Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at this pastor using his church for political purposes. Can anybody tell me what language he is using to pray?

MLK used his pulpit for political purposes.

Abolitionists used their pulpit for political purposes.

Quakers use their pulpits for political purposes.

Politics and faith are very entwined, especially for social justice issues (left and right issues).

The difference lies in whether they approach everyone with a social justice issue (petition for some issue) or they promote a specific candidate (doesn’t matter who).

MLK fought for civil rights through non-violence. Social justice, trying to change hearts and minds, not win seats in Congress.

Abolitionists (many Quaker) fought for an end to slavery, some through non-violence, some with violence. Again, they were fighting for freedom, not seats.

Quakers don’t have pulpits... Feel free to come down to a meeting, you might find it enlightening! Anyone who feels called to speak may do so, but yes, the issues raised are usually social justice and equality, because core to the Friends’ theology is that all have God within, so all are equal in God’s eyes. It’s also why you will never see anyone speak for all Friends everywhere without a meeting first, because we can’t know everyone’s mind without a poll or consensus.

Catholics fight for an end to abortion. I don’t have an issue with that, as long as specific candidates aren’t endorsed.

Central tenets to our faith (in)form our views on morality, ethics, and politics. It’s inescapable. Issues only arise when we go from discussing issues to endorsing (or deriding) specific political figures from a religious authority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pastor has every right to express his first amendment-protected beliefs. This has nothing to do with separation of church and state

To maintain their tax-exempt status, religious institutions should stay out of politics.

Except none of them do. So they should ALL lose that status.

100% agree.

Anonymous wrote:Not-for-profit organizations can do a limited amount of lobbying. The tax rules are apparently very complicated. I don’t pretend to know how this works, but apparently we can use about 30% of our time and resources for lobbying.

I’ve worked at two not-for-profits and they’ve handled the limits differently. The first handled this by only letting the lobbyists lobby—the rest of us couldn’t visit Capitol Hill unless accompanied by one of our lobbyists and then we were presenting our balanced research. In my current workplace, some of can lobby, but we have to fight for permission from senior management which carefully guards lobbing rights.

So I’m going to guess that if this pastor spends the bulk of his time tending to his flock instead of campaigning, then all is well. Heck, even the sermon is generally less than 1/3 of a service.

"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

"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."

Lobbying and campaigning are not the same thing. One seeks to influence legislators, the other seeks to influence voters.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Not-for-profit organizations can do a limited amount of lobbying. The tax rules are apparently very complicated. I don’t pretend to know how this works, but apparently we can use about 30% of our time and resources for lobbying.

I’ve worked at two not-for-profits and they’ve handled the limits differently. The first handled this by only letting the lobbyists lobby—the rest of us couldn’t visit Capitol Hill unless accompanied by one of our lobbyists and then we were presenting our balanced research. In my current workplace, some of can lobby, but we have to fight for permission from senior management which carefully guards lobbing rights.

So I’m going to guess that if this pastor spends the bulk of his time tending to his flock instead of campaigning, then all is well. Heck, even the sermon is generally less than 1/3 of a service.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you are confusing "being involved and vocal on social and political issues" and "supporting a candidate"
Churches can do either or both. The former can lose them their tax exempt status. The latter can't.

You've got that exactly backwards. Endorsing a candidate or political party is prohibited partisan activity. Being involved and vocal on social and political issues is not. A church can be active against abortion, or against apartheid, or against racist government policies, or against anti-immigrant policies, or in support of universal health care or prayer in schools or environmental protections.

This thread is looking at this issue about tax exemption somewhat backwards.

Any organization that is active in politics cannot by law be set up as a tax exempt non-profit. That doesn't mean the organization can't facilitate discussions about political issues or even advocate for a particular position or host candidates or speakers espousing a particular point of view. But the organization itself cannot explicitly endorse a candidate unless they want to lose their tax exempt status.

But liberal tax exempt organizations endorse political candidates all the time. I am sure conservative ones do as well, but the liberal endorsements are more prominent.

For example:

The Sierra Club
https://www.sierraclub.org/california/2018-endorsements

Planned Parenthood endorsements
http://www.ppactionca.org/voter-resources/voter-guides/

They have separate entities that do the endorsing. Most non-profits do.

Out of curiosity, I went to the Sierra Club donation link, and it states that "Contributions, donations, gifts, and dues to the Sierra Club are not tax deductible. They support our effective, citizen-based advocacy and lobbying efforts. The Sierra Club is a non-profit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(4) organization."

Ditto for the ACLU--it's a 501(c)(4) organization engaged in lobbying. Donations to the ACLU Foundation are tax-deductible, however, because it's a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in public education and litigation.

A 501(c)(4) organization "must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare." "To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)." "Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." "The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f)."

You can bet that organizations like the Sierra Club know and follow the rules. On their endorsements page, they note "Sierra Club California's tax exemption status - 501(c)(4) - allows us to make endorsements for candidates and ballot measures." But most of what they do is things like organize campaigns to contact government officials, provide materials to government officials (information, talking points, fact sheets.), attend and testify at hearings, investigate and publish reports and other materials to educate the public, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you are confusing "being involved and vocal on social and political issues" and "supporting a candidate"
Churches can do either or both. The former can lose them their tax exempt status. The latter can't.

