Last night, I came across a very interesting article published in the Atlantic which highlighted the fact that according to a recent Pew Research survey, “28 percent of those who have attended black Protestant churches in the last few months heard their pastor support Hillary Clinton.” This is a pretty remarkable statistic considering it is illegal to do so.
Which brings up a related question. To what extent did this phenomenon play a role in Hillary Clinton’s sweeping victories across the south versus Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary?
Here are a few excerpts from the Atlantic article:
It is illegal for clergy to support or oppose political candidates from the pulpit. Houses of worship can host candidate forums and voter-registration drives; pastors and rabbis and imams can even bend the rules a little to advocate “as individuals” at conventions or other events. But for more than 60 years, religious groups have been forbidden from electioneering.
Apparently, a lot of pastors don’t pay attention to this rule. According to a new survey from Pew Research Center, roughly 9 percent of people who have attended religious services in the last few months have heard clergy speak out in favor of a political candidate, and roughly 11 percent have heard clergy speak in opposition. What’s remarkable, though, is how much this is apparently happening at one particular kind of church: those run by black Protestants.
Fully 28 percent of those who have attended black Protestant churches in the last few months heard their pastor support Hillary Clinton.
To be clear, political speech is not punishable by jail time; the worst possible consequence for a house of worship is losing its status as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. The IRS has the authority to audit and fine congregations if they suspect them of campaigning or lobbying. The agency rarely exercises this right, though; in recent years, low on budget and increasingly facing public criticism, it has emphasized education, rather than enforcement.
That lack of enforcement seems to have come with increasingly brazen defiance of the rules.
It makes sense that this would be the case for black churches in particular. Black Protestant groups have a long history of political activism, and during this election, a majority of these voters have supported Hillary Clinton. Perhaps they think the stakes of this election are high enough, and the possibility of a Trump presidency is dark enough, to risk the IRS’s wrath.
Or perhaps that when it comes to Hillary Clinton, everyone knows…
For related articles, see:
New York Times Fails to Disclose Op-Ed Writer’s Ties to Hillary Clinton’s ‘Principal Gatekeeper’
Interview with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange – Hillary Clinton Expands the Overton Window of Corruption
“What Difference Does It Make” – Thoughts on the Non-Indictment of Hillary Clinton
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
A rather peculiar “law” for a country like the U.S. isn’t it? What’s the difference between blogging about politics or preaching about it? Isn’t the whole reason for freedom of speech to prevent people from being throttled for discussing politics (or anything else) in public?
I definitely see your point, but bloggers aren’t registered as tax-exempt entities. I suppose a church could just forego that tax break and say whatever they like.
To expand on what Michael replied: When you have a tax exemption, your part of the cost of all government operations is being SUBSIDIZED by other taxpayers. The point of avoiding endorsing a candidate openly is to avoid the situation where I am paying for people to sit in a church and hear someone advocate for a candidate I abhor. As Michael said, if that is what you want to do as a freedom of speech issue, be my guest. Just don’t expect me to pick up YOUR part of the tab to enjoy that luxury.
But in America 2.0, the IRS will avoid this like the plague and concentrate on picking off organizations that are acting legitimately through harassment and punitive audits.
Two standards for justice. Too much to stomach.
It is amazing that pastors/priests will support various issues and directly or indirectly various candidates and then when asked to support the ACLU in the ACLU’s effort to bring justice to the long standing taxpayer funded mind-control, abuse, and torture programs these same pastors/priests will say for the most part these programs do not effect the folk.
TAX THEM, TAX THEM ALL!!!
I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but this is incorrect. The idea that churches remain tax exempt because they comply with something conjured up 50 years ago is wrong. Churches are supposed to be exempt from taxation because they are Churches, not because they meet the requirements of Sec. 501(c)(3)-that is what is meant by “freedom of religion” and this is the flpside to Hugo Black’s “wall of separation”. To buy into the idea that everything is subordinate to the state is statism, not liberty.
When somebody writes “TAX THEM, TAX THEM ALL!!!” on a site called “Liberty Blitzkreig”, I can’t how they live with such cognitive dissonance.
Michael, WTF are you smoking?
You actually think that there is even the slightest chance that the IRS under Obama is going to go after black churches tax exempt status for promoting Hillary from the pulpit?!
“To what extent did this phenomenon play a role in Hillary Clinton’s sweeping victories across the south versus Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary?”
It played a huge role among church going black voters who have never trusted old Jewish guys from the Northeast for damn good reasons.
I never said there was a chance of that.
Take a deep breath.
There Was A Good Reason Why Christ Called The: Politicians, Religious Leaders, Scribe/Lawyers & Money Changers/Banksters VIPERS.
He Started Over With 12 New Men – The Apostles With His Teachings.
The Catholic Church Stole The Church From Peter & Crucified Him On Their Upside Down Cross. And Now Her Daughter Churches Are In Control With Their Phallic Symbol Steeple Churches.