Churches Steal $71 Billion From Taxpayers, Spend Little on Charity

As I have noted many times before, I very much support the concept of taking way tax-exempt status for all religious denominations.  By granting churches tax-exempt status, every taxpayer in the country is being forced to indirectly subsidize churches they don't belong to and which may actively oppose the civil rights of many taxpayers - e.g., the Southern Baptist Convention which is anti-gay and anti-black.  The First Amendment right of freedom of religion by no means requires tax-exempt status for houses of worship.  Indeed, by forcing taxpayers to indirectly support churches that  attack and denigrate them, I would argue that such gifts of tax-exempt status actually violate the First Amendment.  So how is this exempt status justified?  Through the myth that churches are charities.  Unfortunately, most spend a pittance on charity work as a piece here demonstrates.  Here are article highlights:

[W]hat always slips right through the cracks are the tax benefits to religious organizations, which overwhelmingly support Republicans, and are estimated to cost taxpayers nearly double those of hidden off-shore havens. The Secular Policy Institute estimates:  

“If religious organizations (ie. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) were taxed like for-profit agencies, it was found that this could generate upwards of $71 billion per year in tax revenue…even if churches were merely held to the standards of other non-profit agencies, this could generate $16.75 billion in tax revenue per year.”  

According to Pew, folks affiliated with ties to religious organizations also overwhelmingly support the Republican Party: “Republicans lead in leaned party identification by 48 points among Mormons and 46 points among white evangelical Protestants, with younger white evangelicals (those under age 35) having similar partisan affiliation as their older counterparts.”

What is particularly egregious about the tax benefits going to religious organizations is that they receive these benefits, ostensibly, because they are charities. Researchers at Secular Humanism have calculated:  

“The Mormon Church, for example, spends roughly .7% of its annual income on charity. Their study of 271 congregations found an average of 71% of revenues going to ‘operating expenses’…Compare this to the American Red Cross, which uses 92.1% of revenues for physical assistance and just 7.9% on operating expenses. The authors also note that Wal-Mart, for instance, gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year, or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years.”

Religious organizations are not non-profits, and if they conduct charitable activities, those activities should be separated out from their normal finances, which should not be financed by the government. However, we know the Republican worldview is all about distorting religion to support their bizarre vision of science and reality – supported by a tax policy that enables their wealthy constituency to support their political efforts.

 Republicans talk about tax code reform.  A starting point would be to end this rip off of taxpayers by churches.  Only true charity operations should be tax-exempt.  Let churches start paying taxes on their revenues and on their properties.  The give away that tramples on the rights of non-church goers needs to stop.

The Bible as Bludgeon - Why Religion Must Be Removed from Politics

Any honest reading of American history reveals that the Founding Fathers - all too well acquainted with an established church and the wars of religion that had plagued Europe - did not want religion intertwining with the civil laws of the newly founded United States of America.  Nonetheless, from the nation's beginning the charlatans and clerics who remain in power by duping the uneducated and gullible have worked incessantly to erase the true intent of the Founding Fathers and the same holds true today as politicians of both major political parties again and again prostitute themselves religious zealots and those who strive to have the civil laws effect a de facto established religion.  A religion that is a far right version of Christianity that is thick with hate, bigotry and intolerance.   A column in the New York Times looks at religion raising its foul head in the U.S. Senate race in Arkansas.  Here are highlights:

YOU can make a successful run for political office in this country without an especially thick résumé, any exceptional talent for expressing yourself, a noteworthy education or, for that matter, a basic grasp of science. 

But you better have religion. You better be ready to profess your faith in and fealty to God — the Judeo-Christian one, of course. And you better be convincing. A dust-up last week in the 2014 race for a United States Senate seat from Arkansas provided a sad reminder of this, showing once again that our ballyhooed separation of church and state is less canyon than itty-bitty crack. 

The Democratic incumbent, Mark Pryor, released a television commercial. . . . Pryor is taking a heavenly tack. His new commercial focuses not on health care, the sequester, immigration or anything like that. It extols the Bible. “This is my compass, my North Star,” he says in the 30-second spot. “It gives me comfort and guidance to do what’s best for Arkansas.” 

