Politcal Partisan Ban for Churches

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Politcal Partisan Ban for Churches
5
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 2:26pm
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0611fri2-11.html


Here is an article about proposed bills to allow churches and religious organizations engage in partisan politicing.

Notice that the proposed change is for CHURCHES only. Not all 501(c) plans.

What do you think, should the ban stay for ALL non-profits, should the ban be lifted for ALL non-profits, or should should the ban be lifted for CHURCHES only, while keeping the ban for other non-profits ?

TIA

Edited 6/14/2004 2:27 pm ET ET by idramamama


Edited 6/14/2004 2:28 pm ET ET by idramamama

Avatar for emmlevin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 8:50pm
>>(BTW, I knew this law was institued in the 50's by LBJ)

I didn't and frankly was surprised that the prohibition was so recent.

As far as other non-profits go any other senator can put forth legislation to overturn those prohibitions as well.

I think I'm going to pay more attention to just what groups are tax exempt and which aren't and what they are doing.

Mary

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 3:52pm
This article does not address the fact, that pending bills only seek to remove this ban from churches; not other non-profits. If one really thinks that tax exempt organizations should be able to campaign on behalf of political candidates, then it seems to me that there should be a push to allow ALL non-profits to endorse political candidates, instead of creating a special privelege for churches that would be denied to other 501(c) organizations.

Also, this article seems to sublty imply that even issue advocacy is prohibited by the current laws. It is not.

(BTW, I knew this law was institued in the 50's by LBJ)

Avatar for emmlevin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 3:42pm
I just found out this weekend that the legistlation that restricted the practice was passed in 1954.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25099

That came as a surprise to me.

Mary

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2004
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 2:50pm
Everyone knows who the pro-choice candidate is, but just so long as you don't name him, you're okay. That's how churches get away with those "voting guides" that some of them distribute - they tell you who voted for what bills, and they tell you which bills are morally reprehensible, but they don't tell you who to vote for.

DISCLAIMER - I don't think I've actually seen one of these voting guides, so my information is second-hand at best. Anyone who actually has is invited to tell me otherwise...

Pete

"My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 2:44pm
>>>>>What churches - and other non-profits that enjoy tax exemptions - cannot do is endorse or oppose candidates or distribute partisan campaign literature.

That's a fair trade for not paying taxes<<<<<

I agree with the above statement. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If churches want to turn themselves into political cheering squads, then they need to start paying taxes.

And I have a question about the "speaking out on moral and social issues" thing. Yes, I agree, it is O.K. for my Church to tell me that abortion is sinful. But don't you think it is crossing the line for them to threaten to sanction me for voting for any candidate that supports it? Isn't that oppossing a candidate specifically rather than just talking about the issues. After all, everyone knows who the pro-abortion candidate is, now, don't we?

Alisha