Bush’s IRS vs. All Saints Episcopal Church

September 18, 2006

Shortly before the 2004 presidential election, the Rev. George F. Regas, the former rector of [tag]All Saints[/tag] [tag]Episcopal[/tag] Church in Pasadena, told his congregation about his perspective on the president and the war in Iraq. Regas imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with [tag]Bush[/tag] and [tag]Kerry[/tag] and said that “good people of profound faith” could vote for either man.

He added, however, that he imagined [tag]Jesus[/tag] telling Bush, “Mr. [tag]President[/tag], your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster.” The comments prompted the [tag]IRS[/tag] to launch an aggressive investigation into the church’s alleged partisan conduct — which turn out to be one of the more provocative church-state conflicts in quite a while.

A liberal Pasadena church facing an IRS investigation over alleged politicking sounded a defiant note Sunday, with its leaders and many congregants saying the probe amounted to an assault on their constitutional rights and that they were inclined to defy the agency’s request for documents.

“These people are offended,” said the Rev. Ed Bacon, rector of All Saints Episcopal Church, after delivering an impassioned sermon about the investigation to a standing-room-only crowd of about 900. “Freedom of speech and freedom of religion have been assaulted by this act of the IRS, and I think my people want to be heard in court.”

To put it mildly, the IRS is playing hardball. The agency recently ordered All Saints to turn over documents — including copies of sermons, emails, newsletters, even financial records — the church produced in 2004.

Bacon, however, on the advice of parishioners, may decide to refuse the IRS’s demands and instead take the issue to court. “I believe we should respectfully decline to produce the documents,” said Cathy Shearon, an All Saints parishioner said. “Being passive plays into the culture of oppression.”

That’s when things will likely get interesting.

There’s a lot to this case. Whether the pre-election sermon at All Saints crossed the legal line and amounted to intervention in a political campaign is open to some debate. The pastor didn’t say, “Don’t vote for Bush,” but for the purposes of tax law, what Regas did may very well have constituted intervention in the campaign. It would be similar to a pastor of a right-wing church, just two days before the election, imagining Jesus chatting with Kerry and Bush about abortion and then told congregants that Kerry’s position was at odds with God’s wishes. Churches that engage in these kinds of efforts should expect the IRS to stop by for a chat.

That said, the IRS’s political motivations are also a concern. For example, when a ministry is suspected of intervening in a political campaign, ordinarily the first step is a warning letter from the IRS. In this case, the agency skipped that step and went right to a threatening letter, stating that “a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church.”

Moreover, usually a house of worship is reminded of legal limits, the institution promises to play nice, and unless there’s a pattern of repeated abuse, the matter is final. The IRS seems to have taken a far more aggressive position towards All Saints Episcopal. The church provided the IRS with a copy of all literature given out before the election; the IRS said it wasn’t satisfied. The church said it never endorses candidates; the IRS told church officials to either admit wrongdoing or face more intense scrutiny.

For that matter, there are multiple examples of similar election comments from conservative pastors in the South, some of which are arguably far more partisan than the All Saints example, but which did not prompt similar investigations.

Indeed, I’ve worked on this issue for quite a while, and as far as I can tell, no church has ever received this kind of IRS scrutiny based on one complaint as a result of one sermon.

Given the circumstances, it’s not unreasonable to wonder if, perhaps, Bush-appointed staffers at the IRS are targeting All Saints because they simply didn’t like the sermon’s criticism of their president. It would be an outrageous abuse of power for the IRS to go after a house of worship due to political concerns, but given what we’ve seen of the Bush gang in recent years, it’s hard to offer the administration much in the way of benefit of the doubt.

During Watergate, America learned Nixon used the IRS to harass and intimidate political opponents, as part of a pattern of a White House’s abuse of power. Could it be happening again?

During Watergate, America learned Nixon used the IRS to harass and intimidate political opponents, as part of a pattern of a White House’s abuse of power. Could it be happening again?

Would it surprise anyone if it was?

  • remember, the abiding principle of these scumbags is that the only thing nixon did wrong was to get caught.

  • Gee and they didn’t even have to use wire-tapping to detect the church’s “evil-doing” This sure looks like selective enforcement to me. But I’m sure all the super-religious reich-wingers will rise up to protest this intererence with a church. I’m okay with eliminating all tax-exemptions for churchs but not for just the liberal ones.

    On another note, how come PACs can be tax-emempt when their whole purpose is to support a poltiical party?

