Questions: Society & Politics

Gift article - no paywall

https://wapo.st/460F7O0

IRS says churches should be allowed to make political endorsements

The IRS said in a new court filing that clergy and houses of worship should be allowed to make political endorsements, a potential move away from a 71-year-old tax policy that curtailed the fusing of religion and politics.

Banning tax-exempt nonprofits — including congregations — from participating in political campaigns violates the First Amendment’s protection of the right to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, IRS Commissioner Billy Long said in a court filing Monday in a Texas federal court case.

Nonprofits should be allowed to make political endorsements and not lose their tax exemptions, the IRS said in the court filing. Religious congregations, the filing said, are like families, and their internal communications should not be deemed “participation” in a campaign.

“When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]’ nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign,’” according to the filing.

“First Amendment rights don’t end when a pastor, church member or even a political candidate steps on the platform of a church,”.

Others said changing the policy would further pollute U. S. politics.

“Permitting synagogues and other houses of worship to endorse or oppose candidates undercuts the integrity and unity of these religious institutions, turning them into an extension of political candidates or parties,”

“This decision fails to recognize the realities of modern spiritual life and could expose clergy, including rabbis and cantors, to unjust scrutiny as they fulfill their sacred duty to teach, guide, and inspire,” the statement said.

The old trope if men growing up and "spreading their seed" is a well established behaviour used to shame men into denying their carnal desires and true freedom of existence that's founded on the natural desires of living beings to reproduce. However, the ruling classes decided to impressed (by shame and criminality) on men that they should stick to a single woman and forsake all others and their natural urges to form bonded pairs in spite of the potential of them not being guaranteed to be the father of any offspring produced in this holy but unnatural bonding ritual.

Is it time for modern society to do away with paternity support and place women wholy in charge of their reproduction desires?