Democrats Booted from Church

[Puma]

now this is just wrong...and why I'll fight tooth and nail to keep Church and State separate

(05-07) 06:51 PDT Waynesville, N.C. (AP) --

Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP. Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn't support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte.

"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," said Selma Morris, the former church treasurer. "He's real negative all the time."

Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS-TV in Asheville that the actions were not politically motivated.

The station also reported that 40 others in the 400-member congregation resigned in protest after Monday's vote.

During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton.

Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said.

George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church's bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership.

"Membership is a local church issue," he said. "It is not something the state convention would enter into."

He added that the nine members were not legally terminated because Monday's meeting was supposed to be a deacons meeting, not a business meeting. They have a lawyer looking into the situation, he said.

The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Chairman Jerry Meek said.

Doris Wilson, one of Chandler's neighbors and a member of First Baptist Church in Waynesville, said God doesn't play partisan politics.

"I hate to see the church suffer like that," she said. "God doesn't care whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. It just hurts to see that going on."


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/05/07/national/a020236D33.DTL

[JeffreyWKramer]

Bogus though I think this is, churches have every right to behave in this manner. Free practice of religion equates to freedom to engage in discriminatory practice, and in fact, various religions discriminate against various sorts of people all the time. Most of the time such discrimination is justified on grounds of religious doctrine, but when you have disgusting spectacles such as Vatican officials calling for the excommunication of Catholic politicians who don't toe the Vatican line, it shouldn't come to any surprise when you start seeing crap like this.

Of course, those who think it's bogus also have every right to complain, protest, leave the church and apply pressure in attempt to reverse such ass-hattery.

[west3man]

I could see having a problem with Kerry and Kerry supporters, on religious grounds. I maybe even see saying so in church.

Ignoring the legalities, I think it sucks BIG TIME to kick people out on such grounds, though. There's no one IN that church who hasn't sinned. Singling out that one group for sin-by-association and then booting them seems unfair AND against what I THOUGHT was the POINT of a church. I'm more familiar with Baptists than Catholics and other religious groups. This just doesn't make sense within the context of their religious outlook... in my estimation.

[Mike Smash!]

No, he should lose his tax exemption status.

Not because he took a stance on issues. That's cool. All churches do that. But he took a stance on a party and a candidate, which churches who don't like pay taxes shouldn't do.

Churches aren't political action committees or 527s and they could easily be a very cheap way to pressure their congregations to vote the way they want or face social ostracization.

That Pastor can say what he wants about the war, abortion, the PATRIOT Act, the separation of church and state, gay marriage, moral values, etc... but the minute he goes partisan, he should lose those tax perks.

There is a large difference between a conservative congregation and a Republican one. That's the difference he should respect if he wants to maintain tax exempt status. But if he doesn't mind his church paying taxes, he can say whatever he wants about who to vote for and kick out whoever they like. They just have to pay taxes from then on.

Americans United for Seperation of Church (http://www.au.org) and State just issued a press release on this very topic:

CHURCH SPLIT IN NORTH CAROLINA SHOWS DANGERS OF PARTISAN POLITICS IN PULPIT, SAYS AMERICANS UNITED

Church Electioneering Bill In Congress Would Invite More Disputes Over Politics In Houses Of Worship, Says AU's Lynn


A bitter controversy over partisan politics at a North Carolina church shows the danger of electioneering in the pulpit, according to Americans United of Separation of Church and State.

According to news media reports, the Rev. Chan Chandler of East Waynesville Baptist Church in Haywood County told members that they must vote for President George W. Bush. Nine members who did not do so have since been told to leave the congregation. An additional 40 members have reportedly left in protest.

"This is an outrage,"said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Houses of worship exist to bring people together for worship, not split them apart over partisan politics.

"I think there is an important lesson here for the whole country," Lynn continued. "Americans do not expect to be ordered to vote for certain candidates by their religious leaders."

Religious Right groups have been pressing evangelical churches to get deeply involved in partisan politics, Lynn said, and this kind of controversy is the natural outcome.

Lynn said matters will become even worse if a bill now pending in Congress becomes federal law.

H.R. 235, a measure introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), would allow clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit and still retain a tax exemption of their house of worship.

"Introducing partisan politics into our churches is a terrible idea," said AU's Lynn. "I hope this incident in North Carolina will cause our members of Congress to reject Rep. Jones' bill."

