BRUU Support of Obama Violates The IRS Code
By Greg L | 6 September 2008 | National Politics, Manassas City | 43 Comments
How does the promotion by Democrats of the “separation of church and state” square with the Bull Run Unitarian Universalists holding a rally for Obama in their church? According to the MJM, hundreds of local residents gathered at the church during the DNC convention to watch Obama’s acceptance speech, complete with Obama banners both inside and outside the building. Since the BRUU is recognized as a tax-exempt charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, such obviously partisan political activities on behalf of a candidate would seem to be sufficient grounds for their tax exempt status to be revoked and for the City of Manassas to be able to levy taxes on this activist organization that calls itself a “church”.
I’m sure the city could use the revenue.
The event was promoted on the Obama campaign website as an official “convention watching party”, and acknowledged by Obama’s campaign officers when questioned by the press. The church property was festooned with banners and posters advocating for the election of Barack Obama. You’d think that Bruce Roemmelt, who organized this event, would understand the law a bit better since he’s been involved in an election or two before.
The BRUU should have their tax-exempt status revoked for this. Other organizations active in local politics follow the rules, which can be rather stringent, and the BRUU shouldn’t get this kind of a pass.
UPDATE: From the Internal Revenue Service:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.
I recall that when Mexicans Without Borders used the property of All Saints Church last year and Pierre Manes made a campaign speech, All Saints was so concerned about this that they told Mexicans Without Borders they could never come back. Here we have a “church” making their facilities available to the Obama campaign for an official campaign event, which is quite a bit more serious a violation. These folks really have to make a decision about whether they are a tax-exempt religious entity, or a political organization which would be subject to taxation. They can’t have it both ways.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
43 Comments
Leave a Reply
Views: 958
Loading ...
You are absolutely correct Greg, but guess what….surprise, surprise, a “pass” is exactly what they’ll get! All it takes is friends in high places.
BRUU permits its facilities to be used by others. The event on Aug 28 was a private event, not a church function.
Does it matter they really are not a Church?
A relevant point, CitizenofManassas, but I think the key issue is whether or not BRUU is tax exempt. It is well known that conservatives are unwelcome in the Unitarian community, so it would not come as a shock that they would feel free to openly display a favoritism towards a disciple of Black Liberation Theology, such as Obama.
The event was just a special woship service.
No problem, right?
Wasn’t TR a unitarian?
It seems to me that some people choose their religion according to political ideology, while others based their political ideology on their religious faith. While an indistinct line, it strikes me that Unitarianism as a “religion” long ago traveled to the former side of the line. Any “religion” which elevates self over sacraments and beliefs ceases to be a “religion,” as that term is ordinarily understood. It’s narcissism, not “religion.”
‘Course, I doubt that there’s anything the IRS could do about their tax-exempt status, even if so inclined.
Perhaps our friends in the Manassas GOP Committee should seek to use their facility for a meeting, or a McCain/Palin rally. That should put them to their proofs on being “non-partisan.”
TR was NOT a Unitarian. It’s a church like Jeremiah Wright’s church is a church. It is a political entity.
Take a moment and Google “Unitarian Presidents” –
it might surprise you.
“I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry
and belief, which has surrendered its creed and
conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine
doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust there
is not a young man now living who will not die
an Unitarian …. the wisdom of the Unitarians is the
holy mantle which will cover within its charitable
circumference all who believe in one God, and who
love their neighbor!”
Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse
(Monticello, June 26, 1822)
Ok, TJ was a little off with his prediction, but the
Unitarians, agree with them or not, have deep roots in
American history.
I’m not surprised a leftwing opportunist like Bruce Roemmelt organized this event in a church - supporting a presidential candidate who grew up with Islamic indoctrination, communist mentoring by avowed American Communist,Frank Davis, and Black liberation theology by the lunatic, Reverend Wright. The Left is so entertaining.
If you haven’t heard, the Communist Party USA now endorses Barack Hussein Obama - but no surprise there.
http://cpusaelections.blogspot.com/2008/07/reflections-on-obamas-tour.html
Unitarianism, as it exists today, is not the same Unitarianism of the 1800’s.
Actually considering they were just worshiping “The One” it was really non-political.