In response, the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Brad Dayspring, pounced. But his complaint was not that Pryor was injecting gratuitous God talk into a campaign with less nebulous matters to discuss. Dayspring questioned whether Pryor was truly devout enough, emailing reporters a comment that Pryor made last year, when he said — cogently and correctly — that the Bible “is really not a rule book for political issues” and that “everybody can see it differently.” 

And while it’s tempting to attribute this silliness to a Southern politician’s need to appeal to the Christian fundamentalists prevalent in that region, the Arkansas episode is indicative of how thoroughly Americans from coast to coast let religion permeate public life. 

It’s in classrooms, some of which teach creationism. The Texas Board of Education has been withholding approval of a widely used biology textbook because it presents evolution as more than just a theory. Thus, in the nation’s second most populous state, whose governor essentially kicked off his 2012 presidential campaign with a stadium rally for tens of thousands of evangelicals, religion is trumping scholarship, at least for now. 

“So help me God.” “Under God.” “In God We Trust.” Perhaps we’re meant to register these ubiquitous phrases as unspecific inspirations, vague recognitions of an undefined higher power, general appeals to generous living. But they’re rooted in a given religious tradition and are arguably the gateways to the Arkansas ridiculousness . . . 

[U]using the Bible as a litmus test for character betrays the principles of religious liberty and personal freedom, along with the embrace of diversity, that are equally crucial to America’s identity and strength. It also defies the wisdom of experience. 

The intrusion of religion into campaigns gets ugly.  . . . . letting the government and its servants go too far in celebrating one religion over others creates the possibility of looking up someday to find that the religion being promoted isn’t your own. 

Religion is a cancer than needs to be excised from politics and public life.  Individuals can believe what they want.  However, they cannot be allowed to force those beliefs on others.  It is something the Christofascists would be wise to remember because someday - hopefully very soon - they will be a small minority and if the future majority acts as the Christofascists have acted, the future will be very bleak for the "godly folk."

Why We Should Be Taxing Churches

A piece in Slate makes a good case for why we should be taxing churches - all of them.  To the list of taxed organizations should be added in my opinion all of the quasi-religious organizations such as NOM, FRC, AFA, etc. , which are nothing more than propaganda organizations for extreme religious beliefs and which actively work against the rights and well being of other citizens.  Some might say that churches provide charitable relief to the poor and so forth.  If they can document these efforts, give them an exemption for funds actually spent on these endeavors but not on lavish church buildings and activities that do nothing to further the general welfare.  Here are highlights from the piece:

Amelia Thomson-Deveaux has a great piece about religious groups that are trying to remove restrictions on church-based electioneering. She suggests that rather than gutting the rules, there's a simple fix, "Religious leaders who want the liberty to endorse candidates can give up their churches’ tax deduction."

I would go one further. Let's tax churches! All of them, in a non-discriminatory way that doesn't consider faith or creed or level of political engagement. There's simply no good reason to be giving large tax subsidies to the Church of Scientology or the Diocese of San Diego or Temple Rodef Shalom in Virginia or the John Wesley African Methodist Episcopal Zion church around the corner from me. Whichever faith you think is the one true faith, it's undeniable that the majority of this church-spending is going to support false doctrines. Under the circumstances, tax subsidies for religion are highly inefficient.

What's more, even insofar as tax subsidies do target the true faith they're still a pretty bad idea. The basic problem with subsidized religion is that there's no reason to believe that religion-related expenditures enhance productivity.
Upgrading a church's physical plant doesn't enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy. You just get a nicer building or a grander Christmas pageant. There's nothing wrong with that. When I was young I always enjoyed the Grace Church Christmas pageant. But this is just a kind of private entertainment (comparable to spending money on snacks for your book club—and indeed what are Bible study groups but the original book clubs?) that doesn't need an implicit subsidiy.

Meanwhile, nobody thinks churches and other religious institutions should silence themselves on the important issues of the day. On the contrary, discussing moral action is at the heart of many religious enterprises. And much moral action plays itself out in the arena of politics. So trying to say that churches should get subsidy when they don't endorse candidates is de facto a kind of subsidy to religious doctrines whose views happen to lack strong partisan implications. So if your faith says "abortion should be illegal and spending on the poor should be increased and it's too bad neither candidate supports that" you're golden, but if your faith says "abortion should be legal and spending on the poor should be increased so good for Barack Obama" suddenly you're in trouble. That's perverse. Just make everyone pay taxes.

