Poster | Thread |
| IRS going after a church | | Conservatives Also Irked by IRS Probe of Churches The agency's warning to All Saints is part of a wider look into political activity by nonprofits. By Jason Felch and Patricia Ward Biederman Times Staff Writers
November 8, 2005
The IRS threat to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena because of an antiwar sermon there during the 2004 presidential election is part of a larger, controversial federal investigation of political activity at churches and nonprofit groups.
Over the last year, the Internal Revenue Service has looked at more than 100 tax-exempt organizations across the country for allegations of promoting either explicitly or implicitly candidates on both ends of the political spectrum, according to the IRS. None have lost their nonprofit status, though investigations continue into about 60 of those.
The IRS denies any political motivation behind the initiative it started last year. The Treasury Department's inspector general found in February that there was some mismanagement of the investigations but no indication of them being used as a political cudgel to silence critics of the Bush administration.
However, the IRS action has triggered an unusual coalition of critics who say they are concerned about the effect on freedom of speech and religion.
When Ted Haggard, head of the 30-million-member National Assn. of Evangelicals, heard about the All Saints case Monday, he told his staff to contact the National Council of Churches, a more liberal group.
Haggard said he personally supports the war in Iraq and probably would not agree with much in the Rev. George Regas' 2004 sermon at All Saints, which was cited by the IRS as the basis for its investigation. But Haggard said he wants to work with the council of churches "in doing whatever it takes to get the IRS to stop" such actions.
"It is a violation of the Constitution for the IRS to threaten that church. It may not be a violation of IRS regulations, but IRS regulations have been wrong," said Haggard, who is pastor of the 12,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
Robert Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, cheered when he heard of Haggard's offer, which Edgar said represented a rare reaching out by the evangelical group to the council.
Edgar, a United Methodist minister, former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania and ex-president of the Claremont School of Theology, said the IRS move against All Saints appeared to be "a political witch hunt on George Regas and progressive ideology. It's got to stop." He stressed that Regas did not endorse a candidate in the sermon.
Edgar said he did not favor a bill repeatedly introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) that would allow pastors to endorse candidates without putting their church's tax-exempt status at risk. Existing law is adequate, as long as enforcement does not vary for churches with different ideologies, Edgar said.
The tax code prohibits nonprofits from "participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office." The ban includes endorsements, donations, fundraising or any other activity "that may be beneficial or detrimental to any particular candidate."
Advocating for ballot initiatives, as many California churches have done in advance of today's special election, is a separate issue, tax experts said. Churches and other tax-exempt organizations are allowed to engage in lobbying as long as "a substantial part of the organization's activities is not intended to influence legislation."
Savvy churches make sure they don't draw unwanted attention from the IRS, church officials and others said.
When elections near, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles sometimes sends reminders to local parishes of its guidelines on political action. "We don't endorse or oppose candidates, but we can endorse ballot propositions when there is a moral or ethical issue involved," said archdiocese spokesman Tod Tamberg, who knew of no local Catholic churches under IRS scrutiny.
This weekend, during Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Archbishop Roger Mahony endorsed Proposition 73, the state ballot initiative requiring parental notification before an abortion can be performed on a minor.
The Rev. William Turner, senior pastor at New Revelations Missionary Baptist Church in Pasadena, said he has never been questioned by the IRS about political activity at his church, despite his reputation as a supporter of President Bush. "We tell our members to vote their conscience," Turner said. "I've been very careful to preach the Gospel, and I can't get into any problems with the IRS for preaching the Gospel."
The Rev. John Hunter, pastor of 18,000-member First African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Los Angeles, said his church follows the IRS rules. "Churches have to be very careful," he said.
First AME also taps the expertise of member Kerman Maddox, a public relations and political consultant. He tells candidates they can worship at First AME but cannot speak from the pulpit about their candidacy. Instead, he tells them "they can shake hands, pass out literature and campaign to their heart's delight" if they stay off church property. The church doesn't endorse ballot initiatives, he said, and it bans campaign literature at the church.