You've got that exactly backwards. Endorsing a candidate or political party is prohibited partisan activity. Being involved and vocal on social and political issues is not. A church can be active against abortion, or against apartheid, or against racist government policies, or against anti-immigrant policies, or in support of universal health care or prayer in schools or environmental protections.

This thread is looking at this issue about tax exemption somewhat backwards.

Any organization that is active in politics cannot by law be set up as a tax exempt non-profit. That doesn't mean the organization can't facilitate discussions about political issues or even advocate for a particular position or host candidates or speakers espousing a particular point of view. But the organization itself cannot explicitly endorse a candidate unless they want to lose their tax exempt status.

But liberal tax exempt organizations endorse political candidates all the time. I am sure conservative ones do as well, but the liberal endorsements are more prominent.

For example:

The Sierra Club
https://www.sierraclub.org/california/2018-endorsements

Planned Parenthood endorsements
http://www.ppactionca.org/voter-resources/voter-guides/

They have separate entities that do the endorsing. Most non-profits do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pastor has every right to express his first amendment-protected beliefs. This has nothing to do with separation of church and state

To maintain their tax-exempt status, religious institutions should stay out of politics.

Except none of them do. So they should ALL lose that status.

Sounds good to me.

+1

Tax ‘em all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you are confusing "being involved and vocal on social and political issues" and "supporting a candidate"
Churches can do either or both. The former can lose them their tax exempt status. The latter can't.

You've got that exactly backwards. Endorsing a candidate or political party is prohibited partisan activity. Being involved and vocal on social and political issues is not. A church can be active against abortion, or against apartheid, or against racist government policies, or against anti-immigrant policies, or in support of universal health care or prayer in schools or environmental protections.

This thread is looking at this issue about tax exemption somewhat backwards.

Any organization that is active in politics cannot by law be set up as a tax exempt non-profit. That doesn't mean the organization can't facilitate discussions about political issues or even advocate for a particular position or host candidates or speakers espousing a particular point of view. But the organization itself cannot explicitly endorse a candidate unless they want to lose their tax exempt status.

But liberal tax exempt organizations endorse political candidates all the time. I am sure conservative ones do as well, but the liberal endorsements are more prominent.

For example:

The Sierra Club
https://www.sierraclub.org/california/2018-endorsements

Planned Parenthood endorsements
http://www.ppactionca.org/voter-resources/voter-guides/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you are confusing "being involved and vocal on social and political issues" and "supporting a candidate"
Churches can do either or both. The former can lose them their tax exempt status. The latter can't.

So UUs should lose their tax exempt status?

Just making sure I understand your position.

It’s not a position, it’s a law. Although I think this person has it backwards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of you are confusing "being involved and vocal on social and political issues" and "supporting a candidate"
Churches can do either or both. The former can lose them their tax exempt status. The latter can't.

You've got that exactly backwards. Endorsing a candidate or political party is prohibited partisan activity. Being involved and vocal on social and political issues is not. A church can be active against abortion, or against apartheid, or against racist government policies, or against anti-immigrant policies, or in support of universal health care or prayer in schools or environmental protections.

This thread is looking at this issue about tax exemption somewhat backwards.

Any organization that is active in politics cannot by law be set up as a tax exempt non-profit. That doesn't mean the organization can't facilitate discussions about political issues or even advocate for a particular position or host candidates or speakers espousing a particular point of view. But the organization itself cannot explicitly endorse a candidate unless they want to lose their tax exempt status.

Anonymous wrote:Many of you are confusing "being involved and vocal on social and political issues" and "supporting a candidate"
Churches can do either or both. The former can lose them their tax exempt status. The latter can't.

You've got that exactly backwards. Endorsing a candidate or political party is prohibited partisan activity. Being involved and vocal on social and political issues is not. A church can be active against abortion, or against apartheid, or against racist government policies, or against anti-immigrant policies, or in support of universal health care or prayer in schools or environmental protections.

I don't think OP understands separation between church and state. Religious organizations, as tax-exempt entities, aren't supposed to endorse particular political parties, or they risk losing their tax-exempt status. That's different from separation between church and state, which is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Not the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Agreed. I just think it’s funny how entire denominations are devoted to social justice and that’s ok, but if another church/pastor supports Trump it’s suddenly political and is not allowed because it’s “politics” and churches aren’t supposed to be political. The UU magazine articles is published by UU and if that’s not “politics” then whatever.

Traditionally, they can support a cause but not a candidate. So catholic churches can be anti-abortion, which I'm sure is fine with you, but should not be pro-trump.

So UUs cannot be anti Trump?

Anonymous wrote:Many of you are confusing "being involved and vocal on social and political issues" and "supporting a candidate"
Churches can do either or both. The former can lose them their tax exempt status. The latter can't.

So UUs should lose their tax exempt status?

Just making sure I understand your position.

Anonymous wrote:Look at this pastor using his church for political purposes. Can anybody tell me what language he is using to pray?

MLK used his pulpit for political purposes.

Abolitionists used their pulpit for political purposes.

Quakers use their pulpits for political purposes.

Politics and faith are very entwined, especially for social justice issues (left and right issues).