May 9, 2008

Churches to put their tax status on the line for the GOP?

Federal tax law, as it relates to tax-exempt religious ministries, is pretty clear — houses of worship may not legally intervene in political campaigns, either in support of or opposition to a candidate or a party. Those who violate the law run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. With some regularity, the IRS reminds houses of worship about this, warning them about the dangers of ignoring the law.

A far-right group in Arizona, however, has an idea: conservative churches should ignore the law — and in the process, test the law — on purpose.

A conservative legal-advocacy group is enlisting ministers to use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September, defying a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., nonprofit, is hoping at least one sermon will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to investigate, sparking a court battle that could get the tax provision declared unconstitutional. Alliance lawyers represent churches in disputes with the IRS over alleged partisan activity.

The action marks the latest attempt by a conservative organization to help clergy harness their congregations to sway elections. The protest is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 28, a little more than a month before the general election, in a year when religious concerns and preachers have been a regular part of the political debate.

In other words, the Alliance Defense Fund wants these churches to commit an act of civil disobedience. According to the WSJ report, ADF hoped to find as many as 50 ministries to take part in the project, and the group has heard from about 80 ministers who expressed interest in participating.

Those ministers need to think long and hard about this, because they’re playing with fire here. Worse, this is one of those huge-risk, low-reward situations.

The Rev. Steve Riggle, senior pastor of Grace Community Church in Houston, one of the pastors who hopes to take part in this, told the WSJ, “The government should not be telling the church what it should or should not be saying…. The IRS cannot quench my voice.”

At first blush, this might even sound compelling. If a church wants to endorse a candidate, it’s the church’s business, right? If congregations don’t like it, they can go to another church. If a pastor passes the collection plate for John McCain during Sunday services, church members can contribute or not contribute. This isn’t, the argument goes, any of the government’s business.

But this falls apart pretty quickly. Tax law doesn’t stifle free speech; it applies conditions to tax exemptions.

Non-profit organizations receive a tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious. But the benefit comes with conditions, most notably a requirement that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. Since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates, it’s hardly unreasonable.

If the rule were eliminated, there’d be a new loophole in campaign finance law — people could donate to a church’s partisan political efforts and the contribution would be tax deductible.

But what if some ministries believe partisan political work is absolutely necessary? They’re in luck — they have every legal right to give up their tax exemption and create an explicitly partisan organization, such as a PAC. Current law simply limits groups from being both tax-exempt ministries and partisan political outfits.

ADF, meanwhile, not only wants to let ministries have it both ways, it also wants these ministries to take a huge risk with no reward — ignore the law, help partisan candidates, and risk IRS penalty. Why? Because ADF has a culture-war experiment it’s anxious to try out.

My friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State (where I used to work several years ago) are already working to counter ADF’s scheme. I’ll let you know what happens.


What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.

On May 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm, Racer X said:

They always need to paint themselves as the victims, it’s their schtick and they’re schticking to it.

Poor us! We have tax-free status, we have a church on every corner, we have every single congresscritter as members (with VERY few exceptions), but us Christians are being oppressed!!!

On May 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm, rege said:

If this suit were to succeed, how long would it take for some Republican businessman with more money than scruples to set up the Church of Free Markets or Temple Reagan to collect donations for the defeat of Democrats?

On May 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm, brent said:

Tax law doesn’t stifle free speech; it applies conditions to tax exemptions.

The fact that you even need to explicitly state this screamingly obvious point is, honestly, depressing to me.

On May 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm, SaintZak said:

Somewhere right now Jesus is saying, “Elvis, what did we do to deserve this?!”

On May 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pm, MsJoanne said:

Well, since the Supreme Court has people who love nothing more than taking a shit on the Constitution, who knows what might happen.

If churches want to participate in government, start by paying taxes!

Let’s hope it goes that way.

On May 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm, Connie said:

I wonder if the people in the pews are insulted - being told who to vote for. What are they? In Kindergarden, for God’s sakes? Adults should never be told who to vote for! If they let the ministers, priests, preachers lead them by the nose like that, then they are truly sheep - not individuals with their own working brain - just sheep!

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm, Dave said:

Good, it’s time to repeal all tax exemption for religion.

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm, Steve said:

Churches, if I’m not mistaken, are incorporated—thus making them eligible for corporate tax rates. Add to that the notion that the government—in the form of the IRS—would suddenly have unrestricted access to their financial records, and only the truly insane pastor would dare take his charge into this particular “Valley of the Shadow of Death.”

Take McPhony’s buddy, Rod Parsley, for example. I can see him suddenly subjecting his big shiny super-mega-mondo-stuffy church in Columbus to a test like this—losing everything to the tax-man within a few years—and all those lovely buildings and the primo land they’re sitting on become the exclusive property of Ohio State University.