At All Saints, Rector J. Edwin Bacon on Sunday told the congregants that the guest sermon by Regas, a former rector, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted the warning from the IRS. In the sermon, Regas did not instruct parishioners whom to support in the presidential election but said that Jesus would have told the president that his Iraq policies had failed.
The IRS' letter cited a Times article describing Regas' sermon as having triggered the agency's concerns. The church denies it violated tax rules and has retained a Washington law firm to help argue its position.
Using such news reports and tips from the public and interested groups, the IRS identified more than 100 nonprofits that had allegedly intervened politically in the 2004 presidential election. The agency reviewed the cases and selected more than 60 for fuller examination. About of third of those organizations were churches, officials said.
The IRS is barred by law from identifying those nonprofits, and the agency would not comment on the specifics of the All Saints case or others.
Steven Miller, the IRS commissioner of tax-exempt and governmental entities, said there is nothing political about how cases are chosen. Churches need to be more cautious about what they say during election seasons, and make it clear when they're not speaking for the church, Miller said. "If there's no election, there's no potential for intervention.
"The courts have said, yes, you have freedom of speech, but not the right to tax-exempt status," he added.
The best-known target of the IRS initiative is the NAACP. The IRS has cited a July 2004 speech in which the organization's chairman, Julian Bond, criticized the Bush administration's policies on civil rights as the cause for the audit. The NAACP is fighting the audit.
In 1976, Congress passed a law that required audits of churches to be done only if there was a "reasonable basis" to believe a violation had occurred, and made such audits subject to a special approval process from senior IRS officials.
Marcus Owens, the former head of tax-exempt organizations at the IRS and now a private attorney representing All Saints, said that the more recent IRS policy changes lowered the threshold for church audits, allowing front-line IRS agents to pursue probes with only cursory approval from above.
"This is exactly the sort of 1st Amendment briar patch the Congress wanted to keep the IRS out of," said Owens. The IRS disputed Owens' contention, saying audits still face a rigorous approval process by high-level agency officials.
On Monday, Regas did a half a dozen interviews with reporters from local and national newspapers, radio and television. And he was inundated with phone calls and e-mail messages, "all positive," he said.
When he was asked if he had any regrets about his 2004 sermon, he said: "No regrets. I only wish I had preached it with greater intensity."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-irs8nov08,0,2552376.story?coll=la-home-headlines |
| 2005/11/8 21:27 | | dohzman Member

Joined: 2004/10/13 Posts: 2132
| Re: IRS going after a church | | Wilkerson in his book "The Vision" (or was it "Set the trumpet to thy mouth"?) made mention that the IRS would be used as an instrument to come against the church. The larger churches have gotten to lax with thier spending, I'd watch for alot of church properties being auctioned off as they will be forced to conform to the same tax laws corporations do. _________________ D.Miller
|
| 2005/11/8 23:31 | Profile | groh_frog Member

Joined: 2005/1/5 Posts: 432
| Re: IRS going after a church | | That's a very interesting article. Especially the fact that many churches are getting their opinions out there, essentially getting involved in what's going on.
I think it's great to see the support, but I'd like to know more about that church, too. Particularily because this is an incident that's occured before, much to the discrace of the church.
I'm specifically referring to "The Reverend" Sung Myung Moon's Unification Church. If you don't know, it's a cult, and has been deceiving many for years. Moon himself claims to be Christ returned, purifying the sins of all who worship him, since Jesus was unsuccessful in his task. Well, a while ago, the IRS was indicting Moon for Tax Evasion, and he let out a press release claiming how the Government was trying to shut down his ministry to Christ. Well, many christian churches responded and rallied to support Moon.
Well, the truth was that he was evading taxes. But the embarassing part was that so many church leaders just though Moon was just another pastor of a good, christian church.
So, I wonder if there's more to the story. What's the church all about? And what's the worst that could happen? I don't mean to say that it's a good thing what's going on, but "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's", and God will provide. They can't stop the Good News of Jesus Christ by attacking the physical church! As I've seen, persecution has a way of purifying believers, also.
