The idea behind a 1954 IRS rule that bars tax-exempt organizations from direct involvement in partisan politics couldn't be clearer: Tax exemption is a privilege for those organizations whose work benefits society and is nonpartisan. It preserves the resources of these groups for the good works they do, and that includes churches. .

The rule doesn't prohibit members of the clergy or anyone else from espousing personal political views away from the pulpit. It doesn't prevent any organized group from supporting or opposing a political candidate. It simply says a group engaging in partisan politics has to pay taxes.

Still, every political season, the false complaint rises anew: Pastors are being denied freedom of speech and religion because IRS rules forbid them from preaching for or against candidates from the pulpit.

This year, the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit group that defends and promotes the legal interests of religious institutions, is raising the stakes by urging pastors to defy the IRS rule. It has declared Sept. 28 "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." In the tradition of civil disobedience, the group hopes to attract an IRS investigation that could be parlayed into a court challenge that they hope would overturn the 54-year-old rule.

The effort is a continuation of the controversy of 2006, when central Ohio conservative pastors Rod Parsley of World Harvest Church and Russell Johnson of Fairfield Christian Church were accused of using the resources of their churches on behalf of then-Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's campaign for governor.

The issue can be easily characterized as conservative-vs.-liberal because of the leanings of the opponents and proponents. The Alliance Defense Fund faces challenges from a trio of former IRS executives and from a group of 40 central Ohio religious leaders, mostly of liberal congregations, and advocates of in-church campaigning tend to be politically and socially conservative.

But the issues are more complex.

Those who want to bring partisan political campaigning into churches risk far more than they would gain in what they see as a simple free-speech issue. Politics, as anyone can see today, often is a hateful and divisive business, while churches traditionally have been devoted to peacemaking, healing and reconciliation. Making churches extensions of political organizations also could give politicians too much influence in religious affairs.

More important, if churches are released from this obligation, other tax-exempt organizations, too, could rightfully challenge the law, upsetting even more apple carts. Donations to tax-exempt organizations could rise or fall based on donors' feelings about a group's political activities, or simply because donors might not know a group's viewpoint and don't want to risk supporting a view they might oppose. Think about the complications if the Red Cross endorsed politicians. Does anyone want politics to enter into the decision of whether or not to donate blood?

Tax-exempt charitable organizations are given a tax break because they do good works that transcend politics. The Alliance Defense Fund's initiative would put this fine system in jeopardy.