Did a California Church Lose Tax-Exempt Status for an Antiwar Sermon in 2004?

[Tarheel]

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. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

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.

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

I found this amusing since Bush OWES his re-election to the INTERVENTION OF CHURCHES.

 

[Entropy]

from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

This is ridiculous. Techniquely, you're intervening by teaching political neutrality, are they going to attack my church as well? We might convert some Bush-supporters and cause them not to vote, thereby having an effect on their campaign.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One sermon eh. Incredible.

 

[Pengwuino]

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."

Shortly before the 1992 presidential election, a church in Binghamton, N.Y., ran advertisements against Bill Clinton's candidacy, and the tax agency ruled that the congregation could not retain its tax-exempt status because it had intervened in an election.

I wonder what the newspaper article was...

 

[Skyhunter]

I wonder what the newspaper article was...

Writing an article, or giving a sermon is not the same as buying an advertisement.

 

[Pengwuino]

Writing an article, or giving a sermon is not the same as buying an advertisement.

Sounds like you know what the article/possible candidate endorsement was. Please share.

 

[Skyhunter]

Sounds like you know what the article/possible candidate endorsement was. Please share.

I don't know what the article is although I am sure you can find it if you are really interested.

I was simply pointing out that the Binghampton NY church was running newspaper ads, against Clinton, ie spending tax exampt money for political advertising. Writing an op-ed article, or preaching a sermon is quite different.

 

[Astronuc]

Writing an op-ed article, or preaching a sermon is quite different.

Explicitly endorsing a candidate or denouncing one from the pulpit could cross the line.

Criticizing a policy matter, which in the case of the Episcopal Church, is somewhat in a grey area. The issue then is how specific the criticism is.

One could denouce war in general, which would be fine, but denouncing the Iraq war with an explicit reference to the president who is running for re-election could be considered a condemnation or political criticism of the candidate, in this case Bush.

If the IRS decides to revoke tax-exempt status, this case could go to the Supreme court.

It would be interesting to see if the IRS is selectively targeting 'Liberal' churches who criticize the administrations policy, while ignoring 'fundamentalist' churches who support the administration.

So much for separation of church and state.

 

[Skyhunter]

Explicitly endorsing a candidate or denouncing one from the pulpit could cross the line.
Criticizing a policy matter, which in the case of the Episcopal Church, is somewhat in a grey area. The issue then is how specific the criticism is.
One could denouce war in general, which would be fine, but denouncing the Iraq war with an explicit reference to the president who is running for re-election could be considered a condemnation or political criticism of the candidate, in this case Bush.
If the IRS decides to revoke tax-exempt status, this case could go to the Supreme court.
It would be interesting to see if the IRS is selectively targeting 'Liberal' churches who criticize the administrations policy, while ignoring 'fundamentalist' churches who support the administration.
So much for separation of church and state.

I wonder if the church whose pastor told the congregation that that they would go to hell if they voted for kerry is being investigated?

 

[Informal Logic]

Explicitly endorsing a candidate or denouncing one from the pulpit could cross the line.
...One could denouce war in general, which would be fine
...So much for separation of church and state.

Right, if a church preaches peace and love, that would be expected. It would be nice to see churches return to religious topics in tending to the spiritual health of their flocks instead of trying to govern our country.

I wonder if the church whose pastor told the congregation that that they would go to hell if they voted for kerry is being investigated?

I think the pastor stepped down.

 

[Gokul43201]

It would be interesting to see if the IRS is selectively targeting 'Liberal' churches who criticize the administrations policy, while ignoring 'fundamentalist' churches who support the administration.

I heard from a very conservative friend that two of the three churches she goes to continuously held anti-liberal and pro-Bush sermons for most of the month leading up to the last election. This is quite common throughout the country, I'm told.

 

[SOS2008]

I heard from a very conservative friend that two of the three churches she goes to continuously held anti-liberal and pro-Bush sermons for most of the month leading up to the last election. This is quite common throughout the country, I'm told.

Yes it was, as well as email distributions, meetings at locations other than church property, etc. to avoid IRS investigation. I hope people will report these kinds of activities going forward.

 

[Astronuc]

Support Bush OR ELSE!