Grace and Peace... |
| 2005/11/8 23:36 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss Member

Joined: 2003/11/23 Posts: 4779
| Re: IRS going after a church | | Hi Neilgin...
While I do not believe that any non-profit organization should lose their tax exempt status with the IRS, the "church" mentioned in this article is a fine example of an extremely liberal political machine. All Saints Episcopal Church is an openly [u]homosexual[/u] church institution that endorses everything from [i]gay marriage[/i] to [i]gay clergy[/i]. They are loudly opposed to nearly all traditional Christian thought.
This church has made the news in the past, but usually for protesting conservative Christians that stood opposed to homosexual marriage or homosexual ministers. The bulk of their "sermons" consists of far-left political rhetoric.
Again, I don't believe that any non-profit organization should be taxed. But I am happy that people are finally seeing this particular political institution for what it truly is.
http://www.allsaints-pas.org/
:-(
*EDIT*
In fact, here is a "prayer" that was listed on their website from a dinner honoring Rosa Parks. Please note the extremely political nature of this "prayer," as well as it's apparent "political correctness:" Quote:
As we eat this meal tonight, O Lord, and enjoy the fellowship at our tables, we pray that you will bless this food and this fellowship, God, by making us, like our sister Rosa Parks, tired of giving in.
Make us tired of giving in, Lord, to the classism and racism in our country exposed by the winds of hurricane Katrina.
Make us tired of giving in, Lord, to this unjust war that has now taken the lives of over 2,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis, and which rewards corrupt corporations, takes away civil liberties, and sets Christian against Muslim.
Make us tired of giving in, Lord, to tax cuts for the super wealthy that steal food from the poor and steal schools and health-care from everyone else.
Make us tired of giving in, Lord, to a life of timidity and insensitivity that does not live for liberty and justice for all.
Make us tired of giving in, Lord, to leadership that does not ask us to sacrifice so that the human race can become the human family. For in living for others and in prayerful awareness of our dependence upon You and of our interdependence on one another will we truly be blessed.
All these things we pray in your holy name.
Amen.
http://www.allsaints-pas.org/all_saints_church.htm
_________________ Christopher
|
| 2005/11/8 23:55 | Profile | groh_frog Member

Joined: 2005/1/5 Posts: 432
| Re: | | Wow!
I just looked through the site of this church, and I'm speechless.
I was looking through transcripts of sermons, and the second one on the list was called "mixing religion and politics is our duty".
This church has twisted the Word of God, and blatently created more "friendly" doctrine to fit their political beliefs. I think it's disgusting. But I agree with the IRS's watch over them, not because of their specific doctrine, but because it is seemingly a political organization, like ccchhhrrriiisss said.
It has an agenda that it's working to further. Should it be a taxable organization? I don't know enough about it to say. But does the IRS have a right, even an obligaion to be investigaiog this group? By their own doctrine, yes.
It's sad to see, however, that these are the 'christians' that are making the news.
Grace and Peace... |
| 2005/11/9 2:33 | Profile |
| Re: Ccccccchris..... | | Yes my brother, I know All Saints Pasadena well.
It's one of the most beautiful church buildings I ever seen in my life, the stained glass are truly beautiful works of art depicting the life of Jesus.
The church itself is open all day for prayer, and many times I [b]used[/b] to drive out there and pray in it. My mentor had shown me the place when we were filming a sermon series on different kinds of church [b]buildings[/b]. I fell in love with the building.
One Sunday after my home church I drove over to just be with the Lord some more, get on my knees, talk to Jesus, contemplate the stained glass in order to contemplate His life.....and read the Word. I was sitting out in there courtyard reading the Bible, when a real pretty girl in her wedding dress came out with a photographer. I asked them if they needed the stone courtyard bench I was sitting on, it was underneath a lovely tree. They did, thanked me and I moved to another bench. A few minutes later another pretty girl in a wedding dress came out and both girls posed for their wedding pictures.
I could never go back there and pray like I used to.......I tried a few months later, but......it felt to me as the Spirit had fled, and I didnt have that same keen unction one desires when talking to the God Most High.
