The Apocalypse has arrived for the second year in a row. In God's corner is a swarm of angry churches led by a group called the Alliance Defense Fund. In Satan's corner is, of course, the Internal Revenue Service. September 27, 2009 was "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" and it has caused churches across the nation risk their tax exempt status by making political statements and even explicitly endorse political candidates in open violation of tax law.

The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal organization unafraid of controversy, so their civil disobedience is hardly surprising. Its list of founders includes people like James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and Bill Bright, winner of the infamous $1.1 million Templeton Prize. On their website they tell prospective employees that they must "be ready, willing, and able to participate in public and private prayer" both "during working and non-working hours."

The Alliance Defense Fund is arguing that churches in America are being persecuted. They believe (without good legal precedent) that the IRS restrictions on churches amount to an unconstitutional limitation on their freedom of speech and need to be repealed. In response, they've organized a movement called the "Pulpit Freedom Initiative" and enlisted 83 churches in 30 states to help them in their cause. The initiative encourages pastors of all denominations to give political sermons from their pulpit as a form of civil disobedience. The ultimate goal is the provocation of a test case. If the IRS decides to drop the hammer on a rebelling church, the ADF will swoop in and attempt to take it all the way to the Supreme Court in hopes of getting the laws overturned on a national scale. Does the ADF have realistic chance? Do their claims hold water? The short answer is "no." The long answer requires a crash course in tax law.

Churches and some other types of tax exempt associations are referred to as 501(c)(3) organizations. To get this status, a charitable group must meet certain parameters. For example, it must not result in the excessive enrichment of an individual -- for example, L. Ron Hubbard. It may also not operate too much like a business (like the Church of Scientology) or engage in activities that violate the best interests of the community (like Bob Jones University). Congress does not see these limitations as onerous for two reasons. First, it believed that charities, by definition, are supposed to be promoting the good of the community, not themselves. A huge profit margin makes one question an ostensibly altruistic motive. Second, tax exemption is a privilege, not a right, and thus falls under the purview of regulatory agencies. Congress had no obligation to offer tax exempt options to the public in the first place, and therefore it has the right to keep a lid on people who take advantage of the taxpayers‘ generosity.

The constitutional issues do become slightly more complex when it comes to the tax laws restricting a 501(c)(3) charity's political activity because some groups like the ADF claim it infringes on their 1st Amendment right of free speech and free exercise of religion. Unfortunately for them, those arguments have neither impressed the IRS nor the courts, because churches are and always have been free to endorse political candidates as they see fit. They will simply not receive tax exemption if they choose to do so, because the IRS is not in the business of subsidizing political speech. The removal of a gift is not the same as the imposition of a penalty. Unless Congress starts feeling generous, charitable political activity will be limited to non-partisan work like voter registration drives.

The ADF is not only wrong, they are hypocritical. If they were truly interested in freedom of speech, they would be asking all 501(c)(3) organizations, including the JREF, to speak out on political issues. Instead, they appeal solely to religious groups because they have specific, poorly concealed, political goals in mind. Even worse, the ADF does not mention that tax-exempt churches already receive benefits that other charitable organizations do not. For example, churches do not need to petition the IRS for charitable recognition upon their creation, they have less yearly paperwork, and the IRS must bend over backwards and use more lenient rules when auditing them. The Alliance Defense Fund is asking for special benefits on top of special benefits on top of special benefits for certain groups simply because they embrace certain metaphysical beliefs.

The ADF's worst hypocrisy comes from their "Executive Summary" of the Pulpit Initiative. In it, a footnote reads "IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this communication was not written for the purpose of and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code [...]" If we take this footnote on good faith, the ADF must explain the words of its CEO, Alan Sears. He has been shown on camera saying that if the IRS takes any action against the churches as a result of Pulpit Freedom Sunday, it will result in a federal lawsuit. In other words, the ADF is saying, "We won‘t help you violate the law. But if you do, we'll be there to help you violate the law."

Ultimately, this legal brouhaha has a forgone conclusion and probably won‘t result in front page or prime time news. In all likelihood, the IRS will ignore the protest for expediency or impose minor excise taxes on a few rogue churches. Satan, after all, has no interest in giving the ADF what it wants -- he already has 90% of the world's lawyers on his payroll.