Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
It's a silly rule. Why do we as a society need to shut up pastors and preachers and priests, using tax exemption as a carrot and the lack of it as a stick. It's so hostile to freedom of speech.

One they're not being shut up. They can talk as much as they want. They're just not allowed to say "Mike is the right candidate and you should vote for him." Any organization that is predicated on being a non-political body that also wants tax exempt status should not be allowed to in turn make overt political decisions, especially when being a religious authority means you can literally screw with people's souls (you know, religiously speaking). It's coercive in a way that few, if any, other figures can be coercive.

For my part, they should just pay taxes like any other business, whether they promote politics or not. But I know that will never happen.

Unless the church is run as a business (which some do and we need to crack down on them), then they should be able to file for tax exempt status as a non-profit. Non-profit is non-profit who gives a gak why they're non-profit?

The government shouldn't be trying to limit or stifle it at all.

I'll make sure to say that when the cops have me against the wall for negligent manslaughter for yelling fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede.

We have an amendment that strictly and explicity forbids it from doing so.

The Supreme Court fundamentally disagrees with that interpretation and has for the last 200 years.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.

Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.

What part of the 1st requires you to pay taxes?

I can see the angle you are coming from. I think the way you are wording it is dangerous though.

A similar point of view could be with the US Military. My freedom of speech is curtailed. When I enlisted, I gave away a number of my rights, not the least of which, those protected by the first. That was a contract I signed though, between me and the government.

Does that same contract exist between religious organizations and the government? Does one such thing even exist? Should it? I didn't give up my rights for tax breaks. Sure I get them, on occasion (I have to be in a region where getting shot at is not unexpected), but the reason for the restriction to my rights has more to do with the nature of my service then anything else. The mission cannot be completed at times if I didn't have restrictions placed on my free speech, for example.

You can't put the same litmus test up against religious organizations, IMO. Nor does the Constitution provide said right. Article 1, Section 8 is what gives the government the power to curtail the rights of the military. Where does it do that for religious orgs?

You haven't been paying attention. It's the agreement they make when they apply for tax-exempt status. So, yes, that contract does exist.

no religious institution should have the authority to embrace candidates they are far too influential and it would cause the atheist community to fething rebel.

I am for one for free speech but there is a good reason there is a speration for church and state. I do not think anyone should have that power over or sway over individuals. immediately when you invovle politics with religion you get a good ole oligarchy which no one should encourage.

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It's a silly rule. Why do we as a society need to shut up pastors and preachers and priests, using tax exemption as a carrot and the lack of it as a stick. It's so hostile to freedom of speech.

One they're not being shut up. They can talk as much as they want. They're just not allowed to say "Mike is the right candidate and you should vote for him." Any organization that is predicated on being a non-political body that also wants tax exempt status should not be allowed to in turn make overt political decisions, especially when being a religious authority means you can literally screw with people's souls (you know, religiously speaking). It's coercive in a way that few, if any, other figures can be coercive.

I'm sorry but I think of it as almost a bribe. In effect the government is saying they can have free money so long as they shut their friggin mouths when it comes to endorsing political parties or politics. It's in practice coercive on the part of government. Carrots and sticks.

The fire in a crowded room example you provided is not applicable here. Telling a congregation they should vote for this or that candidate or party won't cause a stampede and risk people's lives.

It would cause the religious community to rebel. What happens when the Archbishop of New York declares "Vote for Hillary Clinton, the Catholic Church of New York supports her" and Southern Baptist Coalition announces "Vote for Donald Trump, the Baptists Church supports him."

That's how half the countries in the rest of the world have generational religious wars. Because while it's impossible to keep religious out of politics, it is possible to keep politics out of religion and the Johnson Amendment helps us do that in so many ways. Religious leaders are allowed to speak out against a candidate. They can speak for another. They can voice an opinion on political issues and the political landscape but for very good reason it is best that they don't embed themselves as a political establishment. There's too much of that as it is around here.