That’s a “kegger” I’ll gladly attend!

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm, impeachcheneythenbush said:

It seems the “Alliance Defense Fund” has the American Christian church confused with either the Holy Roman Church or some middle-eastern governments which are ruled by Sharia law. Western civilization overcame the first with the Enlightenment, and most of the second are rabidly declared to be “the enemy” by these same far-right groups.

What is it that they don’t understand about the U.S. Constitution?

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm, N.Wells said:

I think we shouldn’t just remove the tax exemption for religion, but should impose extra taxes on it to make up for excessive past political meddling.

Although we already have a tax on stupidity in the form of numerous state lotteries, we also impose extra taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline because of their extra costs to society, so the precedent exists. Besides, feeling saved and superior is probably well worth a few extra bucks to the faithful, right?

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm, aristedes said:

Another way to deal with it. Perhaps the tax law needs to be revamped. Make all churches, their activities, AND THEIR PROPERTIES taxable but allow charity and other actual “religious work” (retreats, worship services, etc.) to be tax deductible with the same proofs required for other taxable organizations. Require any political activities to be conducted under the auspices and rules of a non-tax-deductible PAC.

Simply, remove the automatic assumption that all church activities are religious and require proofs for specific religious activities of all churches to be tax-deductible. Tax the rest at the going rates.

I’ve had real problems with the “untouchable” aspects of church life for many years. Back in the 70s my rightwing religious mother and her sister paid for and went on a cruise/tour to Egypt sponsored by a church, and the entire trip was a write-off on their income tax because the “purpose” of the trip was listed as “Bible study”. They had a one-hour meeting each day to discuss various Biblical matters, said grace before each meal, and may have said their nighty-night prayers, and that was it. The rest of the time was for recreation and non-religious tours.

Tax deductible, my ass.

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm, DragonScholar said:

As far as I can tell it goes like this:
1) A church gets tax exempt status and in return follows certain requirements including remaining apolitical to an extent.
2) The church can violate that.
3) The IRS can ask for money owed.

I think this is definitely a looser for these people. They got a deal from the government, reniged, and then don’t want to pay taxes? I think they’ll end up looking petulant and childish “I want my big tax break AND the ability to do whatever I want!”

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm, Ripley said:

As I’ve often said: No representation without taxation!

Frankly, I don’t see any reason for a church to be exempted from taxes. Let them show their charitable deductions and pay taxes on “profits”, if there are any, just like corporations. (stop snickering, kids!)

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm, slappy magoo said:

Someone needs to remind the dipwads in the ADF that that sh!t cuts both ways.

Heaven forbid a priest or minister out there delivers a sermon on how they consider Obama more Christlike than McCain, or how Bush is going to Hell for his love of war and torture. Hell, that might be a church I wouldn’t mind visiting. But somehow, I suspect the ADF would adopt a “rights for me and not for thee” approach to this concept. It’ll be fine for churches to politicize their sermons and endorse political candidates…provided they’re the “right” candidates.

Wonder how far that’ll go? Could a moderate or liberal priest be “outed” from his parish for not endorsing a Republican candidate from the pulpit? Would political endorsements give way to COMMERCIAL endorsements? “This sermon is sponsored by by McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish. This Good Friday, don’t go hellacaious, go fillet-cious! And now…Father Felix on how Jesus died for our sins…but He returned for Cadbury Creme Eggs! Yummers!”

Oh, of course not, THAT would be crossing the line. Just give the neoconservative crybabies what THEY want, and all will be fine.

On May 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pm, Dee Loralei said:

Wasn’t there a case a few months ago about the IRS going after some liberal church because the pastor preached that war was wrong? And isn’t the IRS looking into the UCC because Obama spoke to them on their anniversary about faith in public life or somesuch?

This new plan should jump up and bite the far right wing in their collective butts. However, due to the current make-up of the SCoTUS, I’m prettty sure they’d rule for the churches and ADF.

But I’m with everyone else, strip them of their tax free status, except for their charity and outreach programs.

On May 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pm, r_m said:

I could only dream the IRS would actually collect taxes on all the chuches in America!! The tax windfall would probably pay for a VERY large chunk of the national debt and the Bush tax cuts as well….

Think about how much people like Creflo Dollar or Benny Hinn extort from their flocks… that’s could really help bail out the Gubment coffers!

On May 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm, The Lurkologist said:

…a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

The government has been subverting the laws barring the opposite for the past 7 years… stands to reason that this proposal would seem less onerous to some than it would have, say, 200 years ago.

