In his article “33 Pastors Flout Tax Law With Political Sermons,” Peter Slevin presents both sides of the battle over the right of pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit. The contention is particularly relevant since on September 28, 33 pastors gave sermons in direct opposition to the “54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship” (Slevin, par. 3). In particular, Slevin points to pastors attacking Sen. Barack Obama for his lenient stances on abortion and gay rights. Slevin clearly distinguishes the arguments on both sides. On the one hand, some pastors and congregants feel that church leaders not only have the right but also have the responsibility to inform their flocks on what the Bible and G-d say about current political situations. And they feel that explicitly endorsing or condemning candidates is necessary because otherwise some congregation members would not make a connection on their own. On the other side, Slevin presents pastors and groups that argue that pastor’s endorsing candidates from the pulpit in particular amounts to saying that “‘this is what our G-d says should be the government of the country’” (Slevin, par. 20). This side also argues that endorsing candidates from the pulpit promotes “divisiveness” rather than a national dialogue that transcends it.
Slevin is fair in presenting both sides of the issue. When I think about this matter, I tend to lean towards the belief that this is actually improvement over the past. I am a huge supporter of being straight forward: people should say what they mean and mean what they say. For instance in his account of the 1960 election, William Martin talks about how Billy Graham was very much involved in the process but largely behind the scenes. Graham wrote letters to Nixon advising him on things such as vice presidential selection but asked that the communications be “destroyed…after reading it” (Martin, p. 49). In that election year, magazines secretly favored Nixon and when a religious leader, Peale, appeared to speak his mind publicly (at a press conference not a pulpit) he was condemned (Martin, p. 53-54). I think what separates the 2008 incident from the one in 1960 is evolution: I think that today’s society is much more open to allowing even those whom you disagree with to act in accordance with their beliefs. I think if a legal battle does ensue over what has happened and the pastors are silenced then it will be a step back. I would rather have people out in the open than lurking in the shadows wielding secret power.
In the end, I think the question is do we want to have society in which we can be open and truthful rather than secretive and manipulative?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
When one voluntary signs up for something they enter knowingly and are subject to the rules. Religion is a personal voluntary commitment, and when particular religions sign up with the IRS for tax-exemption they are aware that they have to follow rules in order to receive benefits. While the IRS imposes some restrictions on what may actually be said while one is representing the organization from the pulpit, one is still able to get their point across with out specifically endorsing or opposing any certain candidate. They are not saying religions can not have political views, but instead that for specific reasons there is a time and a place for such campaigning. If religious leaders feel so strongly that they can not follow the voluntary rules maybe they should sign up to work on a campaign instead of at a church. When they are preaching from the pulpit the people in the congregation may interpret that the pastor is telling them God’s will, and since different ministers may endorse different candidates, how can both be God’s chosen candidate? I wish it was that clear.
Langdon’s post provides a good summery of the article by Slevin. I understand Landon’s argument that the tax exception law should be changed in order to promote a clearer and more transparent election process. Nonetheless, I am troubled at the possibility that church goers vote will be influenced even more on what their religious superiors say. What if America makes a habit of this and religious leaders have more control over the elections? Interfaith Alliance has a valid point, allowing religious leaders to openly endorse candidates can jeopardize the separation of church and state. Shouldn’t we preserve this at all costs?
I am going to have to agree with Lisa and Eduardo on this one. While I can see the benefit of open communication, the IRS rules are in place for a reason. The concern that parishioners will simply follow the words of their pastors is a valid one. And, as different church leaders can (and do) have different opinions, how can they all be presenting the word (or will) of God? As well, leaving the political decisions of church goers up to their pastors removes any semblance of independent thought. Is open communication a good thing if it is absent any varying views? I really think that endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is a bad idea, and the IRS rules prohibiting such action are important.
Post a Comment