Posted on

Emmanual Baptist Church Holds a Community Peace and Justice Forum to Host Ridgewood High School “Walkout Leaders “

Emmanual Baptist Church

emmanual baptist church holds a community peace and justice forum
Tue, March 20, 2018
Time: 7:00 PM – 8:30 PM
Location: Emmanual Baptist Church, 14 Hope Street, Ridgewood, NJ 07450

March 18,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Emmanuel holds a Community Peace and Justice Forum to discuss High School Student Action Against Gun Violence.

Emmanuel Baptist Church will hold a Peace and Justice Forum entitled, “High School Student Action Against Gun Violence” on Tuesday, March 20th at 7:00-8:30pm in the Peace Lounge. Laurence Fine and Alana Benson, Ridgewood High School Student Leaders, will speak followed by a discussion.

The Forum is preceded by a non-fundraising Community Pasta Dinner, which starts at 6:00pm in Heritage Hall. Suggested donation is $4 per adult and $2 per child. Since there is limited space, it is suggested that you reserve your seat by calling the Church office at 201-444-7300.
Emmanuel, founded in 1891, is celebrating its 126th Anniversary Year and maintains a tradition of community outreach. Emmanuel is located at 14 Hope Street, at the corner of Hope Street and East Ridgewood Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ. The building is ADA accessible and all are invited to attend.

For immediate release:
Contact: 201-444-7300
communications@emmanuelridgewood.org

14 thoughts on “Emmanual Baptist Church Holds a Community Peace and Justice Forum to Host Ridgewood High School “Walkout Leaders “

  1. Laurence Fine is 14. He finished eight grade at the Solomon Schechter of Westchester and is entering ninth grade at Ridgewood High School, where he will be on the cross-country team.

    And he runs a politically themed Instagram account, @Democrats_for_2020, which doesn’t mention his age or name, and bills itself as “This liberal news feed supports Democrats for 2020 and resisting GOP agenda. Together, we can take back the House, Senate, and presidency!”

  2. Any event for hosting “walkout leaders” would be incomplete unless it included Principal Gorman.

  3. How come nobody is screaming “separation of church and state” or “no politics from the pulpit”?
    .
    Oh right… when it supports the liberal agenda, all is good.
    .

  4. 2:48. SeparAtion of church and states refers to a part of the 1st amendment which prohibits the government from making laws establishing religion or prohibiting a religion. It doesn’t apply in this case.
    Also I believe both speakers are current RHS students so not sure what you are trying to imply Ridgewood Taxpayer.

  5. Is Emmanuel Church risking its tax exempt status by wading into the gun control issue? Are they planning to give equal time to Second Amendment supporters?

  6. Why would their tax exempt status be at risk for taking a stand on gun control? And why would they be obligated to give equal time to ‘2nd amendment supporters?

  7. From:
    (
    https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
    )
    .
    Charities, Churches and Politics
    .
    The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.
    .
    In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.
    .
    Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one “which does 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.”
    .
    The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities.
    .
    Each election cycle, the IRS reminds 501(c)(3) exempt organizations to be aware of the ban on political campaign activity. The IRS published its most recent reminder in a public news release which you can read here.
    .
    The division within the IRS responsible for overseeing churches and charities is the Tax Exempt and Government Entitities Division. TEGE has created a Web page entitled Charities, Churches, and Educational Organizations – Political Campaign Intervention. It is dedicated to the IRS most recent activities related to 501(c)(3) and political activity.
    .
    A definitive court case on the issue of free speech and political expression is Branch Ministries Inc. versus Rossotti. In that case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on political activity. The court rejected the plaintiff church’s allegations that it was being selectively prosecuted because of its conservative views and that its First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed.
    .
    The court wrote: “The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose.”
    .
    Updated July 12, 2007

  8. From:
    (
    https://cal-catholic.com/california-teacher-put-on-leave-after-asking-if-school-would-allow-a-pro-life-walkout/
    )
    .
    California teacher put on leave after asking if school would allow a pro-life walkout
    .
    Julianne Benzel, a teacher at Rocklin High School, asked students if school administrators would permit an anti-abortion protest, gets placed on administrative leave as a consequence
    .
    MARCH 16, 2018
    .
    A California high school teacher has been placed on leave after she wondered if her school would permit an organized walkout to protest abortion.
    .
    According to CBS Sacramento, Rocklin High School’s Julianne Benzel said all she did was have a conversation with her class last Thursday and Friday about the “politics of protest” — a lesson ahead of yesterday’s school walkouts. However, this seems to have angered some students and their parents.
    .
    Benzel said “I just kind of used the example which I know it’s really controversial, but I know it was the best example I thought of at the time—a group of students nationwide, or even locally, decided ‘I want to walk out of school for 17 minutes’ and go in the quad area and protest abortion, would that be allowed by our administration?”
    .
    She insists she “never discouraged her students from participating” in the demonstration, but considered the propriety of a (public) school supporting some protests … but not others.
    .
    [Benzel] says the administration didn’t talk to her about her lecture, last week.
    .
    But while thousands of students walked out of class, Mrs. Benzel received a letter from her human resources department, informing her she’s being placed on paid administrative leave.
    .
    “I didn’t get any backlash from my students. All my students totally understood that there could not be a double standard,” she said.
    .
    The Rocklin School District won’t say whether the teacher is in trouble, because of that classroom debate.
    .
    However, the district did confirm Benzel was placed on leave “due to several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher’s communications regarding today’s student-led civic engagement activities.”

