• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

Usually wrong but never in doubt

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Accountability, motherfuckers.

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

Putin dreamed of ending NATO, and now it’s Finnish-ed.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Those Who Live in Glass Houses…

Those Who Live in Glass Houses…

by John Cole|  November 10, 200512:49 pm| 48 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

The GOP and the right wing better tread lightly when it comes to stuff like this:

An Episcopal Church says it will fight to keep its tax-exempt status in light of an Internal Revenue Service investigation into a politically charged sermon.

The Rev. Ed Bacon, rector of All Saints Church, said Monday that the church learned of the investigation in June, and he made it public in services Sunday because the IRS appears to be close to a decision on the matter. The investigation was triggered by a sermon delivered by Rector Emeritus George Regas.While many churches deal with politics in general from the pulpit, they are enjoined from making endorsements if they wish to stay tax-free.

The IRS notified the church of the investigation in a letter that cited an Oct. 31, 2004, sermon by Regas called “If Jesus Debated Senator Kerry and President Bush.” Church leaders say they have done nothing wrong.

Two words: Justice Sunday. Three words: Just Us Sunday.

(h/t Sullivan)

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The JOOS KNEW!
Next Post: More on the Hettle/Deignan Flap »

Reader Interactions

48Comments

  1. 1.

    Zifnab

    November 10, 2005 at 12:57 pm

    You mispelled it. That’s “Just Us” Sunday. As in “not you damn hippie liberal douchies, just Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and anyone who gives us money.”

    I mean seriously, did you think the GOP actually supported the santity of religious freedom when they weren’t getting paid?

  2. 2.

    Defense Guy

    November 10, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    So then black churches should be equally disallowed from allowing black democratic politicians from addressing the congregation from the pulpit? Or is it only a problem when one side does it?

  3. 3.

    Cyrus

    November 10, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    This actually isn’t totally cut-and-dried, because the transcript of the sermon on the church’s Web site was a lot more political than most.

    However, if the church had taken the opposite position on all those issues – the Iraq war, [legislation forbidding] abortion, and poverty – no one would ever have noticed or thought about it twice. The IRS wants to make those topics considered political speech so any pastor that talks about them from the pulpit loses his church’s tax-exempt status? Well, that’s within reason even though I wouldn’t support it myself, but it’s a disgusting abuse of power to apply it to one side of the political divide and not the other.

  4. 4.

    Mr Furious

    November 10, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    Somebody refresh me… Last fall around election time, didn’t the Administration (through the Justice Dept) more or less give carte blanche to churches to lobby on behalf of Bush by promising revisions of some sort to these same regulations?

    Anyone? I’m serious.

  5. 5.

    Steve

    November 10, 2005 at 1:13 pm

    In answer to your question, DG, yes, apparently the IRS only has a problem when one side does it. That is exactly what this post is about.

  6. 6.

    jg

    November 10, 2005 at 1:14 pm

    A church threw out parishioners who voted democrat. Did anyone threaten them with losing their tax exempt status?

  7. 7.

    Zifnab

    November 10, 2005 at 1:14 pm

    Give carte blanche? They didn’t give carte blanche, they lived off the church’s tit.

    Didn’t James Dobson get more information on the Miers nomination than the freaking US Senate? I mean, if you want to talk about politics getting in bed with religion…

  8. 8.

    Jay

    November 10, 2005 at 1:17 pm

    In answer to your question, DG, yes, apparently the IRS only has a problem when one side does it.

    Then why did it happen to a church in 1992 that opposed the election of Bill Clinton?

  9. 9.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    Then why did it happen to a church in 1992 that opposed the election of Bill Clinton?

    Link?

  10. 10.

    Lines

    November 10, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    link? facts? something to substantiate your claim, Jay

  11. 11.

    Jay

    November 10, 2005 at 1:26 pm

    Whoops. Sorry, forgot the link.

