I have some insight on the matter of politics from the pulpit. I belong to three organizations that actively ride herd on the issue. I hold a minor office in one of them, but I’m speaking here as an individual, not as a spokesman for that group.
As a tax-exempt entity, a church has to avoid endorsing any candidate. The distribution of “voting guides” in the church is out of bounds.
A minister, acting as the leader of his flock, is supposed to refrain from advocating for a candidate. Outside the context of his job, he is just as free to participate in politics as you and I. As an individual, he can speak at a rally, or even run for public office.
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with candidates speaking at churches. It can be legitimate within certain limits, though. Candidate A can give a speech about the progress the country has made, about the things we (the nation) should strive for, about the hope and love in our hearts, and stuff like that. If he or she never touches on the subject of voting for her, it’s not a campaign speech. :rolleyes:
When the preacher thanks the candidate, if he stays noncommital and goes back to the service, everybody’s still clean. Nobody mentioned the election.
I asked one of our legal staffers how the Catholic church could get away with publicly saying candidates who are not pro-life won’t be offered Communion. She said Communion is a religious part of what the church does, so that’s none of the government’s business. (I’m not a lawyer, and that’s a little confusing to me.)
I don’t think you have to be a lawyer to understand this.
Churches can conduct worship services as they see fit - and the First Amendment severely limits the extent to which government may intervene in this.
So if a church decides to discipline a member who isn’t behaving according to a moral code set by the church (by, say, withholding a sacrament) the government cannot compel the church to extend that sacrament. Simple.
The member may change his behavior, or remain a member and not receive that sacrament, or leave the church. None of these things are matters the government may control.
I note with interest that in the 1950s and 1960s, in a pitched battle over the integration of Louisiana parochial schools, the archbishop of New Orleans felt compelled to excommunicate the most virulent opponents of integration, which included several Catholic politicians. All of them eventually dropped their opposition and returned to the fold. So it isn’t as if this sort of thing is unprecedented, though it is uncommon in the political arena. Garden variety excommunications or denials of sacraments happen all of the time.
Back when she was first running for Senate in New York, I heard Hillary Clinton speak at a synagogue, and that was pretty much what she did. I’m sure it was just stump speech #3B, but it was all about hope and values and progress, and it never said vote for me, nor did it say vote against my opponent (though I think she did encourage everyone to vote and participate in the political process without expressly saying which way to do so).
I recall the Rabbi making a point of mentioning that they had extended an invitation to Rick Lazio, her opponent at the time, but that he was unable to attend.
I’m against tax exemption for churches in general, but if I wasn’t, I don’t think politicans speaking there would be a good reason against it. Hey, the priest/rabbi/whoever in charge can even say “Vote for this guy here”, and I have no problem with it. Go right ahead.
So, let’s say we have a race for the state legislature where candidate A is a devout Satan worshipper who supports rape, senseless murder, church bombings, and is also a Yankees’ fan. (sorry)
And candidate B is a mainstreat guy with Protestant leanings who thinks candidate A is a whackjob.
Now, under your thoughts, a mere “voting guide” that illustrates the two candidates’ positions would/should be “out of bounds”?
And would/should a minister, in his official capacity, who endorses candidate B get in trouble for that?
My extreme example is to say: Where is freedom of religion here? If a candidate supports a particular religious belief/doctrine, then why can’t my church or minister actively support or oppose him? It’s against the law? Well, those laws are astonishingly unconsitutional…
If a church is engaging in political campaigning, it ought not be tax-exempt.
A church that invites only one candidate to the pulpit is becoming awful involved in a political campaign, to the degree that its tax-exempt status ought to be revoked, IMO.
Liberal, the government taxes everyone. When churches receive special treatment, there’s not a separation of church and state. The government ought to be totally neutral toward matters of religion, which means that they ought not consider your religious status when deciding whether you need to pay taxes. A church that qualifies under charitable rules for being a nonprofit ought to be tax-exempt, since that is not a religious test; one that does not qualify ought not be.