Although I don’t agree with the candidate they support, I do support a church’s free speech, If a church wants to support a pro-life candidate for instance, I see no reason that their free expression should be stifled.
In fact my church plans to erect a 4×8 McCain/Palin sign.
It wasn’t until the Baptists in Texas nearly derailed Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1948 senate candidacy that church and politics was an issue, In retribution LBJ championed a bill to cut away those Church’s and Ministers Freedom and stifle the moral influence on American Politics.
You are certainly correct, “Big Dog.” My hometown in Pennsylvania is home to a very old Unitarian Church, to which Joseph Priestley — discoverer of oxygen and no relation to Jason — belonged.
This kind of stuff is why I left the UUs. Too liberal, too political. No room for political or religious moderates in Manassas, sadly.
Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat. I hardly think if he was alive today, he would want to be a Democrat.
I have several shooting buddies that go to that church. Hard core NRA members and conservative Republicans. They would have a McCain event there too if someone wanted to. I was there for a fund raising auction that even sold all expense skeet shooting trips.
They in fact encourage everyone to think for themselves. What ever they believe.
monticup said on 6 Sep 2008 at 4:38 pm:
Unitarianism, as it exists today, is not the same Unitarianism of the 1800’s.
The same could be said for a ‘Liberalism’.
I go to that church. I am also a Republican. I will be voting McCain.
I have to say you are completely wrong about BRUU and this IRS thing. They welcome all political beliefs within the congregation. They don’t preach politics from the pulpit either. In fact the Minister intentionally avoids partisan politics because it divides. She knows the pews are full of military and other conservative people.
Respect for everyones views is what echoes from that pulpit.
There are a ton of serious liberals that go there too. The respect is why so many of them are my friends.
BRUU is not a political church. Many people that go to BRUU are simply active in politics.
In fairness, I was speaking about my UU congregating, not BRUU specifically. If it is what you say it is Marty, I might have enjoyed my experience more.
I’ve read Bruce Roemmelt’s blog, Marty. “Respect” for others’ views is not a word that immediately comes to mind. Indeed, in his support for forced-unionism, it is utterly clear that he supports forcing others to subsidize his views.
I find it fascinating that someone who describes himself as a conservative would go to that church.
The church has hosted events opposing the Marriage Amendment, has a specific outreach program for homosexuals, did a “split-the-collection-plate” fundraiser for Mexicans Without Borders, hosts viewings of homosexual-themed films, and maintains a “social justice” committee that regularly lobbies in conjunction with “Equality Virginia”, a rather far-left homosexual “rights” group.
The statement on their stance as a “welcoming congregation” reads, in part, as follows: “…We pledge our congregations commitment to continue dismantling the belief that heterosexuality is the only normal, acceptable and healthy sexual orientation.”
Their most current newsletter even features an ad for an “Immigration Advocacy 101″ workshop that is a joint effort between “Unity In The Community” and John Steinbach of Mexicans Without Borders.
So what would a self-avowed conservative possibly be doing there? Gathering intelligence?
You see my point.
Bruce Roemmelt is a member of BRUU. He is an individual, just like you and me and BVBL. He has his own opinions, just like us.
Bruce happens to go to BRUU.
I respect him because he acts on his convictions. Participates in the process. He listens and can even be persuaded if you take the time and clearly try. Bruce is actually a really good guy when you get to know him. Even if you don’t agree with his politics.
Bruce is not BRUU in the eyes of the IRS.
One thing being a conservative Republican member of BRUU has taught me is to discuss “the idea”. Not the man that voiced it. Not the church he attends. Not the college he went to. Not the party he affiliates with. The Idea is the atomic unit.
Greg L said: “I find it fascinating that someone who describes himself as a conservative would go to that church.”
Actually it’s not that interesting. The church is not about partisan politics. It’s about faith, and people and community.
It ’s the kindest most welcoming congregation I have ever seen. Welcoming of anyone. Everyone from homosexuals to NRA members alike. Rock band members to US Marines.
I love the diversity.
If the church teaches directly against what the Bible says, how is that a benefit? Homosexuality clearly is not supported by the Bible. Supporting law breakers such as illegals and other criminals clearly is not supported by the Bible.
