This story caught my eye, and I thought the Bloggernaclites might find it interesting to discuss. I have no idea how this would affect the Church if at all, but it could affect pastors both on the right and left.
The Millennial Star
This story caught my eye, and I thought the Bloggernaclites might find it interesting to discuss. I have no idea how this would affect the Church if at all, but it could affect pastors both on the right and left.
I would suggest you listen to this talk by C. Welton Gaddy, the president of the Interfaith Alliance, for the logical and reasonable reaction to this.
I personally think this is a very dangerous precedent and it should not happen.
James,
Could you please expand on your reasons why?
It seems quite clear to me that the current IRS rules impinge on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of speech, and go right to the issue of political speech, which is what the Founders wanted to protect.
The meta-problem here is the federal income tax system, which is used by Washington DC as a choke chain to encourage or discourage all sorts of behavior that the government has no business encouraging or discouraging. It’s a blight on our nation, and should be done away with. IMHO. 🙂
Well, I’d have to say that Gaddy does a much better job of addressing this issue than I ever could, but I’ll see what I can do.
First off, let me clarify that I’m not specifically talking about the income tax. That is another subject altogether and should deserve it’s own thread. The income tax in this specific instance is simply the medium or tool that people are using to make changes. It is the brush and not the painting, so to speak. I’d rather focus on the painting.
This “painting” is the separation of church and state. There is a lot of misinformation and confusion on this issue and I’d rather like to avoid all of that. Suffice to say that, in simple & general terms, that there should not be a combination of personal religion and public politics. And this is because of the simple fact that it is impossible for more than a single religion to be used in such a way.
If you wish to point out examples where different people have used different religious belief in politics, I will agree with you: they have. But I am trying to speak about the broad picture; the large overview of the entire country and the policies it makes. At that level, there must be only one voice else confusion becomes rampant. And if that one voice is tied to a religion it will need to be a specific religion.
And what if that specific religion isn’t ours?
The underlying point here is that our founding fathers has seen themselves and had learned from history before them what religion and politics tied together will do to it’s subjects. That is why there is a separation of church and state.
You may call this a freedom of speech issue. I would agree, but not for the same reason. I want to retain freedom of speech for my own religion and not have it dictated from another religion’s pulpit nor a politician’s lectern.
You may also say that what I’ve described is not exactly what is happening with the repeal of the income tax laws for political endorsements. That is also true, but it is somewhat tangential to my argument. What I am focusing on is not what is happening now with this specific instance, but what can occur if this train of thought and policy of religious intrusion into public affairs continues.
There is already a very tight tie between the religious right and the far right wing of the Republican party. I have seen this strengthen significantly over the past eight years. If this trend continues unabated, and the far right wing continues to gain power over the more responsible and wise Republicans, I can foresee disastrous consequences for those of us who do not ascribe to the teachings of the religious right.
If you need an example of what could happen, review how horribly Romney was treated by the far right wing of his party, as embodied by Huckabee. It was unabashed religious intolerance and bigotry of the worst kind. There should never be a test of faith for public office, yet there was in Romney’s case. Romney is an example of how other Mormons could be treated in the public square if the religious right gains significant power within government.
I’m not saying this will happen. But this decision to allow political endorsements by religious institutions does open Pandora’s box and helps lead us down that slippery slope.
I’m on the fence on this issue and willing to be persuaded either way.
On the one hand, I am concerned about too much politics at any church, and I see the dangers James mentions above. We should remember that majority “Christian” preachers were many of the instigators of the original persecution of our Church (and many of them continue to do so today). Anything that gives these people more power to preach majoritarian doctrines from the pulpit is potentially worrisome. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to go to a church where politics are discussed all the time — every time they are discussed by anybody at my ward it just sucks the Spirit right out of the room. I think this is a true for the Jeremiah Wrights as well as the James Dobsons.
On the other hand, I agree with Mike that it seems problematic to use the federal tax code to discourage political speech. Our priorities as a nation seem all screwed up there. Has anybody ever been to a Unitarian church? The types of discussions that go on there are exactly the types that take place in many different types of political settings — so why is treated differently than another by the tax code? I would welcome some arguments from a tax attorney on this.
Rather than see the ban on churches giving political endorsement, I’d rather get rid of the tax breaks for churches.
I’m glad to see we agree every once in a while, Geoff. It gives me hope for the future. 🙂
On the tax thing, I’d have to agree that using it as a blunt instrument to control behavior is exceptionally inappropriate.
James,
Yes, most people say that, until you start talking about taking away the mortgage interest exemption….
Heh! You’re definitely right there! 🙂
What I meant to say is that the original reason for tax exemption for churches (to help them care for people, in essence) has been corrupted into a blunt instrument to control people.
But I do not agree with repealing the income tax completely.
Mike, I agree with you on more areas than you might think. I basically agree with Libertarians on the size of the federal govt and would be in favor of a radical, and I mean radical, restructuring of federal power, including getting rid of several federal departments and pushing those activities to the states and local communities. I would be in favor of replacing the income tax with a flat tax of some sort, but you have to be careful how you do it, and I don’t agree with all flat tax proposals.
Unfortunately, government continues to grow and grow, and I will agree with you that Pres Bush deserves a lot of blame for that. What the heck is the federal govt doing paying for prescription drugs? Sheesh. I may be the only person outside of a Libertarian board who is in favor of abolishing FEMA. Let people learn to take care of themselves, and if they can’t afford to rebuild their homes when they are destroyed by a hurricane they might want to move somewhere where there are no hurricanes.
To jjohnsen’s point, it’s tough to understand why tax breaks are needed for religious institutions. But the reality is tax breaks wouldn’t be needed if taxes weren’t so onerous in the first place.
So, until we get rid of business-related and the many other taxes churches would have to pay, I favor tax breaks for religious institutions.
A lot of liberals like jjohnsen love to say we should abolish tax breaks for religious institutions because they hate the religious right, but the problem is that the main groups affected are ones we as religious people can probably agree are “good,” ie, soup kitchens, Catholic schools and charitable organizations, AIDS and other foreign aid projects financed by evangelicals. If you were to actually add up all the things government would have to do to make up for religious charities, you would think twice about ending that tax break (as our tax code is today). Liberals tend to forget (or perhaps they don’t even know) that the federal government in most European countries actually directly subsidizes churches because of their charitable work. The subsidies are actually quite large in some European countries.
When are people going to make, or at least tell, the “Reverend” Jesse Jackson and the “Reverend” Al Sharpton to get out of politics?
Why do they get a free political pass?
Do European countries give money for social work by non-state churches?
It seems to me that establishment of a church means something different than their influencing policy. The establishment clause was intended to prevent the government from collecting tithes as part of taxes, paying priests as public employees, constructing infrastructure or mandating the form of worship activity. Using churches for social welfare agencies is an issue that is on the line, but I don’t find it too troubling. But the role of religious people having there say in public forums is important and I think was intended to be encouraged by the founders.
Religion can prevent someone from being elected because the religious qualification prohibition is not placed upon the electorate. They may select whoever they want. The constitution just says that they can’t be denied the job once the people have had their say.
I might add that the IRS not only presents free speech problems, but also privacy issue. Seems to me that the founding fathers would have included a persons personal finances when stating that we were to be secure in our papers and effects. Call me crazy.