Billy Graham Association could lose tax exemption for advocating votes for candidates with “biblical values”

The secular progressive Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a complaint with the IRS to remove the tax exempt status  of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association because the secularists believe that the organization’s “vote for biblical values” ad campaign was a violation of the separation of Church and State.

Secularists are once again increasing their War on Christians under the guise of separation of Church and State. Secularists continually try to expand the definition of what constitutes a violation of this interpretation of the First Amendment to limit the rights of religious groups.

If these anti-religious zealots are successful in this new attempt to limit advertising of religious organizations to vote for their religious values, these religious groups would lose their exemption, even though the advertising never mentioned the candidate’s names.


Brent Rinehart of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association provided The Christian Post with an official statement regarding the “Biblical Values” ad campaign.

“The ads intentionally do not mention any candidate, political party, or contest, urging instead for readers to cast votes for candidates-at all levels-based on their support for biblical values,” reads the statement in part.”

And the secularists contend,

Rob Boston, senior policy analyst for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told The Christian Post that he believes FFRF had a good case against the BGEA.

“I believe a strong case can be made that the Graham ministry violated federal law. IRS guidelines allow churches and ministries to engage in issue advocacy, they warn against tying such advocacy to a candidate,” said Boston.

“IRS rules make it clear that a church or ministry can endorse a candidate even without mentioning his or her name.”

Obviously, this secularist group realized the ads didn’t favor their candidate at the presidential level.

Religious organizations must continually update the latest rulings sought by the secularist progressives in order to determine what they currently may say or may not say, not only from the pulpit but in any form of speech that these secularist groups determine is a violation of the First Amendment, or more probably, a violation of their secularist beliefs.