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

[Wesley Dodds]

Church Electioneering Bill In Congress Would Invite More Disputes Over Politics In Houses Of Worship, Says AU's Lynn


The Republicans always impress me with how tactically they go about winning elections.

[Mike Smash!]

The Republicans always impress me with how tactically they go about winning elections.It helps when you don't have scruples and have balls the size of coconuts.

And when you have opponents like the Democrats.

[Valmore]

*Sigh*

How are you going to win the hearts, minds and support of the opposition if you alienate them?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Paul McEnery]

I think it's time we had all Catholics thrown out of the country for being agents of a foreign power. :D

[Mike Smash!]

*Sigh*

How are you going to win the hearts, minds and support of the opposition if you alienate them?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.As opposed to telling them they're unpatriotic or not real Americans because they live in blue states? I've heard a lot about "real America" last year and how I'm not a part of it.

Bush even blasted the state of Massachuessetts on the campaign trail. One of the states he's President of.

The Republicans are just as, if not more guilty of this than anyone.

[Wesley Dodds]

I've heard a lot about "real America" last year and how I'm not a part of it.

Now, Mike, that was just about giving a President who lost the popular vote majoritarian legitimacy. :p

[Fenris]

Tsk. How dumb and useless.


(On a side note, I see that the Democrats were voted out, which means that a majority of the congregation apparently agrees with the Pastor. So it may not have been the act of a dictatorial minister imposing his will on the congregation, but rather an expression of a bitter division that was already there. Not that this is much better.)

There's nothing wrong with a church expressing its views on political issues, though normally you don't see things done quite this forcefully. We're mostly Protestants, and Protestants have always been leery of throwing people out of churches.

(Which isn't to say that we haven't done it; just that it's always kind of furtive and embarrassing when it happens. Our natural moral sympathies are with the people getting thrown out.)

I think this is dumb and obnoxious. But it's a dumb example of something necessary and ever-present in religious freedom: the ability to make a social commentary.

Back in the late 1950s, a Roman Catholic bishop made the announcement that any Catholic politician who supported segregation would be excommunicated. The Catholic Church was firmly on the side of racial equality, and not afraid to say so, even though it cost them lots of support in the south.

Was the Church wrong to do this? Should it have smoothed over the moral difference between racism and tolerance, and agreed that Bull Conner was just as welcome as Martin Luther King?

Or, perhaps, declare that racism was wrong but that they weren't going to really do anything about it? Just register their objection and go on with life?

Thankfully, they didn't. Most of the civil rights movement was about churches that refused to stay away from politics; they refused to accept the notion that government had a veto power over what they were allowed to talk about. And that's how they made changes in America.

I'm very glad for their refusal.

[Kid Seven]

I just hope it ends up costing the Republicans.

[BlairH]

As a Christian AND a Republican, all I can say is "That's just wrong, man!"

[Kevinroc]

But this is just a small demonstration of the larger issue of how the Republicans are trying to classify their opponents as godless freaks who would outlaw faith. They try to come off as an oppressed minority.

[Mike Smash!]

Fenris,

The churches are right now, allowed to talk about whatever they like and admit whomever the like. Churches now on both sides of the political spectrum regularly get involved in issues activism.

In fact, some of the Greens' biggest allies in Seattle are in churches.

And I hope they stay involved in politics. Just not partisanship, which is what the pastor in the article did.

Yeah, those people were voted out, but it was essentially mob rule. People weren't likely to vote against the pastor, not only because they themselves would likely be voted out themselves. It takes a lot of courage to stand up and say no to the people you call your own community, knowing that it may cost you friendships and your place in that community.

This is the sort of pressue that a church can place on a member of the congregation. On issues and moral values, this is fine, but we get into political candidates and parties, we get into scary territory.

Sure, the Catholic Church doesn't like John Kerry's stance on abortion, but they don't like George Bush's stances on the war in Iraq and the death penalty either.

And that's not where I want to see political campaigns go.. To see who can rack up the most churches and where eventually they're reduced to little more than theological Sierra Clubs and NRAs. Notches in the belt of a politician looking to win office.

In that, churches would also lose their indendence in issue activism, much the way that many anti-war groups backing John Kerry were pressured to shut up about the war, for fear it'd hurt Kerry.

But the bottom line is that these churches have these rights now and can exercise them. They just have to be willing to pay taxes and give up a perk.