 Asherian Command wrote:
no religious institution should have the authority to embrace candidates they are far too influential and it would cause the atheist community to fething rebel.

I am for one for free speech but there is a good reason there is a speration for church and state. I do not think anyone should have that power over or sway over individuals. immediately when you invovle politics with religion you get a good ole oligarchy which no one should encourage.

They already do have that power. You seriously don't think preachers and priests are supporting candidates through coded speech, or through preaching in favor of those issues that only candidate X supports, and letting the congregation fill in the blanks.

The whole things a farce to begin with.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
no religious institution should have the authority to embrace candidates they are far too influential and it would cause the atheist community to fething rebel.

I am for one for free speech but there is a good reason there is a speration for church and state. I do not think anyone should have that power over or sway over individuals. immediately when you invovle politics with religion you get a good ole oligarchy which no one should encourage.

They already do have that power. You seriously don't think preachers and priests are supporting candidates through coded speech, or through preaching in favor of those issues that only candidate X supports, and letting the congregation fill in the blanks.

The whole things a farce to begin with.

Yes but they cannot offically do so. The pope can't say for instance "Vote for this person."

Suggestive advertisement and putting things up in churchs to vote for certain candidates is barred for good reason.

It would cause the religious community to rebel. What happens when the Archbishop of New York declares "Vote for Hillary Clinton, the Catholic Church of New York supports her" and Southern Baptist Coalition announces "Vote for Donald Trump, the Baptists Church supports him."

That's how half the countries in the rest of the world have generational religious wars. Because while it's impossible to keep religious out of politics, it is possible to keep politics out of religion and the Johnson Amendment helps us do that in so many ways. Religious leaders are allowed to speak out against a candidate. They can speak for another. They can voice an opinion on political issues and the political landscape but for very good reason it is best that they don't embed themselves as a political establishment. There's too much of that as it is around here.

Yeah that is what prevents religious wars

 jasper76 wrote:


I'm worry but I think of it as almost a bribe. In effect the government is saying they can have free money so long as they shut their friggin mouths when it comes to endorsing political parties or politics. It's in practice coercive on the part of government. Carrots and sticks.

The government is saying "this tax exempt status is predicated on charitable works and politics are not charity" and the government is absolutely right.

The fire in a crowded room example you provides is not applicable hear.

It's applicable enough in that you have no absolute rights.

Telling a congregation they should vote for this or that candidate or party won't cause a stampede and risk people's lives.

No. It just puts people in the emotionally tumultuous position of have to chose their politics based on what their preacher tells them to do, which can be even worse in its own way. A secular state cannot exist simultaneously with a religious elite that can declare who God wants to be President.

 jasper76 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It's a silly rule. Why do we as a society need to shut up pastors and preachers and priests, using tax exemption as a carrot and the lack of it as a stick. It's so hostile to freedom of speech.

One they're not being shut up. They can talk as much as they want. They're just not allowed to say "Mike is the right candidate and you should vote for him." Any organization that is predicated on being a non-political body that also wants tax exempt status should not be allowed to in turn make overt political decisions, especially when being a religious authority means you can literally screw with people's souls (you know, religiously speaking). It's coercive in a way that few, if any, other figures can be coercive.

I'm sorry but I think of it as almost a bribe. In effect the government is saying they can have free money so long as they shut their friggin mouths when it comes to endorsing political parties or politics. It's in practice coercive on the part of government. Carrots and sticks.

The fire in a crowded room example you provided is not applicable here. Telling a congregation they should vote for this or that candidate or party won't cause a stampede and risk people's lives.

So they should have free money with no strings attached?

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.

Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.

It's a silly rule. Why do we as a society need to shut up pastors and preachers and priests, using tax exemption as a carrot and the lack of it as a stick. It's so hostile to freedom of speech.

They're ostensibly non-political entities, hence why they exempt from taxes. Once they enter the realm of politics, they are no longer non-political. Hence why they lose their tax exempt status once they start going into that arena.