  • From the link:

    “On July 4, 2004, the Rev. Ronnie Floyd of First Baptist Church of Springdale [Arkansas] praised Bush for his war on terrorism and his stands against abortion and same-sex marriage, while lambasting Kerry. Floyd even employed the church’s audio-visual system to show large pictures of the candidates in the auditorium while he spoke, using a flattering photo of Bush and a smaller unflattering picture of Kerry. According to a July 21, 2005, report in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the IRS has decided not to pursue action against the church for this obvious campaign intervention.”

    Obviously there’s a double standard at the IRS, and nobody will be surprised. The Bushites will probably assert that Clinton did it too, which would be wrong but enough to salve their alleged consciences.

    When God’s on your side, you can do no wrong.

  • Some of these organizations are billion dollar enterprises and bear no resemblance to the stereotypical “little mountain church house.” Exempting these behemoths from taxation is just taken as a given. Could someone please refresh my memory as to the rationale behind the subsidy?

  • The longer the rethugs are in power the more corrupt “our goverment ” We will fight for freedom anywhere except the USA where our goverment is turning into a dictatorship!

  • One has to remember that All Saints is the church of Bradley Whitford & his wife Jane Kaczmarek so this may have some of the ‘attack the Hollywood liberal’ crap that the right wing so dearly loves. Until I hear that GOP whack job mega-churches are being targeted I’ll be very skeptical of the IRS’s motivation in going after All Saints.

    PS Yes I must defend this church in part ‘cause us Wisconsin folks stick together (ie with Brad & Jane). We Wisconsinites are still trying to make amends for Tailgunner Joe hence our election of Russ.

  • Many churches in The Archdiocese of Phila had pamplets in the back of their churches before the 2004 election – Voters Guide for Serious Catholics. Our pastor, during the homily, talked about the election, voting according to the church’s teachings and the info available in the back of the church. The pamphlet, while not naming candidate names, stated that “good” catholics had to vote for candidates that supported the “5 Non-Negotiable issues for Catholics”:
    Ban on abortion
    Ban on gay marriage
    Ban on stem cell research
    Ban on euthanasia
    Ban on human cloning
    Conspicously missing were capital punishment and the Iraq war, which the church has voiced opposition to. The guide also coached: “Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching.” It was clearly a thinly veiled endorsement for Bush (in 2000, my pastor endorsed Bush directly from the pulpit). The voters’ guide is put out by a California-based lay group, Catholic Answers, which is not officially affiliated with the church, and the Archdiocesis stated thay “took no position on the pamphlet”. My husband sent the pamphlet to the Phila Inquirer, and columnist John Grogan ran a great article – and a follow up article due to the overwhelming response it generated.
    When is the IRS contacting the Catholic Church?

  • “The church said it never endorses candidates; the IRS told church officials to either admit wrongdoing or face more intense scrutiny.”

    Yep, that’s what they want. A full confession. Expect the application of “alternate techniques” anytime now.

    Liberal Republican (?) got my example. The Catholic Church spinning teachings to slant the electorate away from one of their own communicants for a Methodist who hardly ever goes to church. Really makes me wonder about the American Conference of Bishops.

  • It is a double standard, or blind eye, by the IRS (as directed by the admin?) to ignore the outright political propaganda for W and the Rs by the fundy churches, yet go after this liberal church.

    I wonder if there would be any consequences had Rev. Regas said something like “Can you imagine that Jesus would urge us to start a preemptive war that posed no imminent threat and has led to disaster?” rather than the direct reference to W (“Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster”).

    My own pastor is about as liberal as they come, yet our congregation is a mix of Dems and Repubs. The only time (that I’m aware of) that any members left was due to the pastor taking a stand (as an individual, not speaking for our congregation or for our denomination) for gay unions. And that was only one family. In his sermons, he always reminds us of what Jesus told us to do (which is the opposite of what the current admin is doing, so there you go). Too bad the fundies can’t hear his message.

  • One would think, given the impending demolition of the GOP at the polls in the upcoming midterm cycle—and the mainstream cycle two years hence—that someone in the administration would reign in the snarling poodles at IRS.

    Or perhaps they look forward to the day when a Democratic government “returns the kindness”—and starts bulldozing all of those multi-million-dollar Reich worship-centers? It’s a no-brainer, given that the nasty little hatemongers actually “sell” video-copies of their crimes as a method of raising more funds….

  • The question I have is whether, if this does go to court, the church (and, presumably, the large and well-heeled legal defense effort that will arise to support it) can drag in *all* these examples of right-wing religious advocacy.

