The government may not prevent you from worshipping in the church of your choice… that’s what “freedom of religion” refers to. There is no legal principle that restricts a church from expelling members for whatever reason they please.
I think those of us in the Reality Based Community should just leave this the fuck alone. No good can come of involvement with this.
And if I were Commissar for Lefty/Secular affairs, I’d instruct our vast squadrons of lawyers and activist judges to ignore the entire issue of tax exemption and political involvement, its a fight not even worth winning. Why give them someone to blame for their own self-destruction?
I don’t think going mano a mano with our fellow citizens over a rigid interpretation of church/state seperation is worth doing. If they try to pass a Constitutional Amendment making Pat Robertson Primate of Washington, its straight to the barricades. But tax exempt status for churches that intrude into politics? Shrug it off.
And we should also be willing to admit that religious involvement in things political is deeply ingrained in our history, as often in the service of progressive causes as not. Witness Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers, or MLK’s version of Southern Baptists. My own Texas grandmother supported civil rights in segregated Texas not because of any political conviction, but because segregation wasn’t Christian, and she was far from unique.
“Under God” in the pledge? Shrug it off. Ten Commandments in the park? BFD. Even if they managed to legislate a Minute of Silence in the schools, the kids’ll just use it to to chew gum and pass notes anyway. Teach Intelligent Design? The entire syllabus of Intelligent Design can be covered in one sentence at the end of the semester in Biology 101: It is possible Somebody made all this. We know that’s possible, and that’s pretty much all we know. There’s nothing else to teach on ID! So long as we accept Intelligent Design as nothing more than a metaphysical conjecture on why things are as they are, it does no violence to teaching what things are.
Now, out and out Creationism, thats a whole 'nother thing. Over that, we go to the mattresses.
I say save our ammunition, we have bigger fascists to fry.
A church is a private organization, and should for the most part be able to include or exclude whomever they want.
However, a church is also a specific kind of private organization, one granted special status by the government allowing it to be exempt from taxes. This places certain restrictions on what they can do, in order to keep the tax-exempt status from being abused. One such condition is that while they are allowed to advocate positions on political issues, they have to generally stay out of the political process. The clearest piece of this is that a church cannot endorse a particular candidate.
So if they want to push candidates, they’re free to do it, and they can still call themselves a “church” if they want to, but they’re not entitled to the tax exempt status that comes with it. There have to be restrictions on that, in order to prevent, say, the First Church of Microsoft, or the Temple of DoctorJ (Reformed).
I grew up attending a Baptist church, and back then I think they did a much better job of staying away from specific political issues. When it got to be about homosexuals, abortion, and evolution, I stopped going and I’ve never been back. That was ten years ago; all indications are that it’s worse now, particularly in the past six months. (I suspected this would happen after the last election.)
And yes, it bugs me when churches host speeches by political candidates. The idea is that they’re not actually endorsing the candidate, and the candidate is not there actively soliciting votes, but that’s just crap. Even if it’s totally kosher, the appearance of impropriety is worth avoiding in this case.
Bricker, is this church in danger of losing tax-exempt status for this little stunt?
I agree. Just sit back and hand them the rope to better hang themselves with.
Hush, Reeder! Do you actually want to stop mswas from providing us with hours of free fun mockery?
Please, mswas, tell us more… 
Your post is his cite.
Fuck that. These shitheads want to include themselves in anything and everything and I say we fight them every step of the way.
They want to play in politics. Fine. Let’s get some cash out of them. It’s pay to play after all and we’re in a budget crisis.
They want their ID crap in schools. Fine. Let’s start teaching science in church. We can hold science demonstrations outside of church.
Fer da love o’pete. It’s in the masthead.
Arguably, yes, although I’d say the case would be much stronger if this had happened during the election season. But this is by no means my area of specialty.
I’d certainly love to see the IRS go forward with a determination and make them fight it. It would clarify the law, and cost them an expensive lawyer’s fees.
Based on that platform, I’d vote for you!
Apparently, his belief that Democrats are irredeemable.
But wouldn’t that mean then that the Pastor is free to go to a synagogue and pray to Jesus to save all the Jews? I mean, there’s freedom of assembly, but that doesn’t mean we can all decide to assemble in your house, does it? Or your private club?
I thought the religion clause restricted Congress, much like the speech clause. Why would there be a case against the church?
It’s not about the Establishment Clause, it’s about the tax exempt status of churches. Churches that receive tax exempt status are not allowed to advocate for a political party or candidate.
Ah, got it, thanks. A law that overrides the establishment clause…
It doesn’t override the Esablishment Clause because it doesn’t amount to the state endorsing a religious view, nor does it prevent any church from advocating one, or even from advocating politically. It just removes their tax exemption (which is not a constitutional right) if they do so.
Personally, I think all churches should be taxed and they should all be able to advocate whatever they want and exclude whoever they want.
I agree that the best course of action is to criticize and even mock, but not to rigorously pursue any course of legal action. I do feel for the people who were kicked out–that really sucks for them.
However, if the IRS wants to go after the church, fine by me.
The people who really should go after the church are Christians themselves, who should loudly point out how un-Christlike that pastor’s behavior is. That is what I’m not seeing, and that makes me sad.
Yeah, the best thing to do is for veryone to totally ignore the pastor. That includes not attending his “church”, not donating, nada. Then he can preach to himself in an empty building. That would be the best solution, and I hope it happens. Going after him on taxes or discrimination or anything else would probably just make him a “martyr for the cause”.
As regards the tax-exempt status of this church, I found this tidbit in this article.
Thats your opinion, the law says differently. A church gets tax exemption because it is a place to worship. One rule is they may discuss moral issues but they may not implicate {especially the pastor} that a good follower should vote for a certain candidate to continue to be a good follower. Then they become a political organization and no longer eligible for tax exemption.
Another line that disturbed me was the fact that as those that didn’t support Bush left others stood up and **applauded ** And some how they still see themselves as followers of Jesus.
A similar thing offended me when Jerry Falwell made a comment about killing a homosexual and his congregation applauded.
Are you sure you’re not thinking of Jimmy Swaggert? I can’t recall Falwell, odious as he is, talking about killing gays. Swaggert, on the other hand, famously said that if a man ever hit on him, he’d kill him and “tell God he died.”