    Excerpt:

    The IRS has revoked a church’s charitable designation at least once. A church in Binghamton, N.Y., lost its status after running advertisements against Bill Clinton’s candidacy shortly before the 1992 presidential election.

  12. 12.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 1:27 pm

    lost its status after running advertisements against Bill Clinton’s candidacy shortly before the 1992 presidential election.

    Sure. A sermon is EXACTLY the same as an advertisement.

  13. 13.

    Jill

    November 10, 2005 at 1:29 pm

    this is what happens when people fail to realize that God is not a republican nor a democrat…

  14. 14.

    John S.

    November 10, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    Seperation of church and state?

    Never heard of it…

    Kudos, Republicans. You’ve done a wonderful job blurring the line and confusing the hell out of people.

  15. 15.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    In his sermon, the Rev. George F. Regas did not urge parishioners at All Saints Episcopal Church to support either George Bush or his opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. But he was sharply critical of the Iraq war and Bush’s tax cuts.

    Anyone see a difference from Jay’s claim and this sermon?

    Anyone? Anyone?

  16. 16.

    Lines

    November 10, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    Jay,
    they were using non-profit contributions to run negative ads against a candidate. When they did it, it was still expected that Bush The Smarter would win, so attaching a political motive to the audit is just a bit tough in that situation.

    In the case of the sermon, it involved no funds, it was a theoretical 3-way debate between Jesus, Kerry and Bush. Even though Jesus was unable to speak english, he still came out on top of Bush.

    But if you remember back to the 2000 and 2004 elections, churches regularly took part in sermons casting one or the other of the candidates to the pits of hell. This was pretty tame compared.

  17. 17.

    Jay

    November 10, 2005 at 1:36 pm

    Mike, give me a break. Cripes, are you people so blinded by your own ideology that you can’t just accept the fact both instances are wrong? Either the churches were wrong for doing what they did, or the IRS is wrong for going after them. Why does everything have to be “worse” than something else? “Oh yeah, that’s no good, but what they did is JUST SO MUCH WORSE!!” Enough already.

    As an evangelical Christian myself, the last time I would ever go to my church would be the first time my Pastor started railing against elected officials, either Democrat or Republican. Our church does stress that members be involved in the political process, but never advocates who anybody should or should not vote for.

  18. 18.

    Lines

    November 10, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    Jay, follow the money, man. Non-profit funds were used in the instance you mentioned, while in this instance there were no funds used. It does make a difference, its the way the law works! So far the IRS has failed to provide proof of a law being broken to initiate an audit like this.

  19. 19.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    Our church does stress that members be involved in the political process, but never advocates who anybody should or should not vote for.

    Which is great. But you are comparing something so openly partisan, the actual running of ads against a candidate, with a sermon about policy. There simply is no comparison.

  20. 20.

    Mr Furious

    November 10, 2005 at 1:43 pm

    Sigh. Does nobody remember what I’m talking about?

    I believe the way they approached it was to say that if a church got nailed for political speech they might forfeit tax-exempt status for a short period or perhaps even the remainder of the year as opposed to for the enitire tax year or permanently.

    Which is the same thing as saying, “Go ahead, take your chances, even if we can’t hold the dogs off you, we can make sure the penalties are negligible.

    I can remember writing about this, but it wasn’t in my archives—it must have been in someone else’s thread…

  21. 21.

    Another Jeff

    November 10, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    Which is great. But you are comparing something so openly partisan, the actual running of ads against a candidate, with a sermon about policy. There simply is no comparison.

    Right, which is why if Bush actually had balls, he’d sic the IRS on the NAACP.

  22. 22.

    Steve

    November 10, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    Apparently you have been in a cave, because the IRS has been going after the NAACP for several years now as a consequence of some of Julian Bond’s more impassioned anti-Bush speeches.

  23. 23.

