Sorry, Solonor, but the Democrats have already crossed that bridge, legal or not, and do so regularly. No Democrat campaign would be complete where I live without a tour of several Black churches. Google it if you like, but if you see a Democrat running you’ll likely find him in a Black church at some point. Concerning the California recall election, The Black Commentator said, “As usual, no black Christian in the state of California was safe from the clutches of Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson or Al Gore. On the Sunday before Election Day all three ran from church to church, appearing with preachers and singers in choir robes, exhorting the faithful to vote against the recall.” An AP report covering the Democratic primary in South Carolina matter of factly states that “Democratic candidates are taking the tried-and-true path to black voters - the church.” More recently, the St. Petersburg Times reported on an IRS complaint that had been filed against political activity in a local Black church and recounts how in “August, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe urged congregants at a black church in Miami to defeat President Bush.”

That same article, though, also contained hints of why such open use of the Black pulpit as a political podium is often ignored and even accepted. In referring to the IRS warning, “state Rep. Arthenia Joyner, a Tampa Democrat who is African-American [said] ‘I see it as a way to try to intimidate people, but I think it’s not going to work.’” The fear of being accused of racism is a political reality that must be considered. One has to question if the desire to evenly apply the law to all candidates and all churches is a part of what Kerry referred to as a Republican effort to disenfranchise Black voters?

I know politically where you line up, but let’s be a bit open and honest. Any campaining in any church should jeopardize their tax exempt status. To jab at recent efforts by Repubicans to court evangelicals while ignoring the long-standing tradition of Democrats in Black churces is just separate and unequal.

Posted by: submandave at September 23, 2004 10:46 PM

Oh I do agree subman.. I supposed Solonor was referring to only WHITE churches; surely BLACK churches in America will be exempt from any such legislation. My goodness what would the Rev. Al Sharpton or the Rev. Jesse Jackson do if they could not campaign for the Democratic candidate inside of a church… ahem.. sorry.. BLACK church.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 23, 2004 11:00 PM

An absolutely fair and valid point. My “jab” if there was one was intended to point out that Congress was trying to run this through without debate or a vote. Any church—black, white, red, yellow or plaid—should keep its nose out of politics (of any stripe) if it wants to remain a tax-exempt institution.

The Bush link was for context. And, after all, the Republicans are the party in power and in charge of these things, right? :)

Posted by: Solonor at September 23, 2004 11:07 PM

Say speaking of religion and politics, what’s the going rate for “walking around money” these days? That used to be a big deal — local Democrat politicians would hand out wads of cash to black preachers in the inner city on election day.

All above board and strictly to cover expenses in getting out the vote, of course.

Posted by: ter0 at September 24, 2004 01:05 AM

Solonor

Can you point out the bright line where the church and state separate? We seem to readily agree that a church should not endorse from the pulpit…would that mean candidates should be barred from speaking at the church or even attending one that is not their own?

But how about abortion? Can a church preach against abortion? Obviously that’s both political AND religious. Should a church lose it’s tax-exempt status for urging it’s followers to support pro-life candidates?

Or gay marriage? Or anti-gambling?

There’s a whole host of social conventions that are also “political.”

Just where do you want to draw the line of what a preacher/pastor/priest/rabbi can say from the pulpit before they “have their nose stuck where it doesn’t belong”?

Posted by: Darleen at September 24, 2004 01:30 AM

The fact is, No religion should be prohibited from speaking their mind on Political issues. The Phrase “separation of church and state” NEVER appears in the US constitution. The 1st amendment has the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause prevents the congress from stating a national religion and the free exercise clause prevents congress from making a law that inhibits the practicing of recognized religions. (to see the philosophical basis for these clauses see John Locke’s letter concerning toleration) Please tell me, how does a pastor or priest endorsing a candidate or issue violate either the free exercise or establishment provision of the US const? I tend to thing that Prohibiting a religious institution from speaking out for a party or an issue would violate the free exercise provision. but that is just me!

Posted by: lawguy at September 24, 2004 02:54 AM

I’m not saying that a church shouldn’t speak on moral issues that are also political. In this case, when I am talking about “politics” I mean election campaigns. There is no way any tax-exempt institution should be allowed to become a freebie source of campaign money and resources for a candidate. Now, if they want to give up their tax-exempt status…

I really DON‘T think that candidates should be allowed to use the pulpit for political speeches. And, yes, that means Democrats, too. If the preacher happens to be talking about an issue that one of the candidates is pushing, that’s different. But actively participating in the election of a candidate should be forbidden. For me, it’s not a separation of church and state thing. It’s a money thing.

