IamThunderbolt
Well-known member
Churches that advocate for a political candidate should lose all tax free advantages.
They already do per the Johnson Amendment. The problem is that churches side-step this by campaigning for issues/values. While a church can't endorse or denigrate a candidate fully, they can push a pro-life, or whatever issue might clearly mark which candidate they are endorsing without using their name. A pastor can endorse/campaign for an individual on their own time, as long as they don't do it on behalf of their church or from the pulpit.
Case in point, I was almost fired because I had an Obama yard sign in '08 (which is fine), but the pastor went above and beyond to expose that only a pro-life candidate is the "Christian" option when voting - this is also legal because he limited himself to speaking about an issue instead of a candidate (even though it was a strong endorsement of McCain).
I actually don't have an issue with churches campaigning for issues or people as faith communities should be involved in shaping politics of its congregation and talking about the intersection of faith and communal political life. My biggest issue is that to receive preferential tax status, a church should have to justify its benefit to the community - that funds are invested in programs beyond evangelism, sectarian practices, or other events whose main effect is just enlarging the church/benefitting its members.
Last edited: