Features

mburbank · #1

Anti-War Sermon Brings IRS Warning
By Patricia Ward Biederman and Jason Felch
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 07 November 2005

All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena risks losing its tax-exempt status because of a former rector's remarks in 2004.

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church ..." The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article."

The IRS cited The Times story's description of the sermon as a "searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq" and noted that the sermon described "tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus."

ziggytrix · #2

So the IRS can revoke tax-exempt status on the basis of a newspaper article? Fascinating.

mburbank · #3

Only if it's a liberal church. Don't you understand the law at all?

ziggytrix · #4

No don't. I went to some Methodist Church this morning to cast my vote in Texas elections. So strange.

KevinTheOmnivore · #5

Actually, a similar piece of legislation has been introduced by a Democrat in Congress that would do the same thing to Churches that speak out against abortion and gay marriage on the pulpit.

At least, that's what the little propaganda flyer in my Church said.

KevinTheOmnivore · #6

p.s.-- Pope John Paul II opposed the war, too.

ziggytrix · #7

So, what's the real deal here?

Fuck, it's not like the Churches are gonna all go bankrupt if they were taxed. Let them be taxed, all of them! Render unto Caeser, you hypocrites!!!

Maybe there can be provisions for poor churches, like we have for people who don't make enough money to be taxed, if we're really concerned with placing an unfair burden. But come on, Jesus is a pretty big business in America. How can the IRS establish which Churches are REALLY religious, as opposed to tax-sheltered PACs (now with flavored sacraments!) without violating the establishment clause themselves?

Baalzamon · #8

All churches should be taxed, period.

Its absolute bullshit that that much money can flow through a religious institution 100% tax free.

If your not willing to tax churches, then me and all my athiest friends should be able to create a private club where we donate all of our money to write it off, and then keep it because we own the club.

I dont have a problem with giving individuals who want to donate money to a church the ability to write it off on their taxes, but the money should still be taxed eventually.

If people really like their church that much they will just donate more to make up for the tax. Free market for the WIN!!!!

KevinTheOmnivore · #9

So should we tax non-profits?

A lot of money "flows" through those, too.

ziggytrix · #10

If we were to start taxing Churches - which I feel I must point out is a hypothetical almost as ridiculous as the maximum occupancy of a nightclub for angels on the head of a pin - if we're taxing Churches, then I see no reason for any charitable donation to be a tax write-off either.

kellychaos · #11

Perhaps someone should examine the beginning of this tax-exempt status. Was it because, in the early stages, the church honored the "separation of church and state" and, recently, are getting too politically involved? I would do this but I am too lazy.

Immortal Goat · #12

We can't start taxing churches if we want to make any headway in the church and state issue. If the government were to start meddling in church affairs, then they could start meddling in national affairs, pressuring the government to make laws that benefit only them and.... wait a second...

FUCK

That already happened, didn't it?

Royal Tenenbaum · #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

So should we tax non-profits?

A lot of money "flows" through those, too.

I'd say that depends on what the non-profit is doing. If the non-profit is systematically discriminating against 50% of the population like the Catholic Church is, then, yes, we should tax non-profits. Churchs get away with breaking all sorts of equal opportunity laws etc. that no other groups could break. I just can't wait until someone sues the shit out of the Catholic Church and they win. It won't happen in God's own US of A but maybe it'll happen in Canada. I need to buy some champagne for that day, because I'll be celebrating along with many others who are sick and tired of religion and churches ruining the world.

ziggytrix · #14

Damn, and I thought I was disenchanted with organized religion!

I mean, sure it often serves to institutionalize faith, which should by it's very nature be personal. And sure, numerous religious authorities have abused their stations throughout history, but a case for religion ruining the world? That's a stretch.

Religious (or anti-religious in the case of China) intolerance is what ruins this world, IMO.

FartinMowler · #15

In my area there are so many different kinds of churches I'm boggled to understand how someone chooses a church and why these grouping of cultist type people get special status. There is a Church in my area that has a three-car garage and the parking lot is empty most of the time. Could I buy a property and claim I'm the church of Blasphemy and live there and not pay taxes?

Sethomas · #16

Umm. Who are these 50% against whom the Catholic Church discriminates?

Big Papa Goat · #17

I'm assuming women, who aren't allowed to be priests

Immortal Goat · #18

Women, and to a smaller perceentage, homosexuals.

Big Papa Goat · #19

And to a larger percentage, heterosexuals
celibacy

Immortal Goat · #20

Didn't think of that one. Touche'

Sethomas · #21

Priesthood is a vocation, not a job. Women are allowed to become nuns if they wish to live a consecrated life, and they commonly receive paid positions within Church administration. So, you can argue the theological basis to the men-only-priesthood rule, but it's just as legal as a strip joint in terms of how they allocate their employment.

And at present, they don't discriminate in the least against homosexuals. There's paperwork in the mill arguing whether or not confessed homosexuals can become priests, but again that's a moot point.

Big Papa Goat · #22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

We can't start taxing churches if we want to make any headway in the church and state issue. If the government were to start meddling in church affairs, then they could start meddling in national affairs, pressuring the government to make laws that benefit only them and.... wait a second...

FUCK

That already happened, didn't it?

PAGANS FOR SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Big Papa Goat · #23

El Blanco · #24

The other thing is that homosexuals aren't barred from the Church. The act is considered a sin, though.

But, the whole point of the mass is to acknowledge we are all sinners and we are trying to improve.

How can homosexuals be barred from the priesthood if no priests are supposed to be having sex?