Posted by: Solonor at September 24, 2004 07:01 AM

Solonor

The problem is that the precedence has already been set and it is disengenious to decry what “white”evangelicals may do for the GOP what “black” churches have been doing for the Democrats for years.

And, I may point out, this is not an either/or proposition. As I understand it, the church organization can separate out funds, what is used tax-exempt for pastoral functions and those that are used for taxable activities.

Posted by: Darleen at September 24, 2004 09:38 AM

Ok, while some may see the white church/GOP vs. black church/Dems as two different things, I do not. They’re both wrong. I’m not being disingenuous at all. In fact, since this isn’t op/ed, I wasn’t really trying to make a point at all until I got sucked into these comments. :)

This article points out that Congress is trying to ram through legislation on the matter without debate or vote…when, obviously from the reaction, this is not exactly a non-debatable issue.

As for separating the money…having been a church elder for several years, I can tell you that it ain’t that easy in most small churches. Plus, there’s the whole “I gave you my money to run the church, not to re-elect John Kerry!” issue with church members (kinda like unions using dues for political purposes…not a good idea).

Posted by: Solonor at September 24, 2004 10:01 AM

Let’s get back to the constituitional roots of this. The constituition, as I recall, simply prohibits the establishment of a “national” church.

This seperation stuff and the PC crap associated with often gets used as a tool of the left to defend themselves against the moral judgement of others.

While some may think that a candidate shouldn’t speak via the “pulpit” I simply can’t see anything in the constituition that prevents it. Nor can I see why it’s wrong.

Posted by: skip at September 24, 2004 11:02 AM

Solonor: you stated “There is no way any tax-exempt institution should be allowed to become a freebie source of campaign money and resources for a candidate.”
Do you also support removing the tax exempt status of labor unions? This the problem I have had with this whole debate. Religious institutions have been held to a much higher standard then other tax exempt organizations. Treat all equally and prohibit all from taking part in political activity(I would not suggest this) or allow every organization to take part in political activities!

Posted by: lawguy at September 24, 2004 12:47 PM

skip: It’s wrong because the authority of the church (for those who believe) is in spiritual and moral matters. The whole point of the church is to get people to follow its will. The last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted was someone in the government to add their legal power to a church’s moral certitude, thus creating an all-powerful entity that takes over and runs things to the detriment of other (or non) believers (i.e., the Taliban). So, I think having a candidate stand up and use the moral power of the church is wrong no matter who it is.

lawguy: I don’t think labor unions have the same soul-piercing power that churches do, so it’s not quite the same thing. Members also (theoretically) have the power to elect representatives that can decide how to spend their money. If they don’t like the fact that the union is pushing Kerry, they can elect new leaders. I say “theoretically” because I know that’s not how it works. Speaking in generalities, because not all unions are like this, I really hate the idea of employees being forced to join unions and pay dues and then have that money go into a candidate’s coffers instead of being used to improve the employee’s working conditions. It wouldn’t break my heart if they had to pay taxes or were at least forced to be held accountable to their members.

Posted by: Solonor at September 24, 2004 01:50 PM

Great comment thread with lots of constructive discussion from all sides. I do want to appologize to Solonor for what is undoubtedly a somewhat defensive and perhaps accusatory tone in my initial comment. I should rather have presented my point without making assumptions concerning your motivations.

But lawguy raises the interesting point of why the law should treat differently identical political speech by two tax-exempt entities based solely upon the religious nature of one. As I understand it, the intent of limitations on political activities of tax-exempt entities is to minimize their direct influence upon individual politicians. In the realm of political parties, though, the assumed affiliation of many tax-exempt organizations is immediately identifiable. For example, even absent direct monitary support is there any doubt with whom the NEA is aligned? Are the non-monitary contributions to parties and specific candidates via endorsements, issue ads or visibility and invitations within the organization less valuable than dollars?

Experience shows that any effort to restrict or curb political speech will be circumvented. If you prohibit an organization from endorsing a specific candidate they will attack the opponent (see “527” for examples). If you prohibit the mention of candidates at all it is just as easy for the organization to express its beliefs and positions in language that sufficiently echos the candidates words as to make the two indistinguishable. For this reason, among others, I am less a fan of restriction and more a fan of transparency.