I allowed that there should be some restrictions, didn’t I?
Please look at my examples above and examine how a just society should judge each one.
I note that many churches are involved in numerous human rights campaigns - supporting everything from expanded rights for persecuted Christians in China to a just resolution of the Darfur situation. All of these campaigns are by definition political - are they off-limits in your world?
I hope not - that would be a mighty sad and sterile place.
Yes, absolutely, if it’s handed out in the church. The government stays out of the church business, and the church stays out of the government business.
Yes. If he opposes A as an individual, not in his official capacity, that’s fine.
Candidate A has as much freedom to worship Satan as a Methodist has to worship Jesus. Your church members and minister are free to campaign against A outside the structure of the church, but not as a church. They are even free to form a taxed group to pay for anti-A ads, but it must be separate from the church. It is the bedrock of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
If you believe it’s unconstitutional, you need some more study.
No, actually it doesn’t. It taxes only people above a certain income.
They already receive special treatment in the form of a special Constitutional amendment. In fact, that’s the reason churches don’t pay taxes to begin with — see Walz v. Tax Commission. Government interferes in practically every aspect of your life, but religion (generally speaking) is an exception.
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White Justices Dissenting
William O. Douglas Date of Decision
4 May 1970 Decision
That the tax exemption did not constitute an establishment of religion and that it in fact avoided excessive entanglement between church and state, thus maintaining separation between the two.
My guideline is simple: would an non-religious organization with an identical mission be tax-exempt? If so, then so should be the church. The church’s religious affiliation should have nothing to do with whether it’s tax-exempt.
With anyone else, I’d say, “You know what I mean,” and trust they do. Not so here, so: excellent point, Liberal, both on-point and perceptive! You sure got me there.
A requirement for organizations achieving a certain level of income is a law. Churches are not immune from following other laws: they may not dump their trash beside the road, their church vans must obey the speed limit, their signs must conform to city statutes. I do not see why their religious status ought to exempt them from following tax laws.
Exemptions for charitable work are different: they serve a clear public policy. Churches that qualify as charitable organizations should, like any other charitable organization, be exempt from taxes.
I’ve read the summary of the “Walz v. Tax Commission” case, and agree with its detractors: tax exemption based solely on religion is apt to create additional entanglement, for example by requiring government to determine what is and what is not a legitimate religion.
You are aware that back during our Founding Father’s lifetimes that the general population in addition to people running for office regularly met in places like bars and churches, in addition to town halls and other places, to discuss politics, right?
So, if you choose to practice your freedom of religion, then you cannot practice your freedom of speech?
I know churches don’t pay a property tax, but because of that they are forbidden from issuing a policy position? Even if such policy position is obviously in or contrary to their interests?
Another example: Candidate A takes a position that the First Methodist Church of SDMB members should be summarily executed without trial.
Candidate B is a member of the First Methodist Church of SDMB.
The minister, in your opinion, of our church, can’t even MENTION these positions, let alone endorse candidate B?
Nobody prevents a church from paying taxes. If they want to avoid taxes, they have to avoid political involvement. That seems very simple to me: churches get special rights under our system, but in order to enjoy them, they have to behave in a certain way. Yeah, it’s an entanglement, but they can disentangle themselves very easily, simply by playing by the same rules as everyone else.
So no, they’re not forbidden from issuing a policy decision.
I don’t think you’re right here, for the simple reason that MoveOn and bicyclists; organizations and AARP aren’t granted the precise same First Amendment rights as the Catholic Church.
The Founders recognized freedoms of speech, assembly and press as especially worthy of protection - but religion wasn’t rolled in with these, even though these freedoms would seem to imply a freedom to practice faith freely on the face of it. Even so, religion was mentioned separately in two other clauses allowing for the free exercise of religion and prohibiting laws that established an official one for the state.
Churches have never been treated the same as secular organizations under the law, and there is no reason to suppose that that should change because of your notions of fairness.
Note the word “should” in what I wrote; you’re certainly right that the current law is not up to the high standards of what I know is right and wrong ;).