    Another Jeff

    November 10, 2005 at 2:01 pm

    Apparently you were in a cave in 2000 because I was talking about the fact that someone mentioned running ads against a candidate, and the NAACP ran an ad using the daughter of a murder victim saying that when then-Governor Bush opposed a hate-crimes bill, it was like murdering her father all over again.

    They’re obviously not going after them very hard, because proving that the NAACP is definitely not non-partisan would be the biggest slam dunk in history.

  24. 24.

    Nikki

    November 10, 2005 at 2:04 pm

    Well, Jay, if your pastor has ever preached a sermon against the death penalty, divorce, or working on the Sabbath, then according to this recent action by the IRS, your church should have its tax-exempt status revoked. After all, those topics ARE U.S. policy.

  25. 25.

    Dave Ruddell

    November 10, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    I’m a little confused about why churches are so threatened by the IRS removing their tax-exempt status. Now, I’m staggeringly ignorant of tax law, but would churches pay a lot of tax if they weren’t exempt? I’m assuming that most churches don’t generate much of a surplus (profit) in the first place. Or are there other federal, non-income taxes that they would have to pay?

  26. 26.

    docG

    November 10, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    What with the Republican Revolution in full flower, and its reliance on free markets and unfettered capitalism, let’s just admit that churches are businesses. They make investments in their infrastructure and staff, market their services, and rake in the bucks for said services. (Non-profit status is for do-gooder, pot-smoking, diversity lovin’, take-from-the-rich, tie-dye wearing, PBS watching, liberal pussies anyway.)
    Be a man, be a for-profit business! Then you can feel free to inform us how Jesus (or Buddha, or Moses, or Mohammed, or any other CEO of the faith biz) would vote. No harm, no foul!

  27. 27.

    Jay

    November 10, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Non-profit funds were used in the instance you mentioned, while in this instance there were no funds used. It does make a difference, its the way the law works! So far the IRS has failed to provide proof of a law being broken to initiate an audit like this.

    It has nothing to do with money. Non-profits are barred from intervening in elections. This sermon was delivered 2 days before the 2004 elections and from everything I have read, while he didn’t specifically didn’t tell anybody who to vote for, his ire and attacks were directed at President Bush, and such a sermon could easily be construed as intervention on Kerry’s behalf.

    That doesn’t mean that I agree with it. I believe there was a church in Arkansas whose Pastor delivered a sermon where he tore into John Kerry and praised President Bush. He also didn’t say who to vote for, but it was easy to see who he wanted people to vote for.

    Again, when you start saying nonsense like, “Oh that’s different” or “Well this was worse!”, you lose credibility on the issue.

    And Nikki, the things that you listed are ISSUES, not PEOPLE. In that regard, there is a difference.

  28. 28.

    Francis

    November 10, 2005 at 2:23 pm

    Dave Ruddell:

    property taxes.

    or rather, given the value of the dirt underneath Saint Patrick’s Cathedral and the size of the Catholic Church’s landholdings,

    PROPERTY TAXES!!!!!

  29. 29.

    John S.

    November 10, 2005 at 2:30 pm

    Again, when you start saying nonsense like, “Oh that’s different” or “Well this was worse!”, you lose credibility on the issue.

    Just like you lose any credibility on an issue when you resort to calling people “retards” rather than attempt to make an actual point (or rather, allow others to make it for you), as you have done on your blog.

  30. 30.

    Dave Ruddell

    November 10, 2005 at 2:31 pm

    Francis,

    I thought of property taxes, but are they levelled by the feds? I live in Canada, and property taxes are a municipal concern. Or is it that if the IRS says you’re tax exempt, it applies to all levels (federal, state, and municipal)?

  31. 31.

    Mike S

    November 10, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    It has nothing to do with money. Non-profits are barred from intervening in elections. This sermon was delivered 2 days before the 2004 elections and from everything I have read, while he didn’t specifically didn’t tell anybody who to vote for, his ire and attacks were directed at President Bush, and such a sermon could easily be construed as intervention on Kerry’s behalf.

