I'm really really stoned and it took a bit to figure out the question. So if I got it right the churches must chose between government benefits or moral and secular beliefs. In the first place I can't see how the government can get away with discrimination. But, a key sentence in your post may hold the key. Let me paste, "a choice: they could engage in partisan political activity and forfeit their Section 501(c)(3) status or they could refrain from partisan political activity and retain their Section 501(c)(3) status"



First off the First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press". So if politics is not allowed to be involved with religion then how is religion involved with it?



So now this 'Partisan Political Activity' must mean that there has been a crossover between church and state and the First Amendments says that's a no-no. So, is it the government interfering with the church or has the church used it's status to influence politics? I can't see how the government can discriminate between churches without violating the First Amendment so I must assume that from the term, 'Partisan Political Activity', it must mean that somehow the church has involved itself where it really is not allowed. Because not believing in abortion is not 'Partisan Political Activity'. It's a religious belief and the gov can't discriminate for that. So, I think there's more to this than abortion. There is huge reason there is a separation between church and state. In fact America is based on it.

I checked out the link and as I suspected, it has nothing to do with abortion or the church's views or beliefs. It has to do with violating the rules of the statute. Title 42 United States Code, Section 2000bb-1 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[On October 30, 1992, four days before the election, plaintiff Branch Ministries, Inc. (“BMI”), doing business as the Church at Pierce Creek, expressed its concern about the moral character of Governor Clinton in a full page advertisement in the Washington Times and in USA Today. The advertisement proclaimed “Christian Beware. Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments.” It asserted that Governor Clinton supported abortion on demand, homosexuality and the distribution of condoms to teenagers in public schools. The advertisement cited various Biblical passages and stated that “Bill Clinton is promoting policies that are in rebellion to God’s laws.” It concluded with the question: “How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?” At the bottom of the advertisement, in fine print, was the following notice: “This advertisement was co-sponsored by The Church at Pierce Creek, Daniel J. Little, Senior Pastor, and by churches and concerned Christians nationwide. Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted. Make donations to: The Church at Pierce Creek,” and provided a mailing address. Defs’ Motion for Summ. J., Decl. of Peter Lorenzetti,
Exh. E. 1
At the time the advertisement was published, BMI was an organization exempt from taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). On October 31, 1992, the New York Times published an article entitled “Religious Right Intensifies Campaign for Bush.”]

Section 501(c)(3) provides that any organization “operated exclusively for religious, charitable, [or other specified] purposes, . . . and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” shall be exempt from taxation. 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). The IRS asserts that it revoked the Section 501(c)(3) advance determination because the church undertook partisan political activity in direct violation of Section 501(c)(3).

Subsection (c)(3) describes “[c]orporations . . . organized and operated exclusively for religious . . . purposes . . . which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). 4
In this case, the Secretary determined, in compliance with the procedures set forth in CAPA, that the Church at Pierce Creek, while it remained a bona fide church, was not an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) because it had published or distributed a statement in opposition to a candidate for public office. Because the Secretary determined that the Church at Pierce Creek was not an organization described in Section 501(c)(3), he had the statutory authority to determine that it was no longer a church that was exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) and to revoke its Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. See 26 U.S.C. § 7611(d)(1)(A).


The reason that their tax exempt status was revoked was because:
"At the bottom of the advertisement, in fine print, was the following notice: “This advertisement was co-sponsored by The Church at Pierce Creek, Daniel J. Little, Senior Pastor, and by churches and concerned Christians nationwide. Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted. Make donations to: The Church at Pierce Creek,” and provided a mailing address"

When people give contributions to a church they're tax deductible, when that church uses those donations to publish political papers, whether for or against a candidate, then those tax deductible donations have now become part of a political venue and are not exempt from taxation. By the church refusing the comply with an audit and provide names of the contributors they basically interfering with an investigation. They can't claim the Fifth because this is not a criminal investigation. It pretty much is tantamount to Contempt of Court when a reporter refuses to disclose his sources. The Church Audit Procedures Act (“CAPA”), 26 U.S.C. § 7611.

