Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State writes IRS about Pastor Charles Worley

Last updated on: May 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm by John Shore

Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State writes IRS about Pastor Charles Worley 2012-05-25T16:03:23-08:00 John Shore

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has written a letter to Lois G. Lerner, director of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division, in which he requests that Ms. Lerner consider that in this sermon Pastor Charles Worley violated federal law by intervening in an election.

Dated May 23, 2012, Mr. Lynn’s letter reads:

Lois G. Lerner, Director

Exempt Organizations Division

Internal Revenue Service

1111 Constitution Ave. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20224

Dear Ms. Lerner,

I am writing today with information about a church in Maiden, N.C., that I believe has violated federal law by intervening in an election.

On May 13, Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church delivered a sermon denouncing President Barack Obama’s support for same-sex marriage.

During his remarks, Worley suggested quarantining gays and lesbians and allowing them to die. These hateful and repugnant statements attracted much media attention. (See news story enclosed.) But it should not be overlooked that Worley’s comments also included a partisan appeal related to the November election.

Worley referred to “our president getting up and saying that it was all right for two women to marry or two men to marry” and added, “I was disappointed bad.” He then went on to say, “Someone said, ‘Who ya gonna vote for?’ I ain’t gonna vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover. You said, ‘Did you mean to say that?’ You better believe I did.”

In context, it is clear that Worley is urging congregants to vote against Obama in the presidential election.

As you know, federal tax law prohibits churches and other 501(c)(3) nonprofits from intervening in elections on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. When the top official of a religious organization – the chief pastor of the church – issues an appeal to congregants from the pulpit during a worship service in the strongest possible terms to vote against a candidate, it is clearly intervention in an election.

Church leaders seem to realize that the sermon is problematic. It has been removed from the church’s website, and in fact the church’s entire website is (as of today) no longer online.

The relevant portion of the sermon, however, is widely available on You Tube. I collected it today at the following sites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2839yEazcs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TvvRlweyl0

You can also find it simply by searching YouTube for “Charles Worley.”

I believe Pastor Worley’s comments represent a clear violation of federal law. I urge you to investigate this matter.

Providence Road Baptist Church’s address is 3283 Providence Mill Road, Maiden, NC 28650. Telephone: (828) 428-2518.

Sincerely,

Barry W. Lynn

Executive Director

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

1301 K Street NW, Suite 850E

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 466-3234

Fax: (202) 466-2587

[email protected]

You can view the letter on AU’s website here.

I think Mr. Lynn’s letter could prove to be the snowball that finally starts the avalanche that ultimately wipes out political proselytizing from the pulpits of American churches.

From Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code (which is the part that applies to churches):

Organizations that are exempt from income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as organizations described in section 501(c)(3) may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

…

Section 1.501(c)(3)–1(c)(3)(i) of the Income Tax Regulations states that an organization is not operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if it is an “action” organization.

Section 1.501(c)(3)–1(c)(3)(iii) of the regulations defines an “action” organization as an organization that participates or intervenes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. … The regulations further provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.

…

For their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.

…

Section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’ s platform or biography. All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention.

Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

• Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;

• Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions;

• Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election;

• Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election;

• Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office;

• Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and

• Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candi date are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.

A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election.

Christian Issues

Previous Post

May 24, 2012

One of Pastor Worley's disturbing flock defends him [Brain-frying VIDEO]

Next Post

May 28, 2012 Bits 'n pieces

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Christian Issues Christian Spirituality Dear John En Espanol Everywhere She's Not Humor Look See Pastor Bob's Corner Personal Portuguese Relationships Russian Short-short story Smith Family Chronicles Uncategorized

Select a Month March 2024 August 2022 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 February 2020 December 2019 June 2019 December 2018 May 2018 May 2017 January 2017 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who lost his strength when his hair was cut?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Elijah Absalom Samson David

Books by This Author Books by John Shore

See All Titles »