religion, but a dangerous group of zealots.

which in the us, brings us to laws against profanity in speech, art, literature,... communism,......

[Evo]

This guy Pfleger is freaking NUTS.

He's an embarrassment to the Roman Catholic Church.

Oh and listen to the end of the video

"we thank God for Father Micheal Pfleger and we thank God for piles of money"

Disgusting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

Obama needs to leave that church, period. Serioulsy, I don't think I can vote for a President that would remain in a church full of crazies. Obama, RUN!

[mathwonk]

evo, isn't that a little like saying those of us are crazies who stay in country run by W and cheney? the point is you dont run, you stay and try to change things.

[Evo]

evo, isn't that a little like saying those of us are crazies who stay in country run by W and cheney?I think it's much easier to leave a church if you keep saying that you disagree with the people running the show than leave a country because of a few years of a president you dislike.

Seriously, if he wants the popular vote, sticking with that church is going to hurt him. Most religious people are pretty mainstream and something like that is pretty crazy.

Who here thinks that sticking with this church helps Obama? I think he could find another church that would better suit what he claims to be about.

I'd like to see him win and I think his church will be a huge detriment to him. Kind of like being a gang member and saying you don't approve of the violence.

[Ivan Seeking]

People like this have a voice because other people agree. Same goes for the evangelists and fundamentalists. But things are changing. In the latter case, already we are seeing profound changes in the style, tone, and content of the message and activism of some right-wing churches. Now it is time to have a "come to Jesus" meeting with the left-wing churches; and in particular, churches rooted in black liberation theology. As for the Catholics, you almost have to take them priest by priest. Rome has never been able to corral US priests.

[Art]

Not according to the IRS. I think there is a fair argument to be made that a church can act as a de facto political organization. So it is not that churches have to pay taxes, it is that for-profit political organizations do.

Otherwise, what is to stop any political entity, or any organization for that matter, from hanging a sign out saying "The Church of".

If I preach to my customers, can I be the Church of Systems Integration? Really I work for free and people just donate to my cause.This is what would stop them
"Churches" Defined

The term church is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code. With the exception of the special rules for church audits, the use of the term church also includes conventions and associations of churches as well as integrated auxiliaries of a church.

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:

*
Distinct legal existence
*
Recognized creed and form of worship
*
Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
*
Formal code of doctrine and discipline
*
Distinct religious history
*
Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
*
Organization of ordained ministers
*
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
*
Literature of its own
*
Established places of workshop
*
Regular congregations
*
Regular religious services
*
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
*
Schools for the preparation of its members

The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes. http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/article/0,,id=155746,00.html

Churches are allowed to campaign on political issues. However If they have filed under 501(c)(3) then they are not allowed to endorse or attack any specific candidate.

Whether or not they need to file under 501(c)(3) to obtain tax exemption and thus put themselves under the jurisdiction of IRS regulation is a grey area as the first amendment already grants them automatic tax exemption. It says "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In support of this the IRS itself refers to Churches automatic tax exemption by listing it under mandatory exceptions,

§ 508. Special rules with respect to section 501 (c)(3) organizations

a) New organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501 (c)(3) status
Except as provided in subsection (c), an organization organized after October 9, 1969, shall not be treated as an organization described in section 501 (c)(3)—
(1) unless it has given notice to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, that it is applying for recognition of such status, or
(2) for any period before the giving of such notice, if such notice is given after the time prescribed by the Secretary by regulations for giving notice under this subsection.
(b) Presumption that organizations are private foundations
Except as provided in subsection (c), any organization (including an organization in existence on October 9, 1969) which is described in section 501 (c)(3) and which does not notify the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, that it is not a private foundation shall be presumed to be a private foundation.
(c) Exceptions
(1) Mandatory exceptions
Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to—
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, or
(B) any organization which is not a private foundation (as defined in section 509 (a)) and the gross receipts of which in each taxable year are normally not more than $5,000.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000508----000-.html

[Evo]

Anyone can be a church in the US. I remember a PF member that was going to start the church of PF. Let's not take this off topic.