On May 9th, 2008 at 3:27 pm, Franklin said:

To Alliance Defense Fund,

Go for it. I’ll put money behind anybody who fights you.


On May 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pm, anonymensch said:

While I sympathize with the sentiments in this thread, I’d urge everyone here to consider just what a Pandora’s box we’d open by changing the status quo.

Let’s just hope these bastards lose their tax-exempt status by violating its conditions, and leave it at that.

On May 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm, ET said:

I think this falls within the be careful what you wish for category. These people have no real concept that the whole “separation of church and state” thing that they all see as fiction, protects them as well. Stupid people like that deserve to be slapped down and to reap the consequences of their actions.

On May 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm, DB said:

Are these the same people who want to fight the terrorists because they want to come over here and establish sharia law? Seems to me these churchies are all for the blending of religion and government. Oh wait, they’re only for it when its christianity. When its islam, its evil. Got it.

On May 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm, Martha Ray said:

I have been a Christian for many years. I do not try to force my beliefs on anyone, and I do not want anyone to force their beliefs on me. That said, the very fact that I believe in the Bible as the authentic Word of God means that I value it and think that others who do NOT believe it are wrong. However, I will not not beat someone up, try to make a law that they have to believe the same way, or threaten them if they disagree. That freedom of choice is what our country (and my faith) is all about.

If you read and believe the Bible, you know that it says that God, also, gives mankind free choice. They may choose to believe what the Bible says and accept His gift of Jesus, or they may choose to ignore it all and go their own way. I do not think that we should begin using our religious beliefs to coerce others to believe as we do politically. May I explain my reasoning?

I am a mere human being. I am not omniscient. I do not know everything about everybody. Therefore, I do not know for certain that any particular one of the political candidates is the best one to run our country. In the past, it has seemed that no matter which candidate I support, whether or not they are elected, once they actually attain the position they are simply unable to keep the myriad of promises they have made. They may have the best intentions of keeping their word OR they may be the biggest crooks on the planet. I am not their judge. They simply cannot keep every promise made pre-election: it is impossible.

All that goes to make my point: since we are all fallible, imperfect human beings (yes, even those of us who try to obey the guidelines of love given in the Bible), and we do not know the final outcome of any election and presidency, I find it extremely frightening that any religious leader will try and cajole, encourage, or otherwise express a political opinion during a church service. I think that churches have as much right as any other group to educate their members on the candidates positions on various issues, such as in putting out comparison charts about their statements or past voting records.

However, I do not think they should collect donations for any particular candidate. That is the same (in my book) as saying to the general public, “I am a godly person, much wiser and better thanthe rest of you, and I know everything about the future - listen to me and do as I say! Do not think for yourselves, research the matter, or search your hearts and public record to make the correct choice - follow ME!” Aren’t those the types of actions that led to the tragedies in Jonestown and with David Koresh, as well as more recently witht he children removed from the LDS compound?

Anyone who has power given to them, whether the power of the pulpit, the classroom, the home, or even the presidency, has a TREMENDOUS responsibility. We should not seek this power, but if it is given to us we should humbly try to meet our obligations and not abuse the use of our influence.

On May 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm, Jim Strain said:

What makes anyone think the IRS would come after them? Isn’t the Commissioner a Bush appointee? The only recent case like this I can recall was the church in Pasadena that nearly lost everything because of a vigorous anti-war sermon the pastor had the bad luck to mention George W. Bush.

On May 9th, 2008 at 4:02 pm, Karen said:

With so many ideologues sitting on the Federal courts these days, these guys scare me.

On May 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm, Rich said:

The risk to churches who participate results mostly from a Democratic win in November. A new IRS Commissioner, presumably a Democrat, and a new AG (worthy of the name) might, and I say might, pursue revoking their tax exemptions. Seems to me they are banking on McSame getting in, and nothing happening to them. As it is now, the IRS only goes after progressive churches like the UCC who invited Obama to speak at their annual meeting, and pastors who have spoken out against the administration and its war policy. Candidates are routinely invited to give guest sermons at worship services, which could be seen as a back-door endorsement, but hasn’t been in the past.

Personally I think all churches should be treated equally. Tax them. Then they can say what they want in the political arena, and the rest of us won’t have to support it.

On May 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm, BuzzMon said:

Let’s not forget that most local govenments are hurting for revenue, and boy, this sure would beef up the property tax rolls!

On May 9th, 2008 at 5:22 pm, T Hurlbutt said:

I wouldn’t worry about the courts on this one. The AU article cites a case from a few years back where a similar suit got shot down by a bench composed of three Reagan appointees. The head judge was William F. Buckley’s brother.