[Fenris]

Fenris,

Hello, Mike!

The churches are right now, allowed to talk about whatever they like and admit whomever the like. Churches now on both sides of the political spectrum regularly get involved in issues activism.

In fact, some of the Greens' biggest allies in Seattle are in churches.

I'm very glad to hear that. Not surprised, but glad.


And I hope they stay involved in politics. Just not partisanship, which is what the pastor in the article did.

This distinction has always seemed like straw-splitting to me. Preaching on the Iraq War, abortion, the Patriot Act, gay rights, etc is good; but mentioning a candidate's name makes it bad?

Most of the people who have any chance of voting will already know which candidate is being talked about. There just isn't that much difference here. If it's good for a church to comment on public affairs, then it might as well mention politicians' names, because politicians are part of public affairs.


Yeah, those people were voted out, but it was essentially mob rule. People weren't likely to vote against the pastor, not only because they themselves would likely be voted out themselves. It takes a lot of courage to stand up and say no to the people you call your own community, knowing that it may cost you friendships and your place in that community.

So there were a lot of moderates at this church, but they were frightened into silence? Hm. How much of this do you know, Mike, and how much is just speculation?

This is the sort of pressue that a church can place on a member of the congregation. On issues and moral values, this is fine, but we get into political candidates and parties, we get into scary territory.

Sure, the Catholic Church doesn't like John Kerry's stance on abortion, but they don't like George Bush's stances on the war in Iraq and the death penalty either.

And that's not where I want to see political campaigns go.. To see who can rack up the most churches and where eventually they're reduced to little more than theological Sierra Clubs and NRAs. Notches in the belt of a politician looking to win office.

I would certainly find that detestable. But I don't see many signs that we're actually going in that direction.

Americans, in general, have a very limited tolerance for this sort of thing: they put up with it for a while, and then they get annoyed and leave the church in question. That's part of what happened to the mainline denominations a few decades ago: they kept talking about politics, and so people left to start attending fundamentalist/evangelical churches that concentrated more on Jesus.


In that, churches would also lose their indendence in issue activism, much the way that many anti-war groups backing John Kerry were pressured to shut up about the war, for fear it'd hurt Kerry.

With the result that many liberals left the Democrats for the Green Party. This sort of repression just doesn't work very well.


But the bottom line is that these churches have these rights now and can exercise them. They just have to be willing to pay taxes and give up a perk.

Hm. Who decides this, anyway? Is there some "Church Police" branch of the FBI that goes around testing Churches for excessive partisanship?

[Wesley Dodds]

Hm. Who decides this, anyway? Is there some "Church Police" branch of the FBI that goes around testing Churches for excessive partisanship?

Yes. The office of faith-based investigations. May I see your bible, sir?

[Fenris]

Hm. Who decides this, anyway? Is there some "Church Police" branch of the FBI that goes around testing Churches for excessive partisanship?

Yes. The office of faith-based investigations. May I see your bible, sir?

It... it's not mine! I'm just holding it for a friend!

[Paul McEnery]

Hm. Who decides this, anyway? Is there some "Church Police" branch of the FBI that goes around testing Churches for excessive partisanship?
Doubt it. But there should be a branch of the IRS.

When churches become fronts for a political party, they should lose their tax exempt status. Same goes for "religious" organizations like Ralph Reed's.

And I say this as someone who's courted religious support for a Nicaraguan sister city project.

[Mike Smash!]

Hello, Mike!Nice to see you on again!


I'm very glad to hear that. Not surprised, but glad.Yeah, there are a ton of great progressive pastors in Seattle, many who really take great stands on peace, workers rights and social justice issues. People like Pastor Rich Lang of the Trinity United Methodist Church in Ballard, where we held the Green Party's campaign school, and donated some money to his church for his troubles.

Rich is a great guy and a terrific ally, but we're always very careful to make sure that us working with Rich doesn't cost him his tax exemption. We'll work alongside him and his congregation and be allies with them in coalitions and I'm sure Rich has voted Green at least a couple times, but he doesn't organize his church for Green Party events or for Green Party candidates and doesn't take partisan stands, but moral ones.

This distinction has always seemed like straw-splitting to me. Preaching on the Iraq War, abortion, the Patriot Act, gay rights, etc is good; but mentioning a candidate's name makes it bad?That distinction makes all the difference.

