Arkansas Blog

Not to beleaguer the nuts but preaching against federal/state tax laws is a crime period.

I'm still amazed that any "pretend" christian who opens and reads the bible, albeit for show, somehow feels they have right to commit crimes against the rest of us in the name/authority of their pretentious spiritual being.

Want to love someone join a church....

Want hate someone join a church....

Want to hate and preach division join a church....

Want to preach pro-life, except prisoner's, Jew's and/or towel heads, join a church....

Want to hate Gay's join a church....

Want to hate/deny some minority group join a church

Want to deny someone their constitutional rights join a church....

Want to do anything that's goes against the government that's elected by the majority join a church....

You'll find that fundamentalists in general don't really read the Bible. They're taught by their pastors, and not questioning what they're told is part of the culture.

That's why this "free speech" movement is so dangerous. If the pastor at Fellowship Bible told those thousands of people that go there every Sunday to kill every puppy and kitten in Little Rock, we wouldn't ever have to worry about spaying and neutering again.

Anyway, no one is saying that preachers cannot preach and rail against whatever social "sin" they want to. They simply cannot endorse a political candidate from the pulpit, because then they are no longer a 501c(3) non-profit but an activist organization.

Churches are already free to speak however they want whenever they want about whatever they want. But if they endorse specific candidates, they simply put their tax-exempt status in jeopardy - like any other non-profit organization. It's an appropriate law and these folks should simply relinquish their non-profit status. The law is not just for churches. It's for any non-profit organization. If Heifer International came out with an endorsement of Mark Stodola, they would be risking their status also.

It's a good law. It protects the churches/non-profits even more than it does government. I hope the IRS chooses to enforce the law. Unfortunately, they seldom do so.

BWC, not only are the "pretend Christians" ignorant of their own text, they are ignorant of the history which created the separation of church and state. One could say they are just plain ignorant. Our own, home-grown Taliban.

I understand this is a guard against getting a tax deduction for political donations.

Donate $2,000 to Bozo for Pres and get no tax deduction. I would have to earn$2,600 at 30% tax to have $2,000 to give to Bozo.

If I donate $2,000 to church that spends the money to campaign for Bozo then I only have to earn $2,000 which I then deduct from my taxable income and my tax bill is reduced $600.

This law is to ensure that income given for campaign contributions is after tax money, not pretax.

Disclaiimer: I'm not an authority on IRS statutes or church law, but I've had some exposure.

Not to put too fine a point on a couple of things that may not be that big a deal, but:

1. Ministers (and anyone else invited to the pulpit) are free to preach for or against issues as they please. It is not against the law to preach against any given tax law. Of course, there are some limits of degree. I think it's against the law to incite insurrection or riot; but simply preaching against any given law is not against the law. At least as I understand things. But "endorsing a candidate" is a different issue. This limitation was imposed to prevent tax-deductible contributions to organizations in support of candidates and their campaigns.

2. All 501(c)(3) corporations are not-for-profit corporations, but not all not-for-profit corporations are 501(c)(3) corporations.

A corporation can file for charter as a not-for-profit without filing for special status. There are several different 501 statuses; 501(c)(3) is only one of them. Unless there are other special circumstances, churches typically fall into the (c)(3) category.

This is the part I'm not certain about, since I'm not a corporate attorney: I THINK that a corporation can lose its 501(c)(3) status WITHOUT losing its not-for-profit status.

I chartered a 501(c)(3) corporation. If we lost our 501(c)(3) status, we would still not be a for-profit corporation. We would simply not be eligible to receive tax-exempt contribtions under the 501(c)(3) authority; we could not give receipts for contributions which would enable contributors to deduct them from their income taxes.

This may be more technically academic than anyone is concerned about, but I just thought I'd mention it.

(Proof red, but not guaranteed)