News Preaching Politics from the Pulpit

[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 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
(https://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 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. 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, 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 arena

Evo 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)

 

[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