[Art]

Anyone can be a church in the US. I remember a PF member that was going to start the church of PF. If you read my post you would see this is nonsense Let's not take this off topic.Let me remind you of your OP This isn't about Obama. From your later posts it clearly is!! It's about the flagrant abuse of authority of preachers preaching politics to their followers. People that go to church are pretty much taught since a small child that a member of the clergy is always to be trusted, if you have a problem, are in trouble, in need of direction, you should talk to your pastor, priest, rabbi, etc... These people have captive audiences that will believe to some degree everything they say.

I have nothing against a religious figure talking about religion. I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all.
On the subject of overstepping the boundaries several posters have questioned if they are allowed preach politics under the tax code and so it is clearly on topic to clear that matter up.

[Evo]

Art, we really don't need to know what the rules are to start a church.

The fact that priests and pastors, etc... shouldn't be supporting or disparaging politicians in a strictly political vein was the OP.

After seeing the nut in question, Obama, IMHO should RUN, not walk away from that church, shame on me for an off topic opinion in my own thread. Still, nothing to do with the subject raised in the OP.

[Gokul43201]

"Churches" Defined

The term church is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code. With the exception of the special rules for church audits, the use of the term church also includes conventions and associations of churches as well as integrated auxiliaries of a church.

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:

*
Distinct legal existence
*
Recognized creed and form of worship
*
Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
*
Formal code of doctrine and discipline
*
Distinct religious history
*
Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
*
Organization of ordained ministers
*
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
*
Literature of its own
*
Established places of workshop
*
Regular congregations
*
Regular religious services
*
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
*
Schools for the preparation of its members

The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.If those are the attributes used for identifying a religious organization, then the IRS is already violating the First Amendment by giving special treatment to Churches associated with Christianity (and maybe Judaism). Many of those characteristics may not be found in Organizations attached to other belief systems. Most other belief systems, for instance, do not have Sunday Schools to indoctrinate the young.

[Art]

Art, we really don't need to know what the rules are to start a church.

The fact that priests and pastors, etc... shouldn't be supporting or disparaging politicians in a strictly political vein was the OP.

After seeing the nut in question, Obama, IMHO should RUN, not walk away from that church, shame on me for an off topic opinion in my own thread. Still, nothing to do with the subject raised in the OP.I can understand your sentiment in relation to the outspoken views of the leader's of Obama's church but I'd temper that with the knowledge that these guys exaggerate wildly both to make their point and to hold an audience. Under all the hyperbole there is usually a genuine issue which needs to be addressed albeit their presentation style wouldn't appeal to me personally.

As for the main thrust of your argument I have already addressed the false premise that politics and religion should be kept separate in my post # 46. There is neither a theological or legal reason why this should be so and neither would it be desirable that it should be.

Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

[Evo]

I'm saying it is a flagrant abuse of authority, it's shameful, IMHO.

[Gokul43201]

As for the main thrust of your argument I have already addressed the false premise that politics and religion should be kept separate in my post # 46. There is neither a theological or legal reason why this should be so and neither would it be desirable that it should be.But you haven't addressed environmental, physiological, economical, philosophical, political or sociological reasons (or a whole host of other possible reasons). Why is it sufficient to stop at theological and legal reasoning in order to establish that something is a false premise?

[Art]

I'm saying it is a flagrant abuse of authority, it's shameful, IMHO.It is in situations like this the imperative behind Voltaire's quotation becomes apparent. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I do think Obama will in the not too distant future accuse his church of becoming radicalised and use that as an excuse to leave it. I suspect many of the congregation will follow in his wake.

[Art]

But you haven't addressed environmental, physiological, economical, philosophical, political or sociological reasons (or a whole host of other possible reasons). Why is it sufficient to stop at theological and legal reasoning in order to establish that something is a false premise?There are environmental, philosophical, economic etc. etc. political pressure groups already who lobby politicians and voters to support policies which represent their world view.