On May 10th, 2008 at 1:15 am, Doug Indeap said:

Hmm. Seems those advocating churches to disobey the church tax exemption don’t like it much and neither do I–so let’s just get rid of it.

On May 10th, 2008 at 2:06 am, bjkeefe said:

I’d like to see this case tested in court, maybe just out of (morbid) curiosity.

But consider this: Suppose the court finds, rather harshly, the way most of us would like, that churches cannot simultaneously engage in politicking and enjoy a tax-exempt status. What would that mean as a precedent regarding 527 groups? Would, say, MoveOn suddenly find itself forced to make the same choice?

On May 10th, 2008 at 12:50 pm, Live and let live said:

Gee, I bet most of the posters think this only applies to churches that support GOP policies and beliefs. Are all of you ready to tax Trinity, Al Sharpton’s chruch, Jesse Jackson’s church etc. If there was ever a thinly vailed line between activist politics and a church this is it.

I agree that chruches need to stay out of politics or else be taxed. However, this has to include all the church behavior that advocates the agenda of the left as well. Equal treatment for all.

On May 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm, shano said:

I have real trouble with churches putting out position papers on candidates, as Martha Ray suggests. We know how those can be altered.

Unless there is a rule that they must use a real and reliable source, an unbiased source. Good luck getting them to stick to that.

On May 10th, 2008 at 10:18 pm, deang said:

Jim Strain, comment #23: What makes anyone think the IRS would come after them? Isn’t the Commissioner a Bush appointee? The only recent case like this I can recall was the church in Pasadena that nearly lost everything because of a vigorous anti-war sermon the pastor had the bad luck to mention George W. Bush.

Exactly. The right-wing churches may well prevail on this, while non-right-wing churches will still be prosecuted.

And for those here who wonder why a congregation wouldn’t be insulted to have a pastor telling them how to vote, know that most members of these churches already agree with their right-wing pastors and will often demand a pastor’s removal if he espouses views that don’t sit well with them.

On May 10th, 2008 at 11:37 pm, louise margarite said:

From what I understand, the tax statute regarding no political involvement only dates back to LBJ …
before that there was no restriction or sanctions

But I think there needs to be a total overhaul of this tax exemption for charitable causes anyway … religious or not

I think the rules should be tightened up and strictly enforced… Actual houses of worship and religious schools or charitable schools may be exempt … but the church’s airplane, private air strip, and swimming pools and tennis courts are subject to being taxed. So are the salaries and stipends…..

Frankly, I think many pastors and clergy persons want to keep their political views to themselves and don’t want to have political members taking advantage of the church membership and so are glad to have the tax status as something to help them turn down political people who want to exploit the church….

On May 10th, 2008 at 11:42 pm, brad said:

hey you guys all missed the point.

they are doing a rosa parks thing.

they believe the 1st amendment exempts them from
income tax, with no restrictions.

so they are violating the law (sitting in front of bus)
in order to take it to court to get the law changed.

it’s that simple.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise
of religion.
The income tax is a law which restricts their religion.
that is their argument and that is why they are doing this,
to get thier day in court.

On May 11th, 2008 at 2:55 am, Scott said:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?

Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

On May 11th, 2008 at 8:21 am, Fran Taylor said:

Those out to reinterpret whether tax laws apply to a church should re-read the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, …

What this says to me is:

‘Don’t treat religions differently from any other organization.’

Which also says to me that if a law were established that taxed _all_ organizations, churches could not argue that it does not apply to them.

On May 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am, AgentX said:

I’ve heard of being hardheaded before, but this takes the cake.
Yes, the conservatives have a 5 to 4 advantage, but that’s all they have.

Is this a challenge they really wanna risk their holiest of holy grails on? Is getting McCain elected so he can trigger the Apocalypse really worth risking it all?

On May 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am, Fran Taylor said:

Notice how the Bible and the Constitution are really in agreement over this:

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

And contrast that with the modern interpretation. If the Supreme Court had the beginning of a clue what ‘lteral interpretation’ means, things would be very different.

On May 11th, 2008 at 11:43 am, Court Jester said:

I’d like to see a list of ALL of the churches that have been investigated by the IRS over the last dozen years, and then have the list broken down by which party they were suspected of supporting. I’d bet Jenna’s wedding gift that they’re overwhelmingly, if not totally, accused of supporting Democrats.

The only 2 cases that I’ve heard of in the last year or so were both Democrat-leaning churches. I’m certain that if a GOP-leaning church were investigated that BillO will have used it to “prove” his long standing claim of a “war on Christians”.

On May 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pm, Gerix said:

Why not end the tax exemption on all “non-profits”?