There isn't a candidate that is going to stand by every single one of the churches' beliefs. That's a fact. President Bush's own church came out against the war in Iraq, for instance.

And there's a difference between being a conservative church and a Republican one. The difference is the difference between telling your congregation to vote for its values and making your church a de facto wing of a political party or a political candidates' campaign.

Most of the people who have any chance of voting will already know which candidate is being talked about. There just isn't that much difference here. If it's good for a church to comment on public affairs, then it might as well mention politicians' names, because politicians are part of public affairs.But they're also not largely using their influence and unspoken thread of exile from the congregation to get parishoners to vote the way they want them to.

So there were a lot of moderates at this church, but they were frightened into silence? Hm. How much of this do you know, Mike, and how much is just speculation? It's not a moderate thing, Fenris. It's a question of principle. We've already have one Christian Republican on this thread turn his nose up at it.

And look at it this way, there might have been more than a couple parishoners who may have wanted to vote for Michael Peroutka or Michael Badnarik but felt pressured out of it and forced into silence because of fear of being ostracized by their church.

I would certainly find that detestable. But I don't see many signs that we're actually going in that direction.

We see those signs already with PACs. In 2000, Al Gore got the endorsement of the Sierra Club and immediately shut up about environmental issues. Now the Sierra Club felt pressured to endorse him for "lesser of two evils" reasons, knowing that Gore wasn't ideal.

But the minute he had that notch in his belt, the talk about the environment stopped and if he was criticized and rightfully so, on his environmental record, he could simply say that the Sierra Club backed him. And the Sierra Club and environmental policies no longer had any place in the national debate.

The same would happen to churches, my friend. They'd be used to show how religious a candidate is, and used also to show how anti-Christian and godless their opponents are.

Americans, in general, have a very limited tolerance for this sort of thing: they put up with it for a while, and then they get annoyed and leave the church in question. That's part of what happened to the mainline denominations a few decades ago: they kept talking about politics, and so people left to start attending fundamentalist/evangelical churches that concentrated more on Jesus.But many people think of the church as their community and extended family. Just as if you're immediatel family told you that they'd disown you if you voted for Candidate A, it's very hard to just pack up and ditch your family.

With the result that many liberals left the Democrats for the Green Party. This sort of repression just doesn't work very well.Many, yeah...but many liberals stay Democrats and remain miserable in silence for fear of "their side" losing.

Hm. Who decides this, anyway? Is there some "Church Police" branch of the FBI that goes around testing Churches for excessive partisanship?The IRS watches them, as well as various Church/State watchdog groups like AU (of which I am a member). AU also reported a violation on the Kerry campaign when a pastor of a black church openly endorsed Kerry to his congregation and told them to vote for him, when Kerry came to speak to them.

The road goes both ways and the way the Dems are going lately, I imagine they'll be getting reported more in the future themselves.

[Fenris]

Doubt it. But there should be a branch of the IRS.

Everyone hates them anyway, so why not give them the unpopular jobs? (Next up: the IRS balances the budget!)


When churches become fronts for a political party, they should lose their tax exempt status. Same goes for "religious" organizations like Ralph Reed's.

And I say this as someone who's courted religious support for a Nicaraguan sister city project.

The difficulty is in judging exactly when that happens. And in whether you're going to err on the side of religious freedom, or separation of church and state. Because this is a very gray area, and errors will be made.

[Mike Smash!]

The difficulty is in judging exactly when that happens. And in whether you're going to err on the side of religious freedom, or separation of church and state. Because this is a very gray area, and errors will be made.Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are not mutually exclusive.

The Separation is what keeps people like me out of second class citizenship and one's relgious affilliation as much a non-issue as possible when running for public office.

I plan on eventually running for office, and the last thing I want in that campaign is to be called a godless heathen and to have to worry about church endorsements and the sort of slander that would bring about.

[Paul McEnery]

Everyone hates them anyway, so why not give them the unpopular jobs? (Next up: the IRS balances the budget!)




The difficulty is in judging exactly when that happens. And in whether you're going to err on the side of religious freedom, or separation of church and state. Because this is a very gray area, and errors will be made.
Well, the deconstructionist in me says that everything's religious, and everything's political.

So where do we draw the distinction to avoid established religion? (Bearing in mind that a church that backs a specific candidate openly equates to a PAC.)