Religion is just one on a very long list of groups who try to shape society through political lobbying. It is not barred internally from doing so from it's own theology (which covers the full spectrum of it's beliefs and teachings which includes whatever subsets you care to mention) and neither is it barred externally by the law of the land. Thus the statement "politics and religion should be kept separate" is an opinion only and if presented as a fact is a false premise and so there is no logical path to subsequent conclusions based on this opening premise.

[mathwonk]

from those criteria it should be fairly easy to establish a church of linear algebra, or homological algebra, or algebraic geometry, or even a crackpot fringe church like symbolic logic, or analysis on banach spaces.

[phyzmatix]

Art, I think we need to be very specific here. ANYONE can form a church in the US since you have freedom of religion

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.''2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .''3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology.4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear,5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.

your quotes and comments only relate to whether or not they can register for tax exemption on the grounds of being a recognised institution (in other words, even though The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) is really a church and even has an official chapter at the Missouri State University, it isn't recognised (yet) as an official non-profit organisation and thus it's not eligible for tax exemption)

Also, and I'm quoting from a link provided by yourself in your post #61
(http://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=237920

The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its adminstration of this congressional ban.

In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Furthermore, if you click on [/url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf]Revenue Ruling 2007-41[/url] on the above-linked page, you'll find (on page 4) that

Individual Activity by Organization Leaders
The political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict
free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for
themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about
important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax
exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in
official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.

So, it seems that legally, there is quite a good reason to keep politics and religion separate as long as the religious organisation in question wishes to retain its tax-exempt status.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think Art's first post sums up my opinion fairly well.


I would add though that if a politician is essentially paying a church through "donations" to support him/her then both the church and politician should be investigated and punished if guilty. Of course just donating would be not enough reason since a person is likely to donate to their church and many a church take a tithe.

[Art]

Art, I think we need to be very specific here. ANYONE can form a church in the US since you have freedom of religion

your quotes and comments only relate to whether or not they can register for tax exemption on the grounds of being a recognised institution (in other words, even though The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) is really a church and even has an official chapter at the Missouri State University, it isn't recognised (yet) as an official non-profit organisation and thus it's not eligible for tax exemption) I quoted the IRS's criteria for recognising a church in the specific context of Ivan's post questioning why he could not take advantage of the tax exemptions granted to religious bodies by calling his business a church.


So, it seems that legally, there is quite a good reason to keep politics and religion separate as long as the religious organisation in question wishes to retain its tax-exempt status. Not at all. As the IRS clearly states Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

Plus of course there is the question I alluded to earlier as to whether established churches need to register under 501(c)(3) in the first place to obtain tax exemption.

[Evo]

Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation.This is saying what we've been saying.

We're saying that churches can neither endorse or campaign for or against a candidate. Which is stated in what you posted above.

What you posted says only that churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena

[phyzmatix]

Not at all. As the IRS clearly states

Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

If you continue reading it says:

The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities.

Which leads to (once you "see" political and lobbying activities)

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

and in case you wish to nit-pick about the part that says "on behalf of the organization" then I refer you again to

Individual Activity by Organization Leaders
The political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict
free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for
themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about
important issues of public policy. [B]However, for their organizations to remain tax
exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in
official organization publications or at official functions of the organization[B].

So, unless you can provide me with a definition for what the IRS calls

a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena

that will show that Pfleger's actions as noted in the OP do not constitute a breach of the above-mentioned prohibitions, I think we are done with this particular line of debate.

[Art]

This is saying what we've been saying.

We're saying that churches can neither endorse or campaign for or against a candidate. Which is stated in what you posted above.

What you posted says only that churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arenaEvo this is what you said in your OP I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all. You are now redefining your argument and channelling it into a far narrower compass which is fine but please do not try to claim this is what you said all along.

[Art]

that will show that Pfleger's actions as noted in the OP do not constitute a breach of the above-mentioned prohibitions, I think we are done with this particular line of debate.Nice strawman. I never made any mention of Pfleger's action. My bone was with the statement religion and politics are totally separate.