  9. What political campaign are they endorsing? This church is holding a peace and justice forum not a fund raising event for a politician.

  10. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    .
    Civil Action No. 95-0724 (PLF)
    .
    BRANCH MINISTRIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
    v.
    CHARLES O. ROSSOTTI,
    Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant.
    .
    Opinion
    .
    This case is about the decision of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the status of plaintiff Branch Ministries as an organization exempt from taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Before any discovery was conducted, the government filed a motion to dismiss or for
    summary judgment. Plaintiffs sought discovery on their claim that they were victims of selective prosecution, and the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel. The case now is before the Court on the renewed motion of the government for summary judgment and on plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the cross-motions, the Court concludes that the government has established that there are no material facts in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
    .

    .
    3. Political Expression Claims
    .
    Plaintiffs argue that the IRS engaged in content-based viewpoint discrimination in
    violation of their Fifth Amendment right to equal protection and in violation of their First Amendment right to free speech. The Fifth Amendment equal protection claim mirrors plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment selective prosecution claim.
    .
    Plaintiffs contend that the IRS targeted the Church for revocation because the Church had expressed its political views. Because plaintiffs have failed
    to provide any evidence of similarly situated churches that have not had their Section 501(c)(3) status revoked, see supra at 11-14, plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim fails.
    .
    “Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying.” Regan
    v. Taxpayers With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 546 (1983). Plaintiffs contend, however, that churches are different. Plaintiffs maintain (1) that churches are open fora, (2) that the IRS decision to revoke the Section 501(c)(3) status of the Church constitutes viewpoint
    discrimination, and (3) that the IRS therefore must demonstrate a compelling interest in order to
    justify the revocation. See Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1983). There are a number of problems with plaintiffs’ argument. First, it is not at all clear that private churches in fact can be deemed open public fora. See id. (citing, as examples of open fora, numerous public or government spaces).
    .
    Second, even if a church is an open forum, that would be irrelevant to the revocation at issue in this case. The Section 501(c)(3) status of the Church was not revoked on the basis of any expressive activity that occurred on the property of the Church, the purportedly
    “open” forum. Instead, the Section 501(c)(3) status was revoked because the Church took out a full-page advertisement advocating against a partisan political candidate. In this case, the relevant forum is the channel of communication, the newspaper advertisement itself, rather than the
    property of the Church, the messenger. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Ed. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 800-02 (1985) (“in defining the forum we have focused on the access sought by the
    speaker. . . . [where plaintiffs] seek access to a particular means of communication,” the channel of communication rather than the physical site is the relevant forum). Even if the property of the Church itself is considered an open forum and the IRS could not constitutionally revoke the
    Section 501(c)(3) status of a church on the basis of statements made in the church, the IRS clearly may revoke the tax-exempt status of any organization that publishes an advertisement in
    opposition to a candidate for public office. See Regan v. Taxpayers With Representation, 461U.S. at 546.
    .
    Finally, plaintiffs contend that the IRS viewed the Church as “militant right” and
    that revocation of its Section 501(c)(3) status therefore constituted viewpoint discrimination. See Pls’ Motion for Summ. J. at 30. As discussed supra at 14-16, however, plaintiffs have
    provided absolutely no evidence that the IRS revoked the Section 501(c)(3) status of the Church on the basis of its political views. Plaintiffs therefore have failed to establish a First Amendment violation. An Order consistent with this Opinion shall be issued this same day.
    .
    SO ORDERED.
    .
    PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
    United States District Judge

  11. 8:52 hope this not intended to be an example of a church losing their tax exempt status because they invited speakers to a forum. This church ran political advertisements encouraging people not to vote for a particular candidate – a clear violation to the IRS requirements.

  12. Whzt about OLMC?

  13. OLMC.
    Seperation between church and state???

  14. Mrs. Valdez, to what are you referring? Are you suggesting that a similar issue might exist with respect to Our Lady of Mount Carmel R.C. Church?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.