    I almost think this is more common than not. Campaigning in Cleveland at the end of the ’04 election, friends and I actually talked to a woman who was undecided literally on her way in to vote. We spoke with her for probably 20 minutes, and in the end convinced her to support Kerry. But during the whole time, she kept telling us about all the people in her church, the Focus on the Family voter guides, and other sustained messages of support for Bush that she just couldn’t dismiss, even though her actual read of the news and her assessment of the situation had been pushing her towards Kerry.

    It might not be too much to say that this is the most important development in American politics today. The church/party fusion Rove has worked so hard for effectively renders some significant chunk of the electorate impervious to empirically based thinking about their political decisions. Rove knows that if he can make sure that elections aren’t held in the “reality-based community,” his scumbags can hang on despite their myriad failures.

  • My wife and I are on-and-off-attenders of All Saints Church. We were there Sunday and what Rector Bacon said is something most of the congregation is behind.

    All Saints is a Peace and Social Justice church. Honestly, we shouldn’t have to add this descriptive because Christianity, when its practiced in accordance with the life of Jesus, is centrally about Peace and Social Justice. We live in a different “reality” though.

    And that’s the point, isn’t it. Bringing God’s Kingdom to earth. Everyday striving to change the “reality” of this world. The “reality” which emphasizes the shallow, the superficial, the get-yours-first, and which dehumanizes other human beings too easily.

    What good is a church that acts as an insulated, gated community against the seemingly hostile world around it? That is to live in fear instead of abundance and possibility.

    A church is a community, not a club. It’s a community that seeks inclusivity – to bring us closer to one human family. It’s a community that respects every person’s journey in this life to realize their human potential. It’s a community that seeks to learn from each person (seeing them as a face of God) a broader understanding of God’s infinite Creation – finding Truth.

    What Rector Regas said was critical of both Kerry and Bush in that sermon. Both had been proponents of this war in Iraq. I think All Saints has God’s Kingdom on its agenda first and wants all our leaders, regardless of political affilation to take up this Kingdom’s agenda of Peace and Social Justice. We will not be captured by one political party while doing so.

    Our church has even taken our Congressman, Adam Schiff (29 District) to task several years ago when he visited our mid-service Adult Education Forum. We did so because of his support for the Iraq War – he is a Democrat.

    I hasten to add we are also firm believers in the separation of church and state. Our church was approached with offers to work together with conservative churches to undermine this important part of our democracy – we rejected these appeals immediately and directly. The state would ultimately co-opt any religion that became the official national religion – we need only look back to Emperor Constantine and Rome to see this. We should look to the founding of this nation in which many were fleeing religious persecution by state sponsored religion.

    We don’t claim to have a lock on the single best way to “get to God”. We have a saying at our church that is repeated often. “Wherever you are on your journey of faith, you are welcome here.” No judgement there. We don’t seek to convert. We reach out to other faith communities (Moslem, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu) because we think we can learn from them and we think we have common cause with them to make this a better world.

    On an individual level and a communal level, that really is what salvation is about – not some pie-in-the-sky place after you’re dead.

  • I think it is a pretty clever move on their part.

    (1) Attack a so-called liberal leaning church on political activities.

    (2) Create an uproar from some libs and the religious right.

    (3) After some investgation, back off and admit error.

    (4) create loophole in IRS regs to allow the kind of discussions and then some that went on at the church

    (5) Apply new standard to right wing churches to increase poltical activity marrying God, Gov and the GOP.

    Just a hunch

  • Thank you Patrick Briggs, for so beautifully explaining “progressive” Christianity, the kind I mentioned in the Obama thread has having been a major force in the nation’s history. And it looks like you folks at All Saints still are.

  • It is very odd to see a church you have attended show up in a national political blog. I know the people involved in this case; I don’t doubt they toed the line, but I think they would be smart enough not to cross it.

  • Thanks, Patrick Briggs; it’s good to know that there are churches like yours and people like you.

    re:
    What Rector Regas said was critical of both Kerry and Bush in that sermon.

    And therein lies the dog buried… He should have called for beatification of Bush and condemnation of Kerry in no uncertain terms and all would have been fine.

  • When Cardinal Ratzinger declared that Catholics who vote for a pro choice candidate cannot receive communion, right before the presidential election, did the IRS investigate? Did they ask for records and emails from the Catholic Church? Did they question their tax exempt status?

    I would expect a man of God to give an anti war sermon. I like to think God prefers wars to be avoided. But let me ask one hypothetical question. What would have happened if Rev. Regas had given a pro war sermon on the eve of the election? Does anyone honestly believe there would be an IRS investigation right now over All Saints Chuch’s political stand on the war?

    • Comments are closed.