Now if you would like to begin a discussion on Pfleger specifically then from my understanding of the IRS rules, providing he wasn't claiming to speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church or making his speeches from their pulpits then in his capacity as a private citizen he is legally entitled to say whatever he wants so although Obama's church may be in breach of IRS regulations for inviting him to speak in their church Pfleger himself isn't.

[Secretblend]

I have just scanned through this thread quickly. I do want to say one thing.

A true church would have no thoughts of politics. Church is for a person's soul and where that soul will end up at end of time. Church has nothing to do with all aspects of life other than guiding one person to do what is right in God's eyes. If have faith in God, things will happen as God allows things to happen and we just deal with the things that happens rather is for good or for bad and to have faith in God that He is bringing or allowing things to happen that will fullfill His will. With that said, no preacher should be concerned with what is going on on the political side. He/She should only be concerned with his fellow brothers and sisters soul at end of time.

If the poeple have true desires of what God wants, their morals and their thoughts of all aspect of life other than church will guide them to do what is right to the best of their abilities and everything else will fall into place.

That is how I see how people involved in church should behave in all areas including preaching at the pulpit.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have just scanned through this thread quickly. I do want to say one thing.

A true church would have no thoughts of politics. Church is for a person's soul and where that soul will end up at end of time. Church has nothing to do with all aspects of life other than guiding one person to do what is right in God's eyes. If have faith in God, things will happen as God allows things to happen and we just deal with the things that happens rather is for good or for bad and to have faith in God that He is bringing or allowing things to happen that will fullfill His will. With that said, no preacher should be concerned with what is going on on the political side. He/She should only be concerned with his fellow brothers and sisters soul at end of time.

If the poeple have true desires of what God wants, their morals and their thoughts of all aspect of life other than church will guide them to do what is right to the best of their abilities and everything else will fall into place.

That is how I see how people involved in church should behave in all areas including preaching at the pulpit.
What church isn't involved in politics?

[Secretblend]

What church isn't involved in politics?

The one I grew up on wasn't involved. Some members may have been involved in their personal life however we didn't discuss politics as mentioned in this thread. We might have spoke of what was going on as everybody does but we didn't speak of it as in decision making way.

However, politics were never spoken about at the pulpit. Only topic involving the Bible and what the Bible speaks about.

[phyzmatix]

Now if you would like to begin a discussion on Pfleger specifically then from my understanding of the IRS rules, providing he wasn't claiming to speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church or making his speeches from their pulpits then in his capacity as a private citizen he is legally entitled to say whatever he wants so although Obama's church may be in breach of IRS regulations for inviting him to speak in their church Pfleger himself isn't.

From what you are saying, I guess then that we agree on the following:

1. There is nothing legally prohibiting religious institutions from preaching politics but said organisation(s) may lose its tax-exempt status should it choose to do so.
2. Preachers, ministers, etc have the right to their own opinions and freedom of speech but they may endanger the tax-exempt status of their organisation if they voice said opinions from the pulpit.

Since we've been debating the legalities and recognition of the tax-exempt status of religious organisations and (I think) reached an agreement, let's then get back to what Evo asked in the OP

This isn't about Obama. It's about the flagrant abuse of authority of preachers preaching politics to their followers. People that go to church are pretty much taught since a small child that a member of the clergy is always to be trusted, if you have a problem, are in trouble, in need of direction, you should talk to your pastor, priest, rabbi, etc... These people have captive audiences that will believe to some degree everything they say.

I have nothing against a religious figure talking about religion. I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all.

How do you feel about preachers preaching politics?

We've all stated how we feel and since feelings can't be further substantiated by either law or scientific fact, does that then mean this thread has run its course and we should just agree to disagree?

(Where I'd love to continue, I don't want to suddenly find myself in violation of the Forum Guidelines (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374))

[Evo]

Great job phyzmatics for finding the information. So the church Obama attends could lose their tax exempt status.

And yes, thread closed.

[Astronuc]

Obama has resigned from Trinity Church.

As Evo and Art here at PF predicted, Obama has resigned from Trinity Church.

Obama resigns from controversial church (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/obama.church/index.html)