One of the major revelations coming out of last week was whatswayed the voters. To the chagrin of the media and grayscaleliberals, the voters indicated that they voted values over itemssuch as the economy and terrorism and it helped push Bush over thetop. It also validated the impact and importance of thechurch-going voter.
Because of their importance, there are several issues at handinvolving religion and politics. Chief among those is what a churchcan actually say about politics and politicians.
Churches are given tax-exempt status in the IRS code as anon-profit organization. Currently, they are allowed to hold voterregistration drives and candidate debates, but they are not allowedto "endorse or oppose a candidate for political office." To violatethis would incur the revocation of their status, making everything,from tithes to property, taxable.
The law made its way into the tax code thanks to then Sen.Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was peeved when two non-profitorganizations aided his opponent. He got revenge by slipping anamendment into the tax code that stripped tax-exempt status fromany non-profit group that backed a specific candidate. Given theeffect of such a law, it bears discussion coming out of thiscycle.
Some feel the restriction is detrimental to free speech. Oneopponent, Jay Sekulow, argues that because churches are allowed toaddress social and moral issues, they should be able to speak abouta candidate's specific stance as well.
To Sekulow, this restriction gives the IRS de facto control overpastors as "speech police." One local pastor I spoke with recentlynoted his church walked a tightrope when commenting on electionissues. While the IRS may not be listening to every sermon tape, itis not a far stretch to conclude that pastors are unable speakcertain opinions freely without fear of reprisal, as Sekulowimplies.
Others, like the Rev. Barry Lynn, feel the restriction is justand prevents religious intrusion into state matters. Lynn arguesthat removal "invites controversy into the sanctuary." In Lynn'sview, because the church is a place for religious worship, politicshas no basis to be there. To him, removing the law is step towardspushing "fundamentalist doctrines" and would forge a "church-basedpolitical machine."
What both sides do not dismiss is that the law has been unfairlyapplied. Sekulow points out conservative churches have been thetarget of its enforcement whereas liberal ones have not. Lynnpoints to several legitimate violations, but all of his examplesare conservative entities. This does not suggest all are equalunder the law.
A pertinent example of this can be derived from this year'scampaign. Should President Bush have dared to give a campaignspeech in a church, he and that church would have been pilloried.John Kerry, meanwhile, gave campaign speeches in several churchesleading up to the election but nobody bothered to point out thosechurches were violating their tax-exempt status by effectivelygiving endorsement to Kerry.
Moreover, the issue goes beyond churches; other groups fall intothe tax-exempt status, too. One such group is the NAACP, and theyare in the hot seat now.
An article in the Washington Post recently reported that aroundsixty groups, including the NAACP, were under investigation forviolating the politicking restriction. While the IRS refused tocomment, NAACP president Julian Bond confirmed the investigation.Interestingly, only one-third of those groups under investigationare churches.
As this now extended beyond the church, it brings therestriction into question in a different light. Several non-profitgroups, such as the NAACP, engage in advocacy for their positions.It seems malevolent to allow them to comment concerning an issuebut not on who they feel best serves that issue. Likewise, it seemsstrange that in a nation where "separation of church and state" isa desired facet, the government would dare intrude into a church'sor group's free speech rights.
While there are legitimate points in support of the restriction,it does a nation no good to stifle churches and advocacy groupsthat promote issues in the social and political realm. One canargue that it's a small price to pay for being tax-exempt, butnobody seemed to take issue with that until one snippy Senator madeit personal. The concern that churches would become overtlypolitical is nebulous at best as churches aren't in the politicalbusiness; they're in the soul-saving business, and any pastor whowould supplant one with the other would forsake his charge.
The best solution is to ditch the restriction. Free speech ischerished in society and chief among those concerns was politicalspeech. One would be hard-pressed to say the Founding Fathers wouldagree with the law considering churches were instrumental incalling for freedom from Great Britain's yoke. Likewise, in a timewhere some of the most contentious political issues are moralissues, preventing churches and advocacy groups from speakingwithout fear of reprisal is a necessary measure to preserve freespeech as it was intended.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