I just visited the BRUU website and funny enough, the words gay, diversity, lesbian are mentioned more times than Jesus, the Bible, and God. Below is the just an example of why many view the church as they do.
BRUU Mission Statement
Bull Run Unitarian Universalists (BRUU) exists to nurture ourselves, our community, and our natural world in the pursuit of spiritual and intellectual growth. We give expression to our mission through celebrating our diversity and giving of our talents and resources with justice, equity and compassion. We work toward our goals through an open democratic process, respecting the views of each individual and seeking to protect the interdependent web of life.
[Ed note: a diversity of perspective that ranges all the way from communism to socialism. That website is really an eye opener!]
Sorry, but any “church” that allows pagan rituals to take place and pagan ceremonies to be held in it doesn’t hold water with me -
All churches today teach directly against the bible. In many ways.
I am a Christian. One of the few that actually study the bible.
Please provide direct quotes when you reference it. I always do.
BTW, It also says that you are obliged to kill anyone that works on the Sabbath:
Exodus
31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
BTW, at the time it was written Saturday was the sabbath.
I was raised in a Methodist church. I have attended several other kinds over my lifetime. BRUU is the most Christian (Christ like) church I have ever attended.
What is the specific issue we are discussing?
Another interesting note about BRUU you may not know:
The Beyer Memorial Library there is focused on books about world faiths and books about the 2nd Amendment. The member that left the cash to build it was member of BRUU, a good man and a lifetime NRA member.
I believe BRUU is more than meets the eye.
As my wife says, “Judge not, least yea be judged.”
Marty,
Not every Church is perfect, for example, we left the United Methodist Church because we disagreed with many of the views and opinions the Church started to develop. However, compare their website and beliefs with the UU church and there is no comparison.
However, that being said. How can you say a church that seems to be more concerned with “diversity” that it does not even mention the Bible on their website is “Christ like”? The UU push a if it feels good do it attitude, which has watered down the Christian message.
I can say these things because I have witnessed it. I have experienced it first hand.
I participate in it.
I was even on the selection committee that chose the current minister.
I can only speak for myself. My opinions. In stead of leaving, I participate. I listen. I am heard.
“The UU push a if it feels good do it attitude, which has watered down the Christian message.” This is NOT the attitude.
Friends,
Marty W. has been deceived, or is trying to deceive you. If a church’s mission statement is not “to lead people to Christ”, then they have failed, or been hijacked by the evil one. Christ said “I am the way, the truth and the light. No one will see the Father, except through me”.
All this clap-trap about diversity, being “heard” is just a smoke-screen.
Now, on to the secular point that Greg has made: The BRUU has a long history of walking the line between “faith-based community advocacy” and outright political participation. The Church’s property cannot be used for activities prohibited by IRS code. There is case-law that supports this. In a recent case in New Jersey, a lesbian couple wanted to have their “civil-union” performed at a gezeebo owned by a Methodist Church. The “couple” wasn’t even a member of any christian denomination (they were Jewish). The Pastor refused the request and cited that same-sex unions are against the churches beliefs and teaching. The “couple” sued, won in court. Part of the penalty against the church was that the tax exemption on the gezeebo was revoked.
The line prohibiting churches from advocating for a particular party or candidate is pretty clear. Allowing this event to be held at the BRUU is the same as endorsing the event. The line has been crossed here…plain and simple.
Marty,
If Christ was the focus of the church, it would be easy to see.
Do you know how many political events are held in churches that rent space? Events on both sides? Plenty.
Flavius said: “The line prohibiting churches from advocating for a particular party or candidate is pretty clear.” Yes it is and BRUU is far from that. Because the church is not the advocate. It’s members are.
It’s probably the same in your church. Anywhere the is both faith and political interest.
I’m just relating the facts.
“It’s probably the same in your church. Anywhere the is both faith and political interest.”
No. It’s not that way in my church. Not even close. My Church doesn’t allow outside organizations to use its facilities, I suspect for this very reason, nor would it permit me, a church member to host a political event, which even you don’t dispute the political nature of the BRUU event in question. It seems that my (Biblically) conservative church takes a (Legally) conservative view of the letter and spirit of the IRS code. As far as the facts go, I am basing my opinions on scripture, with regards to the efficacy of the BRUU’s fulfillment of its mission, and the IRS Code with regards to its violation of, well, the IRS Code.