Nobody is shutting anyone up, pastors and preachers and priests can say whatever they want. However, if they want to keep *all* of their $$$ without rendering unto Caesar what is Caeser's, they can't actively campaign for or endorse a specific candidate or ballot measure as agents of the church/synagogue/temple/mosque/etc, nor can they use such services to tell their congregations to vote for X or Y, if they do, then Caesar is coming for what is Caesar's.

For my part, they should just pay taxes like any other business, whether they promote politics or not. But I know that will never happen.

Many others, including myself, feel that way too. But they have tax exempt status, and that's contingent upon their not engaging in direct political campaigning.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.

The SCOTUS ruling itself cannot, however if the executive branch continues, subsequent actions brought before courts based on those rulings can result in cessation orders or contempt charges, things that carry the backing of law enforcement agencies.

I thought the issue was that the law enforcement agencies themselves were contemptuous of the court.

The issue is that the executive agencies would potentially be contemptuous, but they are not in direct control of all law enforcement agencies and their control is not absolute.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.

Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.

What part of the 1st requires you to pay taxes?

I can see the angle you are coming from. I think the way you are wording it is dangerous though.

A similar point of view could be with the US Military. My freedom of speech is curtailed. When I enlisted, I gave away a number of my rights, not the least of which, those protected by the first. That was a contract I signed though, between me and the government.

Does that same contract exist between religious organizations and the government? Does one such thing even exist? Should it? I didn't give up my rights for tax breaks. Sure I get them, on occasion (I have to be in a region where getting shot at is not unexpected), but the reason for the restriction to my rights has more to do with the nature of my service then anything else. The mission cannot be completed at times if I didn't have restrictions placed on my free speech, for example.

You can't put the same litmus test up against religious organizations, IMO. Nor does the Constitution provide said right. Article 1, Section 8 is what gives the government the power to curtail the rights of the military. Where does it do that for religious orgs?

No rights are given up, what they are given is a snowflake exemption to paying taxes based upon their ostensibly apolitical nature. Once they cease being apolitical, that exemption is removed. They can say whatever they want whenever they want, however they lose the privilege of being tax exempt from paying taxes to the government once they start getting into the arena of actively attempting to shape that government.

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It's a silly rule. Why do we as a society need to shut up pastors and preachers and priests, using tax exemption as a carrot and the lack of it as a stick. It's so hostile to freedom of speech.

One they're not being shut up. They can talk as much as they want. They're just not allowed to say "Mike is the right candidate and you should vote for him." Any organization that is predicated on being a non-political body that also wants tax exempt status should not be allowed to in turn make overt political decisions, especially when being a religious authority means you can literally screw with people's souls (you know, religiously speaking). It's coercive in a way that few, if any, other figures can be coercive.

I'm sorry but I think of it as almost a bribe. In effect the government is saying they can have free money so long as they shut their friggin mouths when it comes to endorsing political parties or politics. It's in practice coercive on the part of government. Carrots and sticks.

The fire in a crowded room example you provided is not applicable here. Telling a congregation they should vote for this or that candidate or party won't cause a stampede and risk people's lives.

So they should have free money with no strings attached?

As I said, I think they should pay taxes. If we decide they should be tax exempt, that's fine, but I don't think it's consistent with the spirit of the 1St Amendment nor the fundamental liberal value of free speech to stifle their own rights to free speech. It's like a deal with the devil, if you ask me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


No. It just puts people in the emotionally tumultuous position of have to chose their politics based on what their preacher tells them to do, which can be even worse in its own way. A secular state cannot exist simultaneously with a religious elite that can declare who God wants to be President.

I'm suggesting to you this is already the case, with or without this prohibition. People are clever, they find ways around this stuff. And this is why I think it's a farce.

Take a look at Turkey some time.

See how well "Liberal values" mesh with unmanaged religious authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:


I'm suggesting to you this is already the case, with or without this prohibition. People are clever, they find ways around this stuff. And this is why I think it's a farce.

I'm suggesting you should consider the distinction better.