So, in conclusion, the issue is not abortion, not the church being a real church, but that they violated the rules of the statute that gives them tax exempt status and refused to comply with an audit or provide information necessary to investigate. The first mistake was to attack a candidate and sign their name to it, the second was to ask for contributions while doing so and to further more attacks on Bill, and third they obstructed justice by refusing to comply to the audit. Try telling the IRS 'screw you' if you get audited and see what happens. The church can't have it both ways, the rule applies to them both for the exemption and the rules to keep it or it never did.

I'm not a lawyer but I used to play one in prison. LOL Now it's time to smoke a bowl.

Actually there was no contradiction. The issue is the 'ad' not the content of the ad. Any attack violated the contract. I have an IQ of 150, so I have always been fascinated with knowledge. In prison I was a jail house lawyer and I fought many a civil case against the prison for other inmates. I like to think I know the rules of jurisprudence. In the link listed in this post it directed me to a .pdf file with this case. I pasted excerpts from it on my comment. In fact quite a bit of the case law and reasons for the ruling. It clearly states that all actions were because this church took out an ad in violation 'as they undertook partisan political activity' in direct violation of Section 501(c)(3). It has nothing to do with abortion. They could have told people not to vote for Clinton because he was a Womanizer or a Martian and it still would have violated the contract of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The fact this ad was purchased using church monies, which were tax deductible, is at issue. That and the blatant solicitation of more tax exempt contributions in that the bottom of the advertisement, in fine print, was the coup de finition: “This advertisement was co-sponsored by The Church at Pierce Creek, Daniel J. Little, Senior Pastor, and by churches and concerned Christians nationwide. Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted. Make donations to: The Church at Pierce Creek,” and provided a mailing address." This is their wording, not the government's.

The reason their tax exempt status was revoked was because they violated the contract of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in that they participated in trying to intervene in a political campaign in opposition to a candidate.
Per: Subsection (c)(3) Which describes “[c]orporations . . . organized and operated exclusively for religious . . . purposes . . . which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).4
This violated their tax exempt status. It does not say 'what they can or can't say', just that they can't say anything 'for or against' a candidate.

Abortion is not the issue, the church violating the rules by placing a partisan ad is. Oh, by the way, you did notice that there was a 'More' click at the bottom of my last post/comment, Que no? (Just wondering as I made it clear to these same facts at the end.) It was the church who made it an abortion issue, not the government or the statute. They had to present it as if it was an issue of beliefs because they agreed to the terms of the statute to gain benefits from it but did not adhere to those rules, thereby violating the contractual agreement they had with the government. Just so they could cry foul, when in fact it was they who committed the foul when they intimated that it was because of abortion that their status was revoked, when in fact the issue was the ad itself.

I don't think the tax-exempt status is such a decidedly big deal to most honest, decent people of faith. That's not to say there are no churches out there lead or peopled by folks that aren't necessarily honest. The central issue is not so much the way that the church is perceived as it is WHO is doing the perceiving. A politician or political organization that is of an antithetical position with that of a particular church is likely to find the members / leadership of that church to be preaching political doctrine rather than liturgical dogma. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the tenets of faith can be viewed by someone outside the boundries of that faith as something other than faith. If in fact a church supports a particular candidate publicly, as in having a particular candidate or his/her supporter(s) publicly speak at the church plant to the church members about a political campaign, then yes - it is obvious that that church should lose any tax-exempt status. On the other hand, if the leader or if members of a congregation discuss how their particular faith deals with certain secular positions / realities that face their church, that discussion should be considered protected under the First Amendment because it is about the interplay between the secular and the theological, usually dealing with how church members can go between both worlds. Jesus of Nazareth, when his enemies tried to trap Him in along the same lines, said "Render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceaser's, and unto God the things that are God's" ...