I mean, if you're working on the principle that Christianity backs social justice and individual rights, you wind up in interesting places on issues of War, Abortion, Euthanasia to name but three --and those are the clear cut issues.

One place it gets sticky is when, for example, Ratzinger instructs the Catholics to only vote for anti-Abortion candidates. (Which is why putting forward a bogus law on partial birth abortions is so despicable -- not to sidetrack, though; I'm only speaking here to the unconstitutionality of the law, which was guaranteed to be shot down while earning the 'Pubs points with the Pope.)

It seems to me that singling out a single issue like that is unacceptable, and ought to cost the Catholic Church its tax-exempt status. (Bearing in mind that their are other issues, equally important to the Church, on which anti-abortion candidates stand opposed to the Church.) (Also bearing in mind the fact that the Vatican is a foreign power and should be treated as such -- if the Vatican gave that bit of power up, it would change the ground rules somewhat.)

Another place it gets sticky is when an avowedly (and tax exempt) organization works explicitly to impose "Christian" values against the stated wishes of the Constitution. Providing an amicus brief is one thing, actively campaigning against gay marriage or teaching evolution is another.

[Mike Smash!]

Fenris, I also want to add that not every conservative is a Republican. I know you already know this, but I think it needs to be said again.

When one steps out of the two party system to become either an independent or to join a third party, the one thing that you notice is that difference in both pundits, magazines and public figures.

I've seen Alex, a newly independent, make the same observations that I made when I became a Green. You notice very quickly, the difference between a liberal pundit and a Democratic pundit; a conservative pundit and a Republican pundit.

It may seem small to someone in one of those parties, but from the outside, it's a gap that you can hear echoes in when you yell across it.

It's the difference between Bill Maher and James Carville. It's the difference between P.J. O'Rourke and Ann Coulter.

The difference between "The American Conservative" and "NewsMax".

One is a de facto media branch of a political party and the other is merely conveying a set of values.

NewsMax and Fox News are little more than cheerleaders for not a conservative agenda, but a Republican one. They would snub people like Badnarik and Peroutka for fear the way they could hurt Bush, much the same way that Democratic beholden magazines and media venues treat Ralph Nader.

It's not a question about values with them, it's a question of a party winning. A party that people from that ideology might have qualms. Which is why Fox will never air a Libertarian blasting Bush on small government issues, or a Green blasting the Dems on their support of the war.

'the American Conservative" even refused to endorse a candidate for President this year, because it's isolationist stances being violated by the war in Iraq and it's distaste of Bush's deficit and growth of the federal government.

I'm sure many conservatives working for Fox and NewsMax had that criticism of Bush, but it was muffled for fear of their team losing the finals.

One is principled and the other is merely a front for a political party.

This is what I see being snuffed out if churches openly endorse candidates without fear of losing a tax exemption. They're fully free to do what they want now, but they have to sacrifice a perk to do it.

There are people in those congregations who want to vote Peroutka or Nader or Badnarik or whoever and will have massive social pressure leveled against them to campaign and vote for the church-sponsored candidate.

[Paul McEnery]

Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, they're identical. So anytime there's an argument about this, the religious nut who's trying it on is working to infringe the religious freedom of others.

[Fenris]

Nice to see you on again!

The internet connection on-ship's been unreliable for the past week or so. But this weekend I'm at home!

Anyway, on-topic:


Yeah, there are a ton of great progressive pastors in Seattle, many who really take great stands on peace, workers rights and social justice issues. People like Pastor Rich Lang of the Trinity United Methodist Church in Ballard, where we held the Green Party's campaign school, and donated some money to his church for his troubles.

Umm.. you held a political event on the grounds of the church?

Isn't that about as revealing as having the pastor use the words "Green Party" in a sermon? Not that I'm criticising, since my point is that the church has every right to do these things.


Rich is a great guy and a terrific ally, but we're always very careful to make sure that us working with Rich doesn't cost him his tax exemption. We'll work alongside him and his congregation and be allies with them in coalitions and I'm sure Rich has voted Green at least a couple times, but he doesn't organize his church for Green Party events or for Green Party candidates and doesn't take partisan stands, but moral ones.

I see the difference: I'm not convinced that the difference is always black-and-white.


That distinction makes all the difference.

There isn't a candidate that is going to stand by every single one of the churches' beliefs. That's a fact. President Bush's own church came out against the war in Iraq, for instance.