I'll take the OR ELSE! Thank you very much.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't know what the article is although I am sure you can find it if you are really interested.
I was simply pointing out that the Binghampton NY church was running newspaper ads, against Clinton, ie spending tax exampt money for political advertising. Writing an op-ed article, or preaching a sermon is quite different.

You are assuming it was an opinion peace or a sermon. Please, the article.

 

[Pengwuino]

I heard from a very conservative friend that two of the three churches she goes to continuously held anti-liberal and pro-Bush sermons for most of the month leading up to the last election. This is quite common throughout the country, I'm told.

But... do they have tax-exemption?

 

[SOS2008]

You are assuming it was an opinion peace or a sermon. Please, the article.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[edward]

Payback time

This whole issue is about "getting even". Liberals complained to the IRS about Jerry falwell and others of his ilk, using church funds to promote GW's re-election.

Americans United, in its July 15 complaint to the IRS, charged that Falwell appeared to have blatantly violated federal law barring tax-exempt groups from partisan politicking.

“Falwell is using his ministry to urge the election of George W. Bush and other candidates and to implore supporters to make contributions to a PAC whose purpose is to secure the election of Bush and other candidates.” Lynn wrote in the complaint to the IRS. “I believe this is intervention in a political campaign on behalf of a candidate in clear violation of federal tax law. I urge you to take appropriate action to correct this abuse of law.”

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6875&abbr=cs_

 

[SOS2008]

This whole issue is about "getting even". Liberals complained to the IRS about Jerry falwell and others of his ilk, using church funds to promote GW's re-election.
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6875&abbr=cs_

I agree one had to look far and wide to find this case in comparison to the rampant endorsements of Bush from the pulpit. Nonetheless, I believe in separation of church and state--no exception.

 

[Skyhunter]

I agree one had to look far and wide to find this case in comparison to the rampant endorsements of Bush from the pulpit. Nonetheless, I believe in separation of church and state--no exception.

I agree, if they violated the law they should lose their tax-exempt status.

They seem confident though, since they declined an offer to just admit they were wrong without losing their status.

 

[Gokul43201]

But... do they have tax-exemption?

I would think so, but I'm not sure about two of the three. I do know that one of these three churches is the World Harvest Church - which is a really huge church that is frequented by ...ummm celebrities... like Benny Hinn, and I just found out that it is tax exempt.

I Googled "world harvest church tax exempt" and found http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/08/10.html blog entry :

Here's a "news" item from Agape Press:

An Ohio pastor says Christians who are silent on the issue of homosexuality are not practicing Christ's love. In his new book, Silent No More, Rod Parsley tackles many issues facing concerned Christians, including the homosexual agenda.

Parsley, senior pastor of World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, insists that Christians have a responsibility to address and confront homosexual activism. He says being tolerant toward homosexuals does not mean remaining silent while radical homosexual activists attempt to force their lifestyle on the rest of America.

"These people teach our children in public school, they are in places of business, they live in our communities," Parsley acknowledges, "but there's a difference in tolerance and forcing others to give credence to a lifestyle that we believe is abhorrent."

That entry also linked to this USA Today article :

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-christian-cover_x.htm

and this article from the Cleveland Jewish News :

Last July, Parsley formed the Center for Moral Clarity, "a Christ-centered voice and force in the United States to help raise the standard of moral excellence and protect the Judeo-Christian values upon which our nation was founded," according to the organization's website.
...
Several months ago, Parsley's church hosted the third annual gathering of Christian pastors. Its goal: galvanize the Christian leadership to get involved in politics through the ORP. About 1,100 ministers from 80 of Ohio's 88 counties listened to Parsley and guest speaker Roy Moore, former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice ousted over his refusal to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse rotunda.

Other speakers at the church (this year) include Ann Coulter and Allen Keyes. Some memorable words from Coulter during her Q&A session at the Wolrd Harvest Church (from the http://www.freepress.org/journal.php?strFunc=display&strID=301&strJournal=34 ):

This was followed by Question 7, from a female college student asking advice on how to take back universities from liberals.

Coulter replied: "That's very simple - especially with a pretty girl like you asking the question. You must join College Republicans. I promise you a lot of men will join. And since you're in college, I got to give you a tip. It's a great way to meet heterosexual men " And there are a lot of pretty girls in College Republicans, which is why my male friends like going to my college speeches with me. "