Yes, taxing churches would put some parishes and congregations out of business.   But why should I be indirectly subsidizing a religion that hates me or teaches in my opinion false views and lies?  Put churches out in the market place and let them compete like every other business - religion is, in truth big business, just look at Pat Robertson and the many sleazy televangelists who fleece people via cable TV on a weekly basis. If their "product" sells, they will survive.  If not, then they can end up on the trash heap of history.

Churches Seeking Special Rights

The Christofascists are always claiming that LGBT Americans are seeking "special rights."  Truth be told, it's the not the gays that want special rights.  No, its the Christofascists who want to be free to ignore the IRS restrictions against political activities by charities as conservative churches and some denominations become de facto arms of the Republican Party.  The justification for restrictions that apply to all other charities?  The increasingly used and disingenuous ruse that such restrictions impinge on "religious freedom" and "free speech."  The real story is that these churches and Christofascists want special rights and they want all taxpayers to indirectly underwrite their political activities.  Even when those political activities attack and demonize those being forced to underwrite them via the tax-exemption for 501(c)(3) charities.  It's complete hypocrisy, but then what's more synonymous these days than with hypocrisy than conservative Christianity?  An piece in The New Republic looks at the effort by these churches to defy the law through “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” and then demolishes their lies and false defense of their illegal actions.  Here are highlights:

On Sunday, October 7, pastors around the country will try to bait the federal government into investigating them by preaching explicitly partisan sermons. As part of a conservative movement organizers call “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” some religious leaders will endorse Mitt Romney from the pulpit. Others may refrain from an endorsement but vigorously criticize President Obama. And some will tell their congregations that a good Christian can only vote for a candidate who opposes gay marriage and abortion. Then they’ll send tapes of their sermons to the Internal Revenue Service in the hopes of being audited.

Supporters of Pulpit Freedom Sunday argue that current law violates religious liberty and free speech by placing restrictions on what religious leaders can say.

Let’s consider this claim. In order to believe that churches are being censored by the government, you have to accept that religious organizations have not only the right to engage in partisan speech and activities but also the right to be exempt from federal taxes and the right to accept donations that are tax-deductible. There simply is no constitutional right that covers the latter. The tax-exempt status for churches is a monetary benefit given to them by the government, as is the rule allowing individuals to deduct their contributions to religious organizations.

It’s quite simple. If a church wants to endorse a candidate and engage in campaign activities, there are absolutely no restrictions preventing it from doing so. But it must pay federal taxes, and its donors cannot deduct their contributions. Additionally, a pastor can preach about same-sex marriage or immigration reform or abortion or economic justice. But he cannot tell parishioners that they must support a particular candidate because of their views on one of those issues. The churches involved in Pulpit Sunday want to have it both ways. They want to use tax-deductible donations to participate in campaigns, and no doubt there are plenty of political donors who would prefer to deduct their political contributions by sending them through religious organizations.

Religious leaders have long been active in political movements—and partisan campaigns—but Americans are growing less tolerant of that intermingling of the religious and the political. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has found that more Americans now oppose church involvement in politics than support it, a shift from 15 years ago.  

The willingness—and indeed eagerness—of many conservative pastors and priests to flout the law by endorsing Romney may not swing the election in the Republican’s favor. And a court challenge of the law under a potential second Obama term might just devolve into yet another culture war charge that Democratic administrations and activist judges are restricting the rights of religious Americans. But there must be some alternative to the status quo, in which select religious organizations enthusiastically engage in government-subsidized campaigning while happily claiming their tax exemption.

Yes, these Christofascists are liars and hypocrites.  As I've noted before, they believe that their rights trump the rights of all others and that they are indeed above the law.  I think it is far beyond time that all politically active churches lose their tax exempt status.  They are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us should not be forced to help underwrite their hate and venom.  The concept of a "charity" includes the expectation that the entities activities promote the general well being of all citizens and society as a whole.  Most conservative churches ceased performing this function decades ago, if they ever did it at all.