Let me say this, [b]constitutionally[/b] I support civil unions. What I mean is, if I was a legislator I would support two Americans right to form any union they desire. This is freedom.
Is it God-honoring?
Of course not, but freedom, free will is a messy business. Two people should be able to pass benefits to each other.
They spoke out against the war. I want to write Rector Bacon and ask him if he shares the same passion to protect the live's of the preborn. But I think it's very dangerous when the IRS gets used to punish the enemies of an administration.
Do you agree? Do you support the war in Iraq? I KNOW you don't support abortion.
God bless you brother.
ps...if you look real deep into new modern episcopal liturgy, you'll find an apostate prayer to raisan cakes!! eeeeeek! where's Elijah when you needs him!! |
| 2005/11/9 16:57 | |
| groh frog | | Quote:
I think it's disgusting
is it much different than D. James Kennedy?
in the fact that both seek to further a politcal and cultural agenda...or is it that Messrs Kennedy's world view might coincide with yours?
Once the IRS starts punishing enemies, watch out.
But it's all good, make Bibles illegal and take away the 501c3's and then we'll see who the true followers of Jesus are!!
come persecution come. |
| 2005/11/9 17:02 | |
| here's the hypocrisy | | Here's what I find disgusting, that this fellow Regas who preached the antiwar sermon said this:
Quote:
In his own voice, Regas said: ''The religious right has drowned out everyone else. Now the faith of Jesus has come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war and pro-American
. I'm not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. There is something vicious and violent about coercing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child."
[b]That [/b]is disgusting. Preach against the war!! Bless God, but be against all forms of murder, and to the religious right I say, preach against the murder of the preborn, but refuse to give cover to a president who lied to the people to begin a vicious cruel unwinnable war.
[b]HYPOCRISY!!![/b]
thats whats disgusting. |
| 2005/11/9 17:10 | | ccchhhrrriiisss Member

Joined: 2003/11/23 Posts: 4779
| Re: here's the hypocrisy | | Hi Neilgin...
Actually, I am not certain as to whether or not the war in Iraq was a "just war." I have wrestled with the notion from even before the war began. I am currently taking a Graduate course in International Law -- and this issue has been discussed several times using firsthand source material.
I do believe that there are times in history when war is neccessary. Even most pacifists would agree that it was neccessary for the United States to enter into World War II -- whether to stop Hitler's tyranny (as "hawks" might argue) or as a response to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor (as the "doves" would argue).
There are even times when [i]preemptive[/i] attacks are neccessary. This is most clearly understood through a case study on the "6 Day War" involving the nation of Israel and several Arab nations (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq). Israel actually preemptively attacked the other nations (and rightfully so) because those nations had become an immediate threat to the security of Israel. In six days, Israel defeated all of those nations. In doing so, Israel also destroyed the air forces (and much of the military might) of those nations.
It has been argued that Al Quaeda actually gained respect in the Muslim community due to the lack of preemption (and later, the lack of retribution) following the acts of Osama bin Laden. Al Quaeda played a role in the first bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993; the 1998 attack on the US embassies in the African cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya; the Millenium Bombing plan on the West Coast in 1999; and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen (that killed a friend of mine). It might be argued that Al Quaeda could have been destroyed if President Clinton had acted following those attacks.
I respectfully disagree with your notion that President Bush actually [u]lied[/u] about the events leading to the war. I do not know the President personally, and I do not trust the media or political ideologists. I do not have firsthand knowledge of the events leading to the war, but I do have the accounts of the [i]Congressional Journal[/i] and some firsthand source material. The events were actually presented to the President by United States military intelligence. This intelligence pointed to Saddam Hussein possessing WMDs -- or the immediate potential for developing WMDs. Other nations concurred -- including nations that were more pacified in this. Great Britain, Russia, Germany, Australia, and even France believed that Saddam Hussein either currently possessed, or was in the process or obtaining, such weapons. The entire administrative staff of the Pentagon (most serving long before Bush became President) decided that this posed a threat to U.S. security. The Joint Chiefs of Staff concurred with the Pentagon. The evidence was then presented before both Houses of Congress, and they overwhelmingly granted President Bush the authority to take military action.
