Preaching politics from the pulpit?

[Wesley]

Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit

So apparently, politics is becoming more and more prevalent in church sermons. And not just "don't vote for people who support abortion," but specific name dropping (do or don't vote for this specific candidate).

Should such a thing be allowed?
Should churches that utilize political speech loose their tax exempt status?
Is losing such a status the equivalent of violating free speech?

[shando]

Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit

So apparently, politics is becoming more and more prevalent in church sermons. And not just "don't vote for people who support abortion," but specific name dropping (do or don't vote for this specific candidate).

Should such a thing be allowed?
Should churches that utilize political speech loose their tax exempt status?
Is losing such a status the equivalent of violating free speech?

In order of your questions.

1. I am ambivalent, but would lean toward I don't care with my answers below.

2. Absolutely.

3. No.

[Wesley]

I tend to agree.

They are citing a Constitutional right to free speech, but tax-exempt status shares no such protection or mandate. It is a voluntary status that comes with restrictions you voluntarily agree to when applying for it. I see no inherent constitutional conflict here. If you want to promote specific politicians, don't apply for a tax-exempt status. If you want a tax-exempt status, be willing to avoid promoting specific politicians.

[arthursimone]

I tend to agree.

They are citing a Constitutional right to free speech, but tax-exempt status shares no such protection or mandate. It is a voluntary status that comes with restrictions you voluntarily agree to when applying for it. I see no inherent constitutional conflict here. If you want to promote specific politicians, don't apply for a tax-exempt status. If you want a tax-exempt status, be willing to avoid promoting specific politicians.

I hate everything about churches.

But in all fairness, if Sierra Club and Emily's List can be politically active nonprofits, should you apply the same standard?

[kbadr]

But in all fairness, if Sierra Club and Emily's List can be politically active nonprofits, should you apply the same standard?

Absolutely. There are certain rules and regulations that come with non-profit tax-exempt status. Play by the rules or pay taxes like the rest of the country.

[shando]

Plus I think those organizations a) can't endorse specific individuals, and b) most of that activity, if I'm not mistaken, goes through their political action committees, not their 501 c 3 entities. There are differences in how those entities are regulated.

[arclight]

Contrary to the corporate whore media myth (h/t to Regnery, Fox, etc.), this country's secular basis was due to an alliance by freethinkers (deists, agnostics, atheists, etc.) opposed to ecclesiastical rule on general principal and by Christian minorities (Baptists, Quakers, Amish, etc.) who wanted protection from the dominant modes of ecclesiastical rule, specifically from the churches of England, Holland, Rome, and Geneva.

As with much social change in America, it was a weird alliance of those who didn't want the peanut butter of religion interfering with the chocolate of government and those who didn't want the chocolate of government interfering with the peanut butter of religion. Reflecting on the last 5-600 years of European history, leaving god(s) out of the mix seemed to be a reasonable compromise since most of the emigres to America either didn't give a crap about god and wanted a potentially lucrative break from the ossified class system they were stuck in or they were religious nutjobs escaping to the New World to avoid being drowned, barbecued, or rolfed to death in order to become a local majority and drown, barbecue, or rolf to death anyone not like them (cf. the Mormon migration to Utah after the murder of Joseph Smith and the subsequent Mountain Meadows massacre, the doctrine of Blood Atonement, etc.)

That said, if churches want to get involved in the political process, they get to give up their tax exempt status just like any other secular organization. The have all the freedom of speech and freedom of religion they could ask for already, more than I can say for myself (there's no religious test for public office, provided you're a member of one of the approved religions, wink, wink...) Religiosity accounts for a great deal of our social problems so if the churches want more access to the political system, fine, let them pay for it like every other interest group. Just because you (claim to) represent the whims of some petty, violent, socially-retarded asshole desert sky-god (or Italian restaurant entree) doesn't give you a bye. Pay up or piss off. My property taxes might be a little more reasonable if all the kneeling freeloaders just a few blocks north of me were footing their fair share of the bill for fire and police protection, public works, environmental quality, the rule of law provided by the courts, and most importantly, the public schools where kids might actually learn that the physical world we live in is far more complex and interesting than anything their ancient bloody desert nomad myths could ever dream up.

So, no, churches should go about their business of lying to the credulous for a fee and leave governance to those of us here in the reality-based community.

[York99]

those who didn't want the peanut butter of religion interfering with the chocolate of government and those who didn't want the chocolate of government interfering with the peanut butter of religion.

Best something ever.