Conservative Kool-Aid on the Culture Wars

A column in the Washington Post purports to criticize the desire of liberals to attack religious institutions yet instead demonstrates the upside down world of the far right- and its ignorance and bigotry loving religious institutions - which views themselves as subject to persecution when they are not allowed to freely persecute everyone else.  The fact is that through tax policy religion in the USA receives many billions of dollars in indirect support from government every year under the pretense that churches and religious organizations are charities.  Some indeed are, but many are not as they build grandiose sanctuaries and complexes that benefit no one but their members and even as they spend countless dollars attacking other citizens and seeking to infringe on their civil rights.  It's yet one of the ridiculous special rights and deference afforded religion in this country.  And it's something that needs to end for every church and purported religious organization that isn't truly delivering charitable support to their community as their primary line of services.  And I'm sorry, but allowing mega church pastors to live the good life doesn't meet that standard.  Here's a sampling of the bullshit being peddled by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post wherein he accuses liberals and Obama of persecuting religion even as religious organizations are the main authors of the so-called culture wars:

President Obama’s decision to lead with social issues in his reelection campaign — immigration, gay marriage and contraception — makes some political sense. His ideologically divisive performance in office has left him with no serious option but a base strategy. Cultural battles inspire the liberality of liberal donors. They may pump up turnout among target groups — Latinos, college-educated whites and single women. They can goad opponents into angry overreaction. And social debates, coincidentally, are an alternative to discussing the state of the economy.

Obama’s appeal to Hispanic Americans has little downside, exploiting a vulnerability Republicans have taken great pains to create. His evolution on gay rights corresponds to a swift evolution of public sentiments. It is his assault on the liberty of religious institutions — forcing their complicity in the distribution of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs — that remains the most dangerous overreach of Obama’s culture war.

This issue concerns not just the outcome of an election but the nature of liberalism itself. In a free society, which should have priority: pluralism or the advance of liberal values?

A pluralist view of freedom requires tolerance for some ways of life that other citizens find oppressive or unreasonable.

This tolerance, of course, is not unlimited. It covers the Old Order Amish. It would not cover the Old Order Aztecs engaged in ritual human sacrifice. Without imposing an ideal way of life, the state can rule out the clearest abuses of human rights. But in the pluralist view, the government should grant broad latitude to institutions, even illiberal institutions, in determining and transmitting their own views and practices.

But pluralism has critics. . . . . In this view, the state has a responsibility to defend individual rights against every form of social oppression, public and private. 

[A] strong civil society prepares people for participation in liberal, democratic institutions while limiting the pretensions and ambitions of those institutions. This is the genius of pluralism, and the best hope for lasting peace in the culture wars: a single nation with room for deep disagreements. 

Apparently in Gerson's up is down and white is black world, the fact that his conservative - dare we say Neanderthal? - allies are persecuting other citizens and reaping special privileges to themselves to the detriment of others is perfectly fine.  I'm sorry, but institutions that receive government largess either through direct receipt of government funds or indirectly by huge indirect tax subsidies forfeit the right to pick and chose which rights are to be deprived to other citizens.

Support the Hampton Roads LGBT Center Against Arbitrary Harassment by City of Norfolk

NOTE: the views expressed in this post are mine alone and should not be attributed to any other organization or individuals. As to why I believe churches should be checked for compliance, (i) the ordinance quoted below provides them with no exemption and (ii) I have a strong suspicion that it was some of the "godly folk" who want gays and the LGBT Center to disappear who complained to the City of Norfolk.

The City of Norfolk, Virginia is requiring that the Hampton Roads LGBT secure a "Special Exception" permit under Chapter 25 of the Norfolk Zoning Ordinance because the so-called "Bar Task Force" and city bureaucrats have determined that the center is an "Entertainment Establishment." For those who have not seen the "Bar Task Force" at work, they swoop down on establishments like Nazi storm troopers and presume anyone and everyone to be guilty until proven otherwise. Here's how Section 2-3 of the Norfolk Zoning Ordinance defines an "entertainment" and "entertainment establishment":

Entertainment. "Entertainment" means live performances and includes, but is not limited to, music performances involving amplified music or more than one instrument, a disc jockey, any form of dancing, comedians, and stage performances.