    I’m not so much arguing with this point, although a church that can’t talk about how certain policies hurt certain people or go against what God/Christ preached kind of loses any meaning, as I’m arguing about the total partisanship of this.

    By the rules this seems to fall under the entire Catholic Church in the states should lose tax exempt status. Saying you will not give communion to pro choice candidates is no different than what this pastor did.

  32. 32.

    Lines

    November 10, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    Non-profit religious institutions cannot give financial or moral support to specific political candidates. Thus, a clergyperson cannot deliver a sermon in which she or he recommends that the members of the congregation vote for a particular candidate or a particular political party. To do so would endanger their non-profit status. A clergyperson can probably suggest that they vote for or against a state proposition, because no great expenditure of money would be involved. But a church cannot make financial contributions to a candidate’s political campaign.

    Link

    Sounds like the burden of proof is on the IRS to prove that somehow the sermon(s) in question can be construed as a sort of “financial contribution”.

  33. 33.

    Jay

    November 10, 2005 at 2:59 pm

    Sounds like the burden of proof is on the IRS to prove that somehow the sermon(s) in question can be construed as a sort of “financial contribution”.

    Are you purposely being obtuse and trying to get away with something or just ignorant? Did you read the first part of what you posted? It says:

    Non-profit religious institutions cannot give financial or moral support to specific political candidates.

    They do not have to prove that it was the equivalent of a financial contribution. They only have to prove that the person giving the sermon was giving a tactic endorsement to Kerry by slamming Bush repeatedly.

  34. 34.

    John S.

    November 10, 2005 at 3:12 pm

    They only have to prove that the person giving the sermon was giving a tactic endorsement to Kerry by slamming Bush repeatedly.

    You did mean a tacit endorsement, right?

    So much for railing about others being obtuse and ignorant.

  35. 35.

    Nikki

    November 10, 2005 at 3:12 pm

    And Nikki, the things that you listed are ISSUES, not PEOPLE. In that regard, there is a difference.

    The Iraq war and tax cuts are people?

  36. 36.

    Steve S

    November 10, 2005 at 3:27 pm

    This is because the Republican party hates religion and Christians.

    Clearly.

  37. 37.

    Steve

    November 10, 2005 at 3:28 pm

    The point is, as things exist today, only one side is getting threatened by the IRS for expressing political views.

    The fact that some church on the opposite side got punished one time, over a decade ago, really doesn’t change that fact one bit. It really makes no difference if the ancient violation was much worse or if it had been the exact same thing.

  38. 38.

    tzs

    November 10, 2005 at 3:33 pm

    ….I am reminded of a line from Thomas Beer in reference to politicians in the 1890s: “They invoked Christ with the freedom of medieval kings in a brawl over the border.”

    Plus ca change, c’est plus la meme…

  39. 39.

    Shygetz

    November 10, 2005 at 3:35 pm

    Why don’t we just eliminate the tax-exempt status for all non-charitable portions of churches? And when I say non-charitable, I mean anything that doesn’t feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick, etc. Why do they get a free ride?

  40. 40.

    BIRDZILLA

    November 10, 2005 at 3:57 pm

    The Infernal Revanue Service is harrasing the church whats it to come to?

  41. 41.

    Zifnab

    November 10, 2005 at 5:01 pm

    They do not have to prove that it was the equivalent of a financial contribution. They only have to prove that the person giving the sermon was giving a tactic endorsement to Kerry by slamming Bush repeatedly.

    True, it is against IRS regulation to both give monitary contributions and to provide moral support. However, from a legal perspective I can certainly see the “moral support” bit as a catch-all against backdoor donations – preventing a church from having a GOP or DNCC rally in it’s backyard and writing it off as a church expense. And while preaching politics from the pulpit might fall under the ‘moral support’ catagory, it’s been noted that this is hardly regulated behavior.

