IRS Watching YouTube on Sept. 28

A recent story in The New York Times detailed how the Internal Revenue Service has taken an interest in all those fiery, political sermons that have been appearing on YouTube over the past few years. Of special interest to those who collect our nation's taxes is whether or not churches, who enjoy tax exempt status in the United States, are breaking the law by encouraging their congregants to vote one way or another:

This year, several cases of possible electioneering by clerics have come to the federal government's attention because of Webcasting. During the Florida Republican primary campaign, a blogging tax lawyer blew the whistle on Bill Keller, a St. Petersburg televangelist who preached on his Web site that a vote for former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a Mormon, was "a vote for Satan." Mr. Keller has since confirmed that the I.R.S. is reviewing his church's tax status.

Of course, as we've seen again and again, churches long for an influential role when it comes to politics. When Catholic priests refuse communion rites to Rudy Giuliani because he is pro-choice, they are making a political statement. When Hillary Clinton was mocked at Trinity United Church of Christ, the message to those in the pews was crystal clear. And when Sarah Palin took to the stage to ask the members of her own church to pray for a gas pipeline deal, and declared the Iraq War to be part of God's plan, she not only implied that God favored GOP positions, but that if you loved God, you should, too. Here's the video from the latter instance:



None of this would be the least bit troubling, mind you, were the federal government not aiding these religious organizations with a free ride on taxes. But, as the Supreme Court has ruled, if you're getting preferential treatment from the federal government, your church cannot be in the business of trying to influence who ends up on the government payroll.

Even without the aid of YouTube, keeping politics out of religion is easier said than done. What we often witness is an array of coded messages delivered from pulpits across the country. Pastors take pains not to mention a specific candidate by name, but impart the political opinion all the same.

Well, as The Washington Post reported yesterday, that covert song and dance is just too much for some in the religious community to bear. In a call to preachers across the country, the Alliance Defense Fund, is asking conservative religious institutions to take a stand and break the law. They want pastors to ditch the code words and directly tell their flocks who they should vote for in the presidential election. The date of the protest is set for September 28:

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

But the Sept. 28 action is also opposed by a great many religious institutions, which are petitioning the IRS to kill the protest before it comes to pass:

Backed by three former top IRS officials, the group also wants the IRS to determine whether non-profit ADF is risking its own tax-exempt status by organizing "an inappropriate, unethical and illegal" series of political endorsements.

"As religious leaders, we have grave concerns about the ethical implications of soliciting and organizing churches to violate core principles of our society."

The stated reason the ADF wants a new court challenge to the ban on political endorsements is that it sees a more sympathetic court with the likes of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, two conservative Bush appointees. Even if the ADF is thwarted on September 28, we're bound to see a new case sooner or later. The 54-year-old precedent will be tested by those who seek a union of God and politics, and they'll eventually find a like-minded federal judge who'll ignore it.

Should Palin/McCain win the election, there's no doubt the balance of the Supreme Court would tilt even further toward ending the ban. If so, our churches would be free to campaign directly on behalf of candidates, and keep their sweet tax-free status all the while. We'll live in a country where religion plays a much greater role in who we send to Washington.