Entertainment establishment. An establishment where entertainment is provided or having a dance floor. Alcoholic beverages may be provided to patrons of the establishment unless specifically prohibited by the terms of a special exception or other applicable provision of law. For the purposes of zoning, "entertainment establishment" shall not include commercial recreation restaurants or commercial indoor recreation centers.

As readers who saw my post yesterday will recall, the LGBT Center provides individual and family counseling, community meeting space, resource center, adult and youth services, social and educational events, and free HIV testing. In addition, it provides meeting space for community groups who - gasp, the horror - might have music from a boom box or allow teens and LGBT youth to have some dancing. And some groups with adult members like HRBOR might have alcohol at the functions. These events are few and far between in terms of the LGBT Center's day to day operations yet the LGBT Center - unlike countless religious facilities, including one that recent hosted a large fundraiser that included dancing and a live band - is being forced to secure a special exception which will feature public hearings that provide a forum for anti-LGBT hate merchants.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, this is nothing less than harassment aimed at the LGBT community. The LGBT Center is no more an "entertainment establishment" than churches, synagogues and other religious facilities that hold wedding and other receptions, church dinners with music and/or dancing and other events that involve any dancing and/or amplified music.

I hope local readers will join me and come out to the support the LGBT Center on March 22, 2012 at Norfolk City Hall in downtown Norfolk at 2:30 PM. Your presence is important. For those who cannot attend, please send your messages of support to the Norfolk City Counsel at: City.Council@norfolk.gov.

The second thing that I ask local readers to do is this: send me the names of every Norfolk church, synagogues and religious facilities that occasionally hold receptions, church dinners and other events that involve any dancing and/or amplified music. Catholic Churches in particular likely fall in this category. Under the City of Norfolk interpretation these organizations also need to secure special exception permits. The City does not get to selectively apply this zoning ordinance requirement to the LGBT Center while giving other a free pass to other facilities doing the same types of social functions. Please e-mail the names of these churches, synagogues and like organizations so that proper complaints can be filed against them.

What's good for the LGBT Center is good for these organizations as well. We need to create a firestorm for Norfolk City Council - especially since elections are on May 1, 2012.

U. S. Supreme Court: Churches Are Free to Ignore the Law

Personally - and as regular readers are no doubt aware - I am way over churches and so-called religious organizations, especially Christian ones, being afforded special rights and allowed to do things that other citizens and organizations are forbidden to do. Yet, sadly, the U. S. Supreme Court has handed down a ruling that will likely result in churches and religious organizations increasingly believing that they are above the law. While the Court purported to recognize a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, the reasoning behind the ruling has opened all kinds of likely abuses. The fired employee in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, was by no means a "minister" and in any other universe would have been described as a school teacher. Not surprisingly, Justice Clarence Thomas gave the equivalent of judicial fellatio to the church defendant who had wrongfully fired the school teacher. The New York Times has sanitized coverage of this wrongheaded ruling. Fellow blogger compatriot Jillian T. Weiss at The Bilerico Project has a real world analysis of the ruling. First the Times' mealy mouthed coverage:

WASHINGTON — In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.

The decision gave only limited guidance about how courts should decide who counts as a minister, saying the court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula.” Two concurring opinions offered contrasting proposals.

Whatever its precise scope, the ruling will have concrete consequences for countless people employed by religious groups to perform religious work. In addition to ministers, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders, the decision appears to encompass, for instance, at least those teachers in religious schools with formal religious training who are charged with instructing students about religious matters.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Wednesday’s decision could have pernicious consequences, by, for instance, barring suits from pastors who are sexually harassed. “Blatant discrimination is a social evil we have worked hard to eradicate in the United States,” he said in a statement. “I’m afraid the court’s ruling today will make it harder to combat.”

In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the courts should get out of the business of trying to decide who qualifies for the ministerial exception, leaving the determination to religious groups.

“The question whether an employee is a minister is itself religious in nature, and the answer will vary widely,” he wrote. “Judicial attempts to fashion a civil definition of ‘minister’ through a bright-line test or multifactor analysis risk disadvantaging those religious groups whose beliefs, practices and membership are outside of the ‘mainstream’ or unpalatable to some.”