As is part of the purpose of the United Nations Charter, the UN wanted to prevent war. However, even an agency that was created to prevent war had placed demands on Saddam Hussein in the months following the first Gulf War (in 1991). Hussein violated [u]every[/u] one of these demands [u]multiple[/u] [u]times[/u]! Not only did Saddam Hussein commit terrible atrocities against his own people, but he also attempted an assassignation of the former President Bush in 1992. Saddam Hussein also sent payments to the families of each of the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. History may prove that Saddam Hussein did [u]not[/u] have WMDs. But history has already shown that he consistantly attempted to obtain such weapons. These were all complete violations of the UN Security Council resolutions attempting to control the situation.
My uncle. a strong believer, was injured in Iraq in November 2003. His armoured humvee was hit by an RPG in Fallujah, resulting in the death of his best friend (sitting on his right), and another close friend (sitting on his left). The images on the news of the Muslim militants dancing atop the charred remains of the vehicle were played all over the news. If it were not for the bodies of these two men (acting as a shield), my uncle would certainly have died. He healed in a hospital made from one of Saddam's lavious palaces. Eventually, he returned to duty. His job is to destroy the illegal weapons that Iraq had amassed during the years leading up the war (mostly from the French and Russians). Every day, they detonate multiplied thousands of pounds of such weapons (each looking like small mushroom clouds). Currently, my uncle is in Africa removing landmines, hopefully preventing the deaths of countless innocent children and other civilians.
I do not believe that it is wise to [u]judge[/u] the President of the United States by calling him a "[i]liar[/i]" when you do not know all of the facts. You may disagree with him and his policies, and even distrust him, but it is wrong to judge him through such limited means.
I agree with your notion about hypocrisy in the Christian community. There are some believers that blindly follow the urges of the [i]Religious Right[/i] or the [i]Liberal Left[/i]. A Christian should vote according to his or her knowledge of the Word of God. I am indeed [i]pro-life[/i]. This also leads me to not only vote [u]against[/u] abortion, but also against the death penalty -- because I view all life as precious in the sight of God. I vote [u]against[/u] gay marriage because I believe that such a recognition destroys the moral validity of [i]normal[/i] marriages -- as well as forces an entire nation to agree with a sinful lifestyle choice. I support the notion that some wars are justified if they can strengthen the security of a nation. If a man did not defend his wife or children from an intruder, I believe that man is "[i]worse than an infidel[/i]." If a leader of a free nation did not take such action to secure the defense of the nation, then that person is also a bad leader. This does not mean that all war is justified (or even the War in Iraq) -- it just means that, at times, war can be justifiable.
I do not always agree with President Bush or conservatives (and of course, Republicans). But that does not permit me to become an [i]accuser[/i] of the President in a case that I do not know [u]all[/u] of the facts. I have seen President Bush take some steps that have curtailed abortion -- which ends the lives of nearly a [u]million[/u] unborn babies in America each year. I am quite thankful that someone like John Kerry is not in office who would nominate "activist" judges to the Supreme Court (that would strenthen the cause of abortion or homosexual activism).
The Episcopal "church" in this IRS case is much more political than most would imagine. They blatantly oppose all traditional Christian beliefs. From looking through their website, it is clear that they support homosexual marriage, homosexual ministers, "universal" salvation (including muslims, buddists, and even athiests), abortion rights, and politically oppose all conservative ideas. While I do not agree that they should lose their tax-exempt status, I am happy that they are exposed for what they truly are -- a [i]political machine[/i] of the far-left.
I know that we may disagree politically -- but I guess that is the beauty of a free society. We can agree that we should both pray for the President -- that his decisions may become directed of the Lord.
:-) _________________ Christopher
|
| 2005/11/9 21:00 | Profile |
| Re: | | great reply chriss. 8-)
You swayed my idea about the war a little, really opened my eyes. Bravo! |
| 2005/11/10 11:21 | |
|