Comments:US pastors plan to defy law and endorse candidates

Not on my tax dollars
There's no reason people can't freely give sermons about who they endorse. But when they are taking taxpayer money (and that's what being tax-exempt basically is: the government takes more money from the rest of us to give special privileges to churches) to influence politics, that's just wrong. There is no "right" for churches to be tax-exempt. They should consider themselves lucky they get that at all. --Poisonous (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that your faith be subject to taxation? Kamnet (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. It's not faith that will be subject to taxation. It's the churches who receive a tax exemption (i.e. money from the government which means money from all taxpayers) but don't think they should be subject to resonable rules of what they can and can't do as part of that tax exemption. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason for that law. Churches have psychological power and can sway peoples' votes and opinions in a way that could tip the scales and cause the candidate they are supporting to win. Religion has its roots set deep in peoples' minds. Allowing churches to endorse candidates and preach to their congregations to vote for specific candidates opens a door for all kinds of nasty possibilities. Also, a church does not have the same rights as a citizen of the United States, or even of a corporation, and so is not protected by the Bill of Rights, and rightly so. - Lone Star Libertarian

Freedom of Speach
They should have that right to voice their opinion. But not tell them "if you vote for Obama you will vote for the Anti-Christ" And I'm sure their is a lot of Black churches endorsing Obama.--66.229.17.181 16:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Freedom of speech as an individual is guaranteed, sure. But when you're acting as a spokesperson (remember that a church is technically a pastor's place of employment) for a tax-exempt organization that also receives federal funding, you shouldn't be able to turn around and use the altar as a soapbox; Especially considering the kind of control the church has over its "customers" with the whole threat of hellfire thing swinging over their heads. That's the kind of thing that caused the protestants to splinter off from mainstream Catholicism in the first place. --Smackdat (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of any churches endorsing Obama, and they are tax ecempt, then you should report them as they are breaking the law. If not, you may want to not talk about things you don't understand Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What?? --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A kind of blackmail
I'd also like to point out that businesses can't tell their employees who to vote for (at least not legally), so why should a church have that right? One controls your fiscal fortunes and the other your spiritual fortunes. It's the equivalent of holding you at gunpoint and telling you who to vote for if you're a believer. - Lone Star Libertarian

Political speech in the pews is fundamental
For those who may have forgotten their lessons in American history (or, worse, were never taught them), keep in mind that much of the support for the American Revolutionary wary came about because the church took up the cause from the pulpit. Part of the reason all churches, faiths and religions in America are given their special and preferential treatment is because the preachers of the time were unafraid to speak of the societal and government ills that concerned the people that they ministered to. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that all people and all groups are entitled to. For the government to declare that one can only receive a tax benefit if one is willing to submit to censorship is a complete violation of our Constitutional rights, and a complete corruption of the government which is supposed to have a vested interest in protecting it. If the government will not do so, then perhaps it is time to begin stumping from the pulpit once again. Kamnet (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The preachers are still perfectly entitled to speak of the societal ills if they want. The simply can't endorse (or reject I presume) a candidate Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't track.  The power of the church comes from the membership, and the remarkable number of Catholics out there speaks volumes for how the actions of a church can fail to affect membership. As it stands, this is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights:  the amendment arises from the need to protect the democratic process from violation through authoritarian bodies, of which the church is only one.  This is the reason that donation caps are exercised, and regarding tax-exempt organisations, this right is revoked all together because, quite simply, the church takes no political stake in the spending of their tax dollars by government. Your pastors are not allowed to endorse candidates as pastors, in the authority that position conveys.  That position, and the power it carries, is silenced to preserve the one-person one-vote policy of the constitutional democracy.  Its not that your pastors are not entitled to voice opinion on politics, its that in order that others may be free to associate and deliberate as well, they are denied jurisdiction over the votes of their flock. This law doesn't hamper free speech, it protects it.  -Neva9257 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with constitutional rights except those being trampled on by the advocates of this disgusting idea. They will cause more backlash against religion than anything else, and that surely is not the intended goal. 68.210.70.130 02:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So much for seperation of church and state.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.254.174 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Church/State Separation?
Quote from article: The law, he said, was unconstitutional because "being tax-exempt is part of freedom of religion; otherwise the government could tax churches out of existence." This is a good point and has broadened my perspective on the matter. After thinking about it for awhile, I've come to this line of thought. Political pressure from churches and church-oriented efforts has, for a long time (since Revolutionary times, as a previous commenter mentioned), had an effect on the political scene. In other words, we've never had a pure church/state separation - it is better to accept this as inevitable as the formation of political parties. Still, that does not mean we cannot maintain the fundamental basis of the church/state separation concept in order to maintain the integrity of each (for the most part).

In other words, let them endorse their candidates and their issues. Let them mould the minds of their congregations. As long as the rules of the Constitution are adhered to in government, and we keep in mind the spirit of the republic, it shouldn't make a bit of difference. Jared--12.25.104.8 08:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"In other words, let them endorse their candidates and their issues. Let them mould the minds of their congregations. As long as the rules of the Constitution are adhered to in government, and we keep in mind the spirit of the republic, it shouldn't make a bit of difference. Jared--12.25.104.8 08:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)"

This is wrong. Church and State must remain separate for good reason. The Church is a powerful tool. It teaches people what is wrong and right, and many other issues. However if the Church sponsors the State with politics, well the Church isn't a place for religion as much as it is a political party. In fact, this allows to have people in government sponsored big religions to vote for our people. I don't care if this happens as long as none of my money allows these kinds of Churches to be tax-free.

If the Church pays for taxes like everyone else, they get freedom of speech to tell people who to vote. If the Church doesn't pay taxes, they can only be the reason they are tax-free, to be a place of religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.203.195 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but we will never have a pure church/state separation. For as long as the country has existed, churches have been influencing people's opinions on social issues, in turn affecting politics. Even on the other side of the spectrum, you will find politicians that express their religious views, and even sometimes do so in a controversial manner. I agree with you that there must be a separation, however a pure separation may never be able to happen. My point is, if we hold true to the basic concept, the fundamental separation, and do not allow the entities themselves to influence each other in a manner which is unconstitutional, then allowing a congregation to express some political view (which already occurs in many places) will not have much of an effect, other than deepening the dividing lines between the various factions in the country. Jared --12.25.104.8 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)