There's a light years difference between a priest sitting down with a parishoner and saying "Abortion is a sin, and I strongly advise you against it" and standing before a congregation and declaring "The Pope should be president." This is a very clear as day distinction, and even if a priest sits with people in private and tells them who he likes and wants to vote for, it's not the same as making a political endorsement while occupying a position and place as a religious authority with all the laurels and tappings of the faith. It' dangerous. it shifts from speaking as a personal matter to speaking as a religious matter, and as a religious man I can tell you how difficult a position that puts me in. I have enough hang ups about god and politics as it is, I don't need my pastor telling me who to vote for. It's bad for religion, its bad for faith, its bad for government.

 LordofHats wrote:
Take a look at Turkey some time.

See how well "Liberal values" mesh with unmanaged religious authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:


I'm suggesting to you this is already the case, with or without this prohibition. People are clever, they find ways around this stuff. And this is why I think it's a farce.

I'm suggesting you should consider the distinction better.

There's a light years difference between a priest sitting down with a parishoner and saying "Abortion is a sin, and I strongly advise you against it" and standing before a congregation and declaring "The Pope should be president." This is a very clear as day distinction, and even if a priest sits with people in private and tells them who he likes and wants to vote for, it's not the same as making a political endorsement while occupying a position and place as a religious authority with all the laurels and tappings of the faith.

To me it's like a distinction without a difference. If a religious cleric wants to endorse a candidate but keep his money, all he has to do is preach on those issues his candidate supports. Which is precisely what many do. It's a big farce. A silly game.

As for Turkey, well, the United States is not Turkey. And for every church endorsing candidate X, another church will be endorsing candidate Y. Freedom of religion and all that.

 jasper76 wrote:
To me it's like a distinction without a difference. If a religious cleric wants to endorse a candidate but keep his money, all he has to do is preach on those issues his candidate supports. Which is precisely what many do. It's a big farce. A silly game.

No it's not.

People are free to consider whether or not a candidates position on abortion is important to them as a political matter. They're free to consider if their religious ideals on prayer in schools are important enough to sway their vote. Preachers can speak to these matters, and that might impact a decision, but it doesn't make the decision an religious mandate.

When a preacher stands up and says Vote for Terry he is making a vote for Terry a religious mandate and that is very different.

As for Turkey, well, the United States is not Turkey. And for every church endorsing candidate X, another church will be endorsing candidate Y. Freedom of religion and all that.

The point is that if the state does not enforce its own secular status, it will not be secular for long.

If you register as a non-political organization, you don't get to be political.

How is that such a controversial issue?

 d-usa wrote:
If you register as a non-political organization, you don't get to be political.

How is that such a controversial issue?

"Liberal values"

ignore that another liberal value is freedom of religion and freedom of religion is impossible if religion can dictate political outcomes.

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
To me it's like a distinction without a difference. If a religious cleric wants to endorse a candidate but keep his money, all he has to do is preach on those issues his candidate supports. Which is precisely what many do. It's a big farce. A silly game.

No it's not.

People are free to consider whether or not a candidates position on abortion is important to them as a political matter. They're free to consider if their religious ideals on prayer in schools are important enough to sway their vote. Preachers can speak to these matters, and that might impact a decision, but it doesn't make the decision an religious mandate.

When a preacher stands up and says Vote for Terry he is making a vote for Terry a religious mandate and that is very different.

I really don't see much difference at all with saying "you should make abortion your number 1 priority" when Terry is the only dude running against abortion, and just directly endorsing Terry. These are the games many clerics are currently playing so they can keep their extra money.

And just like a congration can ignore their preachers pronouncement on abortion, so could they ignore their preachers choice for candidate.

Like people have mentioned, the Johnson Amendment makes sense as a way to try to maintain the separation of church and state. Allowing religion get directly involved with politics can cause some significant issues. Especially since no America political party has a lock on religion.

One of things that sometimes get forgotten that there are a lot of religious people in America that are across the political spectrum. And a good amount who strongly believe that the separation of church and state is vital for America.

 jasper76 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
To me it's like a distinction without a difference. If a religious cleric wants to endorse a candidate but keep his money, all he has to do is preach on those issues his candidate supports. Which is precisely what many do. It's a big farce. A silly game.

