In an important election year, pastors from particular churches are openingly endorsing and opposing candidates based on candidates’ positions on policies ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage. Because some churches and charities are tax-exempt under the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c) (3), they are forbidden by law to intervene in political campaigns. The Religious Right is not taking this restriction lightly. According to Reverend Steve Riggle, “The government should not be telling the Church what it should or should not be saying”. As a direct response to the government’s intrusion, the Alliance Defense Fund has started a campaign urging pastors to discuss potential candidates for public office at the pulpit in hopes of sparking a test case that will once again catapult the issue of “separation of church and state” to the federal appeals court, which has previously (in 2000) unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the tax law.
Are the churches being defiant of justified legal establishments or is the government side-stepping the right of the Religious Right towards religious freedom? This is a compounded issue that needs to be tweezed out into its separate components. At face value, Rev. Riggle’s statement is true. After all our Founding Fathers were adamant in protecting religious liberty as “a right as natural and as significant as those of thought and expression” (Meacham, 84). However, Rev. Riggle overlooks at least one condition that makes this struggle between church and state unique: the church in which these pastors are preaching are tax-exempt.
Tax-exemption is a financial status that benefits organizations that perform charitable, religious, or educational functions. Through the tax-exempt status, the church—in this case—enters into an agreement with the understanding that it will not attempt to influence legislation. In this pact, the religious institution becomes neutral in its own political agenda. If the pact is broken, financial support from the American people inadvertently advocates the opinions of that institution which may not be the conviction of the majority. In the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson remarks that the use of public funding (or the exempt of taxes, in this case) to advocate the belief of a particular group is oppressive: “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Like Jefferson, it appears that the drafters of the Internal Revenue Code were also sensitive to benefiting a particular group without reservation.
Through political preaching, the pastors in these controversial churches are no longer promulgating religious beliefs but rather employing “religion as an engine of civil policy” (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments). If pastors like Rev. Riggle propose that political preaching is an expression of religious freedom, the Founding Fathers would probably turn in their graves at the sound of such “unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation” (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments).
With the appeals court holding fast to the basic principles set forth by Jefferson and Madison regarding the role of religion in government, much has not changed in the idea that religion and government are better off apart whenever possible; however, some vociferous religious proponents have become increasingly bold and more political in their attempts to integrate religion into government than in the past. Fortunately, they are met by an equal secularist force that quickly identifies when preaching becomes a political agenda in sheep’s clothing.
To see the original article, visit Pulpit Perfidy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
The debate over the role of tax-exempt institutions in political campaigns is an interesting one. I agree with Gabriela’s argument that the Founding Fathers would uphold the current law prohibiting Churches receiving tax breaks from endorsing and funding specific political candidates. However, what exactly is prohibited must be parsed a little clearer. The Church does not agree to “not attempt to influence legislation.” Most churches understand themselves as agents of change in society, and see influencing legislation as a concrete way to do this. The United Methodist Church, for example, claims that since its founding it has “been known as a denomination involved with people's lives, with political and social struggles.” The Church is in no way obligated to stay out of society and influence issues. Rather, this tax law is designed to prevent churches from endorsing specific candidates.
From reading the original article, it seems to me that the Rev. Steve Higgle doesn't really get it. He says, "The government should not be telling the church what it should or should not be saying," and that "As a pastor, a private citizen, I can speak for myself. The IRS cannot quench my voice."
His remarks are interesting because the government is only preventing a publicly funded church from promoting a particular candidate. It is still free to say almost anything else it wants, including promoting specific legislation, views, etc. In addition, Rev. Higgle is absolutely entitled to speak for himself as a private citizen; however, as a leader and representative of a church that operates at least partially on public funds, he is no longer a private citizen and cannot claim to be one. And finally, the IRS does not "quench" his voice -- he and his church are free to support whichever candidate they want as soon as they start paying taxes like most other American entities.
Weren't churches supposed to spread religion, love, etc anyways, instead of being a tax-exempt political machine?
I was surprised that there are such tight regulations on churches concerning legislation and politics until I remembered that the majority of churches are 501(c) 3) organizations and are therefore tax exempt. By intervening in an election, they could potentially be creating “friends in high places,” who would later be able to provide further breaks or even grants. I agree with the government on this issue, but while the churches argue that it is an issue of separation of church and state, I think it is an issue of separation of church and politics. The church can promulgate its ideas and opinions on a variety of relevant issues related to Christianity, but I think they need to stay away from specific candidates in the political arena. Churches are meant to foster Christian communities, not tell people who to vote for.
In my eyes, the tax law is nonsensical. The endorsement of a specific set of policies is essentially the same as the endorsement of a particular candidate; both could easily be construed as “political engagement.” As Andrew points out, most churches, as social institutions, are necessarily political. Perhaps, though, we go too far in assuming that Americans are capable of figuring out whose policy matches up with that being preached. Either way, the government seems to have an interest in drawing the line at endorsing candidates. The Hatch act, for example, prohibits federal employees from publicly endorsing or campaigning for candidates, on or using government property (tax-exemption essentially is government funding).