And there's a difference between being a conservative church and a Republican one. The difference is the difference between telling your congregation to vote for its values and making your church a de facto wing of a political party or a political candidates' campaign.

What if you tell the congregation "The candidate is right about this, and wrong about that, and agrees with us more completely than any other candidate, this time"? This maintains the awareness that the candidate isn't perfect, but is merely the best available choice for that election.

It's obviously wrong for a church to be owned by a political party. But that suggests a certain dependence on the church's part; a dependence which generally doesn't exist. If this church decides tomorrow to vote Democrat, what is the Republican Party going to be able to do about it?


But they're also not largely using their influence and unspoken thread of exile from the congregation to get parishoners to vote the way they want them to.

Yes, it was really dumb to throw these Democrats out of this church. But this doesn't seem to be a nationwide phenomenon; it's an extreme and mostly-unique case.


It's not a moderate thing, Fenris. It's a question of principle. We've already have one Christian Republican on this thread turn his nose up at it.

Two, counting me.
My question was simply this: do you know that there's a silent majority being intimidated at this church, or are you reading it between the lines? Because there were... what, about forty people who left voluntarily? Which suggests that there was a vocal Democratic minority prior to the expulsion.


And look at it this way, there might have been more than a couple parishoners who may have wanted to vote for Michael Peroutka or Michael Badnarik but felt pressured out of it and forced into silence because of fear of being ostracized by their church.

There certainly may have been. Well, forced into silence, anyway, since voting is still private.

My point is not that this church's actions were admirable; they weren't. My poit is that freedom of religion (and heck, freedom of speech) should be broad enough to include specific references in sermons, not just general ideas.


We see those signs already with PACs. In 2000, Al Gore got the endorsement of the Sierra Club and immediately shut up about environmental issues. Now the Sierra Club felt pressured to endorse him for "lesser of two evils" reasons, knowing that Gore wasn't ideal.

But the minute he had that notch in his belt, the talk about the environment stopped and if he was criticized and rightfully so, on his environmental record, he could simply say that the Sierra Club backed him. And the Sierra Club and environmental policies no longer had any place in the national debate.

Hm. So: did this take the Sierra Club by surprise? Probably not. They've been involved in politics for decades. They accepted that the Democrats were the best choice for them, and went with it. They accepted that Gore would be vocal, or silent, on environmental issues based on whatever he felt would go over better with the public. They weren't hoping for an election-year debate: they were hoping that Gore would win, and that once in office his preexisting environmental sympathies would still be there.

Which is to say, they made a tactical decision based on the awareness that environmental politics isn't very popular.


The same would happen to churches, my friend. They'd be used to show how religious a candidate is, and used also to show how anti-Christian and godless their opponents are.

Heck, it's been happening for ages now. I don't disagree with you. This is what politics is like: groups using each other for political advantage.

It's ugly. It's why many churches feel that they shouldn't soil themselves with any political involvement at all. Which, I admit, is a tempting thought, until I follow it to its reasonable conclusion: that no good person should soil himself with politics, either.

I am still hopeful that good can come of the process, even as I recognize the ugliness that plays all through it.


But many people think of the church as their community and extended family. Just as if you're immediatel family told you that they'd disown you if you voted for Candidate A, it's very hard to just pack up and ditch your family.

It's very hard, yes. Though churches which abuse this power find that their churches no longer feel very familial; they feel like political parties. Which is why people leave!


Many, yeah...but many liberals stay Democrats and remain miserable in silence for fear of "their side" losing.

*Shrug* Well, this took place over several decades. And isn't it your hope that, in ten or twenty years, they will in fact make the transition to the Green Party?

[Mike Smash!]

Umm.. you held a political event on the grounds of the church?

Isn't that about as revealing as having the pastor use the words "Green Party" in a sermon? Not that I'm criticising, since my point is that the church has every right to do these things.Many political party locals hold meetings in church basements or rallies.

The difference was, our rally wasn't organized or hosted by the church. We made a donation to the church and they let us use their property.

We didn't use Rich Lang to get access to his congregation or get him to hype our event during services. We just used the building and his only interaction with the event was shaking my hand and me thanking him for letting us use the building.

What if you tell the congregation "The candidate is right about this, and wrong about that, and agrees with us more completely than any other candidate, this time"? This maintains the awareness that the candidate isn't perfect, but is merely the best available choice for that election. Social pressure, like I said above.