No it's not.

People are free to consider whether or not a candidates position on abortion is important to them as a political matter. They're free to consider if their religious ideals on prayer in schools are important enough to sway their vote. Preachers can speak to these matters, and that might impact a decision, but it doesn't make the decision an religious mandate.

When a preacher stands up and says Vote for Terry he is making a vote for Terry a religious mandate and that is very different.

I really don't see much difference at all with saying "you should make abortion your number 1 priority" when Terry is the only dude running against abortion, and just directly endorsing Terry. These are the games many clerics are currently playing so they can keep their extra money.

And just like a congration can ignore their preachers pronouncement on abortion, so could they ignore their preachers choice for candidate.

Because the church decided to become a non-political entity, it's really no more complicated than that. It's that simple and it's not some sort of trick by the government to shut-up pastors.

At some point in time the church made the very conscious decision to sit down, fill out a piece of paper, and publicly declare that they are now a non-political charitable entity and that they will not become involved in politics, and that they will focus on charity and social issues instead of politics. They decided that this is the law they wanted to follow. It has nothing to do with separation of Church and State, that whole aspect doesn't even come into play at any point in time and that is not why they are barred from endorsing candidates. The same rules apply to all 501(c)3 organizations, religious or secular.

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

Social-issue organizations have always been able to talk about social issues, and they have never been able to talk about politics. It's a weird line, but it's an easy one to follow. All organizations, religious or not, who registered under that status can talk about abortion as a social issue, but they cannot endorse a politician. They can talk about gun safety as a social issue, but they cannot endorse a politician. They can talk about alcohol as a social issue, but they cannot endorse a politician.

 jasper76 wrote:
I really don't see much difference at all with saying "you should make abortion your number 1 priority" when Terry is the only dude running against abortion, and just directly endorsing Terry.

It's almost like the former requires you to take an extra step in the thought process or something, to both decides that Abortion is your number one priority, and then decide that Terry is the only candidate that a vote for would fulfill that decision. I could theoretically decide that abortion is my most important issue, but that Terry is a liar and doesn't actually believe in supporting my thoughts on it. I could decide 3rd party candidate Bret is a better choice and vote for him to call attention to the issue. Maybe I decide that I can't vote for Terry or Bret because while they oppose abortion they're also against tax exempt status for churches and I'm more worried about my church closing down than I am about abortion.

None of those things end up mattering if there is an endorsement. I am faced with the sole decision of whether or not I will follow the church's decision or break from it, which isn't easy. It removes my ability to engage politics from a position of faith to making politics a matter of faith. There's a difference between deciding that a Preachers sermon about human life is an important political issue and being told that the Church wants X to win an election. It's an obvious distinction and I shouldn't need to take an entire page explaining it.

These are the games many clerics are currently playing so they can keep their extra money.

It's like you think the clergy only cares about how much money they're making.

You realize that numerous churches have already spoken against repealing the Johnson Act? It's pretty much an issue believed in only by the Republicans and a few Evangelical groups (most of whom already violate the Johnson Amendment, because we're talking about a minor legal restriction that debated more than it is enforced).

 d-usa wrote:

At some point in time the church made the very conscious decision to sit down, fill out a piece of paper, and publicly declare that they are now a non-political charitable entity and that they will not become involved in politics, and that they will focus on charity and social issues instead of politics. They decided that this is the law they wanted to follow. It has nothing to do with separation of Church and State, that whole aspect doesn't even come into play at any point in time and that is not why they are barred from endorsing candidates. The same rules apply to all 501(c)3 organizations, religious or secular.

I don't think it was ever appropriate for the government to get in what I perceive as a game of bribery. Inasmuch as churches are inherently concerned with political issues they are in fact political entities.

This was a deal made in hell.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Like people have mentioned, the Johnson Amendment makes sense as a way to try to maintain the separation of church and state. Allowing religion get directly involved with politics can cause some significant issues. Especially since no America political party has a lock on religion.