We can even argue against the tax law on a more basic level: in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Jefferson writes, “that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Certainly, one taxpayer will disagree with at least one policy supported by a tax-exempt organization. Religious groups can be included in the tax exemption largely due to changing Supreme Court attitudes toward the Establishment Clause. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which dealt with state reimbursement of nonpublic (mainly Catholic) schools for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, etc., the Court created the “Lemon Test” to evaluate whether a law violated the Establishment Clause. A law is constitutional as long as 1) it has a legitimate secular purpose; 2) does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion; and 3) does not result in “excessive government entanglement” with religion. As conservative appointments make the Court increasingly accomodationist, Jefferson’s “wall” between church and state becomes less distinct.
On the other hand, the article correctly suggests that the Religious Right groups are likely to lose court challenges, and the Court precedent runs deeper than the 2000 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court established that the Free Exercise clause cannot be used to challenge a “neutral law of general application.” That is, if a law is not meant to deal with religion—in our case, ALL tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from endorsing candidates—it cannot be challenged as discriminatory against religion. Whether Reverend Higgle’s personal speech represents himself or his church is more complicated, but as David points out, Higgle just isn’t being very strategic. He has significant leeway in what he can say (and as a result, significant influence on voting choices) but he focuses his efforts on fighting a losing battle.
Tuesday's New York Times had a thoughtful piece about this very issue. Reporter Paul Vitello points out that web-casting (specifically YouTube) has made sermons available to a much wider audience, which includes groups like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. These groups have filed more complaints about violations of tax-exemption rules. Yet I think both Andrew and Drew highlight a key problem in this discussion: churches are political institutions. The separation between church and state is tenuous and works only if we make arbitrary determinations about what's "political." In fact, in his article about the "democratization" of American Christianity, Nathan Hatch argues that the earliest and most effective political entities in the United States were churches. How then can the tax code prevent these institutions from being "political?" Do we simply limit our understanding of what is "political" to endorsing candidates and raising money for a particular party?
The Huffington Post actually has a very interesting story on this subject regarding John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin. Palin was baptized and has attended the Wasilla Assembly of God church for most of her adult life. Pastor Ed Kalnins, the head pastor of Wasilla church, has offered some controversial political views from the pulpit, some just as controversial as the preachings of Rev. Wright.
According to the Huffington Post:
The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."
Hinting that supporters of a certain candidate may face eternal damnation for their political views seems to trump endorsement— and to think that this church retains its tax exempt status? I find this a particularly interesting issue due to the extremely small number of 50(c) (3) status revocations among religious organizations. Perhaps in this election year churches will receive more scrutiny for their blatantly political views?
In response to the article, “Politics in Sheep’s Clothing,” by Gabriela V., I found the article to misconstrue the actual federal tax code. This is done by not looking at religious leaders as individual citizens, singling out the Republican Party, and not looking past the use the majority of Americans find with churches.
First, the federal tax code allows religious leaders as citizens to endorse a particular candidate. As long as the individual religious leader is not affiliating themselves with their organization as a backdrop for their beliefs, it is legal. The right of individuals to fully engage in politics has never been withdrawn because of their religious beliefs. It is only when religious leaders use their religion as propaganda.
Second, the use of phrases such, as “Religious Right” are not what the issue is about. American jurisprudence is based on procedural law, rather than substantive law. The more conservative justices on the United States Supreme Court often orate that the law is blind. This means that everything is looked at, or at least should be viewed, in an unbiased manner.
Third, the majority of Americans go to church for spiritual guidance and education. The federal tax code of 501(c)(3) “Rules Pertaining to Political Activity,” in subsection one explicitly states that religious organizations are allowed to hold voter education activities, as long as they is no preferential treatment given to a particular political party or candidate. Here, churches can provide a public service to their parishioner’s, and the community as a whole.
The mix of politics and religion should not be a negative issue. The party that does work to inform their church-going members about political stances should be applauded. The more information individual citizens are able to gather, the more informed they would possibly be by election time.
Note: Tax rules were researched via the following website: http://non-profit-governance.suite101.com/article.cfm/501c3_and_church_organizations
Also, federal tax law information obtained from place of employment.
This is a fascinating subject to address. The Internal Revenue Code section 501 (c) (3) has always been puzzling to me because it only prevents churches and clergy members from endorsing particular parties and candidates. It has never prevented ministers from preaching about particular political issues. I feel rather conflicted on the issue at this moment. On one hand, I believe that because Churches do receive tax exemption, there should be no room for debate on whether they should be able to officially support a particular party platform or candidate. On the other hand, I find the distinction between support of particular issues and support of particular parties to be rather weak. Of course, I say this under the assumption that congregations make an accurate connection between political positions and parties/candidates (perhaps a problematic assumption). It would be almost impossible to prevent churches from dealing with political issues, and therefore it is impossible to strip political debate from churches. I think that perhaps the prevention of official endorsement of candidates or parties is a way of defining some sort of line between religious institutions and politics. A flawed but neccessary boundary.
Post a Comment