Years ago I audited some hospitals for a national CPA firm and remember well this quote by the managing partner who said “The only difference between a for-profit organization and a non-profit organization is what they call the bottom line.” The non-profits all call it something like “contribution to growth and development fund”. As I recall they have to put it to use, which is why the non-profit hospitals keep building, building, building and adding more fancy equipment (if you build it they will come) and becoming part of the reason medical care has become so expensive in this country.

As I see it, a true non-profit wouldn’t have a bottom line. no matter what you called it.under ordinary accounting standards.

Look around your town and you’ll see the same thing with churches that keep building, building, building magnificent facilities that are often quite underutilized. except on Sunday mornings. Those of us who prefer not to attend church are therefore subsidizing those who do.. thus skewing “freedom of religion” which should also include freedom FROM religion.

I have no problem with people believing however they want to believe, and preaching whatever they want to preach. as long as it promotes the common good (read American Fascists), but I see no reason why any of us should subsidize any belief system by granting it tax exemption. If they’re a true non-profit, they won’t need a tax exemption. Their income will just cover the expenses of their good works. and expenses will not include financing magnificent buildings and/or huge perks for the leaders. All we have to do is look at some of the religious scandals of the past (check “Religious Scandals” at to realize it’s time to put an end to this loophole in the current tax system.

On May 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pm, Walt said:

It can’t be repeated enough….

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

On May 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, The Skeptical Cynic said:

And, if they win, then unions will have free rein to become less restricted in politicizing and if you’ve ever heard the howling of a scalded dog, it’ll be nothing compared to the howling you’ll here here from the Corporatocracy and their willing disinformed, dim and deluded (all the result of propagandizing from their pastors and”spiritual advisors”) enablers.

On May 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm, God Sucks said:

Fuck god, Fuck Republi-turds, and Fuck stupid Christian shit-heads!!! You stupid wingnuts will lose this battle.

On May 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm, Eric said:

There’s absolutely no way they are going to win this one. This is sheer arrogance.

On May 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm, brad said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

so it would be under “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
free excercise of religion.

also the fact that IRS gives tax free status, I mean why u think
that is? you think IRS gives it out of goodness of their heart?
or you think they want to avoid a fight they are not certain they
would win?

On May 12th, 2008 at 6:15 am, John H said:

“Tax the churches. Tax the property owned by churches” — Frank Zappa

On May 12th, 2008 at 10:05 am, Greg Forest, Kerrville, TX said:

I agree that churches should lose their tax exemption. Almost all of the “charitable” work they do has a cover charge for the recipients. You want a free meal and bed from the Salvation Army? You have to sit through a sermon first. Most if not all Christian “charity” is based on similar templates. “Our church donated money to go to Bolivia and build a “school.” A school run by proselytizing zealots.

My tax dollars are being spent for the infrastructure such as roads, sewer and other utilities. My tax dollars educate their kids in public schools. I get only grief in return for my involuntary “god tax” that amounts to over $1,000 annually for every citizen.

Churches own over 25% of ALL THE PRIME REAL ESTATE in the U.S. Imagine the property taxes that could be collected. I would be all for exemption if no religious belief was excluded but only “correct” religions need apply. Forget Spaghetti Monsters and the true guide to the light J.R. “Bob” Dobbs, they aren’t “godly” enough to qualify.

What is really cool is that in a country where there is supposedly a separation of church and state it is the state (IRS) that will define legally what a religion is. How’s that for separation?

If anyone should get a deduction, it should be the non-religious folks who are being forced to subsidize superstition.

You NEVER hear about the “render unto Caesar” from the churches. Modern Christians ignore the emancipation offered by Jesus and lean toward the slavery offered by Paul.

They are woefully silent about how they treat the poor and how they worship the mighty dollar. Jesus had a few things to say about these issues and, like a Pollyanna skipping through the flowered meadow covering her ears singing, “La di da,” the new Christian right just inserts fingers into their ears and continue in their worship of the dark side.

Keep in mind that if Satan is the great deceiver the last garb he would wear would be that of a cloven-hoofed Michael Moore. Nope, according to the Bible, The Dark One will be using the name of Jesus to forward his agenda. Probably complete with a teleministry, big hair and loud mouth. My vote is for Dobson.

On May 12th, 2008 at 5:56 pm, Judy Walsh said:

I enjoyed most of the comments on this article. I always felt churches get away with too much. It’s time they paid their fair share as the middle and lower income Americans do.

Perhaps one of these creative people making their wonderful and colorful comments should make up a petition, I’m sure many of us would sign it.

Mentions on other sites...
  1. on May 9th, 2008 at 11:14 pm