You did the right thing in voting for Scott Ellis. Good for you!

I don’t have a problem with it. He apparently registered here as “Pastor”. In order to prevent being questioned later, or accused of being called a liar, adding his church’s name and phone number is not only smart, but it’s free advertising for his church. People who like his stances here may wish to go. Not a problem in my eyes. If you have a problem with that, maybe it’s something you need to pray about.

Nowhere in my post did I say, “FROM THE PULPIT” nor was that my intended meaning, so your assertions against my post are vapid. What you read into things is your problem; what I write is correct.

Lawrence, Preach it!

When designating a church (or ministry or other non-profit group) as a 501(c)X, they have to be careful not to openly endorse or promote a particular candidate, and more importantly, a particular party. This is especially true when taking simultaneous donations. For instance, saying “Bill Clinton is of the devil. Let’s stop him. Donate $500 or more today and we’ll raise up an army to defeat him”… well, that just can’t happen (although it’s been tried).

If they do so, they can jeopardize the church’s tax-exempt status, because the IRS could potentially make the argument that the church is using their donations to function more like a PAC (political action committee) which has different rules than a 501(c)3 in terms of what donations they can accept and how they can spend their money. Although most PAC’s are also non-profit, they have, however, strict rules on how much they can accept from donors. Of course, candidates get around this all the time, particularly since the introduction of 527 groups.

This has actually happened quite rarely in U.S. History (although if Doug and his ACLU buddies had their way, more than half the churches in your average town would be under attack for this type of thing). Typically, you see it when a church just goes “overboard” and creates an almost indelible impression that the church is functioning almost primarily as a campaign headquarters for a particular candidate or party. Needless to say, with the various concerns of churches, this is very rare.

One simple way for churches to get around this is to simply forgo a 501(c)3 status. Electing to become a non-profit is purely voluntary. Considering that most churches (like most businesses) could easily deduct the majority of their expenses for business purposes, the net difference would be minimal for most small churches. Few churches, however, have elected to operate as a for-profit enterprise. Many feel their donations would reduce because donors (particularly big donors) would give less since their donations would not be personally deductible. However, those churches that do are completely free from scrutiny as to their level of involvement with any political process.

Where Doug is wrong (although he’d like to be right) is by equating that the tax issue of the church with the ability of it’s pastors and elders to speak out on public issues. A pastor simply writing a letter to the editor, arguing in the town square (yeah, I know, who has town squares anymore?), or making a comment here or on any website does not in any way bind the church’s official position to the individual’s support of a particular candidate or cause.

Pastors, like any person, are free to state their employment, their church affiliation, or even wear their work clothes while in the course of public discourse.

Many thousands of pastors have been involved with movements like Operation Rescue or even the Christian Coalition. And their enemies (those who would love to silence them) have often tried without success to use their individual actions as fodder for requests to the IRS to remove their home church’s tax-exempt status.

For those interested in learning a bit more about what tax-exempt organizations can or can not do in relation to political activities (and you might be surprised how much churches can do which many are not doing), the IRS maintains a helpful guide here. Be sure to also read Pub. 557.

However, for a quick rebuttal from the IRS itself regarding Doug’s comment (see page 2 of Rev. Rul. 2007-41, 2007-25, I.R.B. 1421): “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.”

Speaking out is perfectly okay. Speaking out against a candidate, under the official business of the church (especially when combined with attempts to collect donations for the purpose of helping to support or defeat a particular candidate) is not okay.

Whether you have a dog in this race or not, you should be defending Pastor Eickhoff’s right to speak on this matter. One day you may have a religious affiliation and your right to speak may be called into question by someone. Where will your wish to be denying religious people their right to free speech be then?

Separation of church and state is not in the denial of personal freedoms: it is in the denial of state-sanctioned religions, i.e., The Church of England-type thing: an “official” church of the State of Florida; a “Church of America”, that sort of thing. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it deny religions, religious leaders, or parishioners the right to practice their religion in public or keep them from having the right to speak on political issues and candidates.

Read the Constitution, Debbie, before commenting on it and you may not have a reason for being red in the face.

Separation of church and state is highly misunderstood idea. But of all things, it doesn’t muzzle pastors. And quite frankly, if anyone’s going to have an open voice on elections, I’d argue all day that pastors should have the right of first refusal. Thankfully, we all have equal rights to participate.