That's not true. Separation of Church and State didn't really factor into it, and if the Southern Baptist Convention wasn't a charitable organization it would be perfectly free to declare that "God almighty in heaven wants Donald Trump to become the President of the United States so that we can ring in the second coming of Christ and if you don't vote for Donald Trump you hate Jesus and Jesus will hate you and turn you away from the gates of Heaven to spend eternity in Hell together with everyone who voted Hillary Clinton and that dope head who was also running". And they is no law that stops them from doing so for any religious reason, no law that says "separation of Church of State makes it illegal for a Church to talk about the State.

It's simply prohibited if a Church registers as a charity, because charities cannot politic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

At some point in time the church made the very conscious decision to sit down, fill out a piece of paper, and publicly declare that they are now a non-political charitable entity and that they will not become involved in politics, and that they will focus on charity and social issues instead of politics. They decided that this is the law they wanted to follow. It has nothing to do with separation of Church and State, that whole aspect doesn't even come into play at any point in time and that is not why they are barred from endorsing candidates. The same rules apply to all 501(c)3 organizations, religious or secular.

I don't think it was ever appropriate for the government to get in what I perceive as a game of bribery. Inasmuch as churches are inherently concerned with political issues they are in fact political entities.

If you start off with the perception that tax-exempt status is a bribe, then there is no logical argument that can convince you otherwise.

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
These are the games many clerics are currently playing so they can keep their extra money.

It's like you think the clergy only cares about how much money they're making.

You realize that numerous churches have already spoken against repealing the Johnson Act? It's pretty much an issue believed in only by the Republicans and a few Evangelical groups (most of whom already violate the Johnson Amendment, because we're talking about a minor legal restriction that debated more than it is enforced).

I said many clerics, not all. And I did not mean to imply all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

If you start off with the perception that tax-exempt status is a bribe, then there is no logical argument that can convince you otherwise.

I actually don't think it was intended as a bribe, but in practice it sure seems like it works like one.

I think that's enough discussion about the charitable privileges and obligations of religious organisations in the USA. The situation has been explained very well, and is perfectly clear.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that's enough discussion about the charitable privileges and obligations of religious organisations in the USA. The situation has been explained very well, and is perfectly clear.

I'll shut up about it after this, but the Trump administration is trying to get rid of it. The merits of their position is a topical political issue in the USA, FWIW.

 jasper76 wrote:

As I said, I think they should pay taxes. If we decide they should be tax exempt, that's fine, but I don't think it's consistent with the spirit of the 1St Amendment nor the fundamental liberal value of free speech to stifle their own rights to free speech. It's like a deal with the devil, if you ask me.

It seems very consistent to me.
No one forces a religious organization to apply for the privilege of being tax exempt. If a organization want to have the full free range of free speech available to a regular person, then they need to pay tax just like a regular person

The only difference is that the religious organization is privileged in that it has the choice between engaging in politics or paying tax. A regular person needs to pay tax regardless of whether she engage in politics or not.

More random semi-relevant old political cartoons.

It's also worth noting that charitable organizations, including churches, don't get tax-exempt status for "shutting up".

They get tax-exempt status because their charitable work is good for the community. They are performing the job of 'promoting the general welfare' that the government would normally do, so they get to keep the money they would normally give the government to do the same job.

And just like the government can't tell you who to vote for, the tax-exempt organization can't tell you who to vote for.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll shut up about it after this, but the Trump administration is trying to get rid of it.

That alone probably should be enough of a warning that getting rid of it is a bad idea at this point.

 d-usa wrote:
If you register as a non-political organization, you don't get to be political.

How is that such a controversial issue?

I think encouraging people to participate in the political system, without endorsing a candidate or stand, but leaving it to individual choice is as far as a religion should go.
There are also dangers involved beyond any consideration of tax status if a religion starts banging the drum for candidates, such as the leadership and church itself losing credibility if the candidate turns out to be a gold plated ass.