I do agree with lawguy, in that whatever the law says all tax-exempts should be treated equally. Otherwise it amounts to a de-facto Congressional endorsement against religion, which I feel also violates the First Ammendment. As to the issue of differentiating religious groups based upon their strong moral influence, I think Solonor may never have experienced the religious fervency in a UAW shop or at a gathering of PETA supporters. They can both carry their own moral weight with the faithful no less than the Pope exerts over the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by: submandave at September 24, 2004 02:54 PM

yet the founders themselves firmly believed in God and religion. What they feverently wished to avoid was a specific state approved religion.

England at the time had pretty thoroughly integrated the church of england into it’s daily life. In the Patrick O’Brien books he speaks of Royal Navy officers being required to sign a document pledging affilitation to the church of england. It was pretty institutional at that point.

To me, it is this that the founder’s feared— not some conflation of religion and politics. Your concern seems quite a stretch to me. While Bush or Kerry may “campaign” within a church neither may, through executive fiat, establish the kind of institutional practices outlined above.

Further, proselyting is not the “whole point of the church” Certainly many religions view it as an important part of their mission, but there’s also such things as tending the flock and educating the children etc. To assume that all churches are primarily focused on converting all heathens to the one true faith is to equate oh say the Methodists with the Islamist. You said it yourself with the comment about the Taliban.

I often wonder how the entire theory got so perverted. Now we see constant examples of people using this “seperation” nonsense to prevent people from engaging in simple acts of faith. So a candidate who speaks during a church service is somehow wrong and so is a manger display in front of city hall.

it would seem that you are caught up in this conventional thinking about the securlarization of the society. We are a christian nation. We have avoided the kind of religious turmoil other countries experience because we don’t have a “state” religion, but as a people Americans are overwhelmingly Christian. Efforts to remove the various Icons of this have lead to all sorts of bizarre actions. Some nitwit in New York wakes up a decides that the cross on the hill overlooking a freeway in Iowa is unconstitutional. How does this make sense?

As for the church being a source of Moral authority, well so what? Shouldn’t the big tough decisions have a moral aspect? Wouldn’t the belief in a creator help temper the actions of mere mortals?

Posted by: skip at September 24, 2004 03:03 PM

I completely disagree with the statement that proselytizing is not the whole point of the church. Everything a church does, whether it’s tending the needs of the poor or teaching its children, is part of furthering their view of God. I defy you to find a church that is not in the business of convincing people to believe in their version of the truth. Some are more overt about it than others, but all religions have as their core agenda the conversion of the entire world to their way of thinking. Your comment about this making Methodists equivalent to the Taliban is silly. Just because they have the same goal, it does not mean that they’ll both use the same methods to reach the goal.

I am not saying this is always a bad thing! I am not saying that churches should not be the moral authority. Indeed, they should! It’s not the churches that I have a problem with. It’s the politicians using that power for their own benefit.

I agree with you that idiots will find a way to turn anything into something stupid. There are way too many examples of PC lunacy to deny that. :)

Back to my original point, though… if just this little news story has generated so much debate here, how can Congress think it’s ok to get away with passing such legislation without debate or a vote? Or is this ok with everyone but me, somehow?

Posted by: Solonor at September 24, 2004 03:45 PM

Another issue with this article is the cross over of tax law and behavior modification.

So people have to be careful about what they say because they might threaten their 503 © status that don’t seem right to me.

Posted by: skip at September 24, 2004 04:24 PM

Solonor, you write

all religions have as their core agenda the conversion of the entire world to their way of thinking.

Judaism is definitely not such a religion.

Posted by: Darleen at September 24, 2004 08:58 PM

Hi!
Interesting discussion, but I’d like to know why having a tax-exempt status precludes the 1st amendment to the Constitution? Why should people who are tax-exempt lose their right to free speech in order to maintain their tax-exemption? IRS law is administrative law and is still subject to constitutional scrutiny. Did you ever wonder why the IRS has not rejected the tax-exempt status of any church, ever in the history of the USA? It’s because they know their little “Administrative” law will not pass Constitutional muster. Therefore, they resort to intimidation, rather than enforcement. They don’t want this reviewed Constitutionally, and that’s exactly what will happen the first time they enforce it. Remember that the Constitution is the supreme law of this Republic, and all laws are ultimitely subject to it. Even if you hate it, Christians are still American Citizens, and as such, they have an absolute right to freely express themselves on ANY subject, political, moral, spiritual, or otherwise. You may not think they SHOULD be political, and that’s fine, no one will ever force you to attend their meetings. But neither should they be restricted from exercising their own civil liberties.

Posted by: boleyz at October 10, 2004 05:45 PM