Religion continues to be one of the most insidious threats to constitutional government and civil rights for all citizens regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual orientation and national origin. Here some highlights from Jillian's spot on review of what the Court has done:

When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission came calling, after Ms. Petich had filed a claim for discrimination based on disability, the school said that Ms. Petich had not been fired because of her disability. No, they were fine with her disability. Rather, she had been fired because of religious law. Ms. Petich had violated the beliefs of their Church. What beliefs of the Hosassa-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church had Ms. Petich violated so flagrantly? Why, the belief of the Church that its members should never resort to the law to protect their rights against Church members.

No, I'm serious. The Church said that anyone who threatens litigation is violating God's law. Since Ms. Petich mentioned that she "planned to assert her legal rights," she had to be fired because she violated God's law. I mean, seriously?

Rather than dismissing this whopper with a chuckle, as they should have, the Supreme Court bowed reverentially and ruled that any religious employer can avoid a lawsuit for workplace laws so long as they take care to ensure that their religious beliefs include a line about never suing the Church. Firing for disability? Right as rain. You seem gay, so you're fired? No problem. Fire those sniveling whiners who complain about sexual harassment or sex-for-keeping-your-job? A- Okay. You say we violated the child labor laws or the minimum wage laws? No, sorry, those are ministers, so the laws don't apply. You got injured on the job and want to sue? Forget it, bub, we told you that your job includes thinking about God and being holy, so the "ministerial exception" puts the halo of silence around you. Get on your knees and tell your ambulance-chaser to take a walk.

Also, courts must now decide what constitutes "internal church decisions" and also whether they "affect the faith and mission" of the religion. Honestly, how is a judge of some other or no religious persuasion supposed to decide that?

There is already another exception for that, permitting churches to use religious qualifications in their hiring decisions. Rather, the decision yesterday makes "Church" into a magic word that banishes law enforcement.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a large scale reorganization of a wide variety of business-related entities to try to take advantage of the new religious shield exception. It shouldn't be unexpected to see a series of lower court decisions, particularly in, say, Oklahoma, saying that the Baptist Plumbing Co., Inc., which has every employee lead morning prayers or write a religious blurb on the company blog once a month, is exempt from workplace laws. As I discussed in my recent law review article on the application of the First Amendment to LGBT employment discrimination laws, a First Amendment claim cannot trump employment non-discrimination laws. But we're going to see a much stronger effort to do so after this decision.

Courts deciding on which religious purposes matter -- now there's an "Establishment Clause" problem if I ever heard one. Christian Dominionists rejoice!

Chris Stuart Wins a Seat on Hampton City Council

It's been a long day since I opened the polls at 6:00 AM working for our friend Chris Stuart in his successful bid for a seat on Hampton City Council. Chris' aunt and uncle are dear friends of ours and early on Chris impressed me with his desire to represent all Hampton's citizens. Among other things he attended a HRBOR meeting and read all of the materials I sent him on LGBT issues and why it is in the City's interest to nurture the "creative class," including making Hampton more welcoming for LGBT Virginians. As researcher Richard Florida has documented, a high level of gay acceptance correlates with more high tech businesses and more members of the so-called creative class. A sincere thank you to all local readers who supported Chris at the polls. More coverage on the election is available at the Daily Press here.

Wingnut Pastors Break Tax Laws

Over the weekend, with the encouragement of various far right Christianists organizations, pastors at nearly three dozen anti-gay churches basically gave the finger to the IRS and other law abiding religious denominations and charities by actively supported political candidates. Why, because they think the laws apply to everyone else and that they can do whatever they want in the name of so-called "religious freedom." Under the tax laws, in exchange for tax exempt status, an organization (be it a church or any other charitable organization) may not endorse political candidates. As I have stated over and over, the Christianists think they can flout the laws that they do not like and/or that they have special rights. They whine about "special rights" for gays, but the truth of the matter is that it is they who want special rights. Hopefully, the IRS will pursue the violations, revoke the churches tax-exempt status and go after them for taxes. In my view, these Christianists and others like them are a clear and present danger to the rights of others and need to be stopped. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com:

*

All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund. The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors’ sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed. Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.

*

Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there’s “virtually no chance” courts will strike down the prohibition. “The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that’s essentially what it’s done here,” Tuttle said.

*

Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly - a sometimes murky line. The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday’s initiative and “will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”

*

The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.

*

Opposition to Sunday’s sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because “we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt.”

*

Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.