The ‘church’ IS the people. It is my understanding that when the bible refers to the ‘church’ it is referring to the congregants, not the structure.
Flavius,
Speaking from your own experiences is what we need. Thanks. That is all I was trying to do.
While your church may not be political. You must admit it is not true of all. Some Ministers actually endorse a candidate. Here is an example. Google had about a million others:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/hagee_endorses_mccain_1.html
Should the IRS go after Rev Hagee and his church for endorsing McCain?
How does this one square?
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28910
They are actually appearing there:
“San Diego (California Catholic Daily) - Senators John McCain and Barrack Obama will meet for their first joint appearance of the 2008 presidential campaign at Saddleback Valley Community Church in south Orange County this coming Saturday. “
marty,
your work here is righteous, but might be fruitless as well. there seems to be a lack of diversity here re: freedom of religion.
i just wanted to offer some, what do they call them, oh yea, facts. nothing can replace hearing the words in person as Rev. Nancy is truly our gift, but the pod cast of the August 17th sermon on Promises she did was not only instructive re: our “politics” but also mentions Jesus!
http://www.bruu.org/index.php?page=services&past=listen#anchor-past
as a member of BRUU and listening to this amazing woman for several years now, this is as close to politics as she’s ever come (that i know of), and this sure wouldn’t even count in hand grenades. btw marty, you didn’t even mention the Ron Paul supporters we have at BRUU…
but boy was i pleased with my private party to listen to Senator Obama’s acceptance speech. the room was packed and i’m sure the crowd was as big as the Republican watching party. and in Manassas and western prince william!!
you all don’t have to go to our church, just don’t tell us we can’t. we UU’s got a lot of values and history that we’re not willing to let go of.
bruce roemmelt
Bruce and Marty,
No one is disputing whether the church has a right to exist. As you can plainly tell from my comments, I firmly believe that a church (the congregation) must second politics to salvation, for the former will not lead to the latter. Furthermore, if you believe that your pastor is apolitical in her leadership of the church, regardless of what she does in the voting booth, and her sole focus is on helping her congregation understand that there is only one path to salvation, then IMVHO, she is indeed fulfilling her role as a pastor, for those seeking the path.
What I am saying is that I don’t think Church facilities should be used to host political rallies, for the very reason that they could divide a congregation. Pastors shouldn’t endorse candidates, if they are affiliated with a particular church, because they speak for that church. Respectfully, I think you, Bruce, might have used better judgment and found an alternate location for your party. Why risk bringing any community and/or government condemnation on your church?
You can believe what you want. However, do not push the idea the UU church is a Christ centered one.
BTW, more people watched the John McCains acceptance speech then watched Obama’s.
“Why risk bringing any community and/or government condemnation on your church?”
Because I misguidedly thought I lived in the United States, where there is the RIGHT to free speech and free thought and freedom of religion - any religion - not just the Christ based ones. Where I should not have to RISK any type of condemnation because of my beliefs.
So freedom of religion now means that religious organizations no longer have any obligation to comply with civil law? They can willfully ignore the IRS code and not be subject even to criticism as a result?
In Soviet Russia, you don’t follow the law, the law follows you. In a University somewhere in our great nation, that Soviet Russia is being reborn.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf
Bottom of page 10 and top of page 11
• Whether the good, service or facility is available to candidates in the same election on an equal basis,
…
Situation 17. Museum K is a section 501(c)(3) organization. It owns an historic building that has a large hall suitable for hosting dinners and receptions. For several years, Museum K has made the hall available for rent to members of the public. Standard fees are set for renting the hall based on the number of people in attendance, and a number of different organizations have rented the hall. Museum K rents the hall on a first come, first served basis. Candidate P rents Museum K’s social hall for a fundraising dinner. Candidate P’s campaign pays the standard fee for the dinner. Museum K is not involved in political campaign intervention as a result of renting the hall to Candidate P for use as the site of a campaign fundraising dinner.