    Paying hard cash for a TV ad, a highway banner, or a radio spot is a little harder to weasel out of.

    Mostly, you have to recognzie that the provision is there to keep politicians from laundering money tax-free through churches, not to keep churches from expressing their political viewpoints.

  42. 42.

    Rocky Smith

    November 10, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    I can’t see a church providing funds to any candidate, but any Pastor should still have a right to free speech. Newspapers, labor unions and various other sources work for candidates and issues they like all the time. My wife’s union sends a list of who she should vote for before every election. Why should a church not enjoy the same rights?

  43. 43.

    Lines

    November 10, 2005 at 5:17 pm

    Jay:

    Prove it. Prove they provided moral support. Are you going to be the judge of every case in the future afterwards as well?

    You’re playing games with semantics. The only provable case of campaign violations is when a monetary value can be attributed to a particular act.

  44. 44.

    Gary Farber

    November 10, 2005 at 5:23 pm

    Original story here. Follow-up here.

  45. 45.

    Don

    November 10, 2005 at 5:31 pm

    The Republican party has turned many religions and their leaders into fundraisers. People like Dobson has raised millions to help out the republican party. In return they have been given tax money in the form of tax exempt status and Bush’s new program of giving tax money to religious charities. This increased their profile, letting them gain more power and raise more money. Preaching fear and raising money – Religion and Republicans have a lot in common. Its a stretch, but in a way our tax money is being used to support the Republican party.

  46. 46.

    jcricket

    November 10, 2005 at 6:11 pm

    It all depends on what the meaning of SPECIFIC POLITICAL CANDIDATE is.

    Seriously, in Jay’s world apparently the word candidate is synonymous with issue. And a sermon which doesn’t mention anyone by name, or anything that’s only supported by one person so as to make the issue and the person identical, is the same as an ad mentioning a specific person.

    Lots of people support Bush’s tax cuts. Lots of people oppose them. Jay – are you now saying that by discussing the issue of tax cuts the sermon is providing moral support to every candidate that agrees with the position of those politicians, wherever they may be?

    You’ve set up a false dilemma by misrepesenting the facts of each case.

  47. 47.

    Don

    November 10, 2005 at 7:13 pm

    Shygetz – because everybody has to compete on equal footing unless it has to do with Jeebus, in which case all bets are off. Who knows why – it seems like a pretty straightforward thing. Render unto Caesar or keep your mouth shut. You’re welcome to do either, just as you have free will to sin. Just don’t expect not to spend your time in the hot place.

    Dave – in addition to property tax issues there’s the matter that churches want to be able to take charitable contributions from people and have them be tax deductable. It’s a big part of the motivation for any large contribution.

  48. 48.

    Don

    November 10, 2005 at 7:25 pm

    The only provable case of campaign violations is when a monetary value can be attributed to a particular act.

    But the ability to raise funds and hold property completely tax-free has inate monetary value! So how can any action clearly political action, whether it be endorsement, ads or sermons not constitute a political act paid for by tax-exempt dollars?

    This isn’t rocket science. Any church that doesn’t like the restriction doesn’t have to live under it. Stop taking your tax exemption and reclassify yourself as an entity like Move On or People for the American Way. Live with not being able to solicit donations that are tax deductable. Or should Move On get to be tax-exempt now?

    Endless pissing and crying about churches being somehow ‘stifled’ is bullshit and disengenuous.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • zhena gogolia on Drama Queens (May 31, 2023 @ 6:52am)
  • RevRick on Drama Queens (May 31, 2023 @ 6:51am)
  • Ksmiami on Drama Queens (May 31, 2023 @ 6:49am)
  • Manyakitty on Drama Queens (May 31, 2023 @ 6:30am)
  • ETtheLibrarian on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Elizabeth Holmes Has Started Her Prison Sentence (May 31, 2023 @ 6:13am)

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Seattle Meetup on Sat 5/13 at 5pm!

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!