Members of that congregation are therefore largely afraid to actively campaign for another candidate they feel lives their values -- perhaps better than the church-sponsored one. Michael Peroutka or Pat Buchanan or another candidate for a right-of-center church or Ralph Nader or David Cobb for a left-of-center church.

Imagine wanting to vote and campain for them, but being afraid to do so for fear of being kicked out of your church the way that the people in the two articles above were.

It's obviously wrong for a church to be owned by a political party. But that suggests a certain dependence on the church's part; a dependence which generally doesn't exist. If this church decides tomorrow to vote Democrat, what is the Republican Party going to be able to do about it?Yes, but that's horribly unlikely.

The FOX News channel could start promoting Hillary Clinton tomorrow, but it's not going to happen. FOX and NewsMax are de facto and private wings of the Republican Party.

This would allow churches to join that group as well. And for churches to join or be pressured to join the Democrats to counter it. If this happens, it will not only hurt the separation of church and state, it will hurt third parties.

Yes, it was really dumb to throw these Democrats out of this church. But this doesn't seem to be a nationwide phenomenon; it's an extreme and mostly-unique case.No, because most churches want to keep their tax exemption. If that fear was taken away, we'd see a lot more of it.


Two, counting me.
My question was simply this: do you know that there's a silent majority being intimidated at this church, or are you reading it between the lines? Because there were... what, about forty people who left voluntarily? Which suggests that there was a vocal Democratic minority prior to the expulsion.I never mentioned a silent majority or implied that there was, but inevitably, this will put undue social pressure of people who don't hold with the church's choice, even if they share the churches' ideology.

There certainly may have been. Well, forced into silence, anyway, since voting is still private.But campaigning is not. Nor is being able to put up a yard sign or a bumper sticker on your car. And being scared to do that for fear of being a pariah, is what I'm talking about.

My point is not that this church's actions were admirable; they weren't. My poit is that freedom of religion (and heck, freedom of speech) should be broad enough to include specific references in sermons, not just general ideas.I never claimed you sided with them, Fenris. I know you too well, and like you quite a bit. But one can get into the specifics without endorsing a partisan candidate and pressuring church members to do so.

They can talk about politicans, but they can't put a stamp of approval on one, or bar church members from voting for one for fear of punishment unless they want to start paying taxes.

Hm. So: did this take the Sierra Club by surprise? Probably not. They've been involved in politics for decades. They accepted that the Democrats were the best choice for them, and went with it. They accepted that Gore would be vocal, or silent, on environmental issues based on whatever he felt would go over better with the public. They weren't hoping for an election-year debate: they were hoping that Gore would win, and that once in office his preexisting environmental sympathies would still be there.And they would have been wrong and lost even more influence. They knew Gore's record when he was a Senator and as a member of the Clinton Administration. They weren't happy with him.

Which is to say, they made a tactical decision based on the awareness that environmental politics isn't very popular.That's not true, though this is a different debate. Most Americans believe that we need to protect the environment, even most conservatives. It's in blind allegiance to one of two parties that we say what is and isnt important. Not to mention that both parties limit the topics of debate to about seven things every election year anyways.

It's ugly. It's why many churches feel that they shouldn't soil themselves with any political involvement at all. Which, I admit, is a tempting thought, until I follow it to its reasonable conclusion: that no good person should soil himself with politics, either.Churches SHOULD be involved in politics, just not partisanship, IMO. They're free to do as they wish, as long as they're willing to give up a perk.

I am still hopeful that good can come of the process, even as I recognize the ugliness that plays all through it. So do I. I really do believe in the ability of regular people to affect real change. If I didn't, I wouldnt be involved in politics.

It's very hard, yes. Though churches which abuse this power find that their churches no longer feel very familial; they feel like political parties. Which is why people leave!Which can happen even in circles of friends and families sometimes. That doesn't make it easy to leave.

[Paul McEnery]

What if you tell the congregation "The candidate is right about this, and wrong about that, and agrees with us more completely than any other candidate, this time"? This maintains the awareness that the candidate isn't perfect, but is merely the best available choice for that election.

It's obviously wrong for a church to be owned by a political party. But that suggests a certain dependence on the church's part; a dependence which generally doesn't exist. If this church decides tomorrow to vote Democrat, what is the Republican Party going to be able to do about it?

Conflation of several issues:
1) "Candidate is...". Still out of order. What you say in the pulpit is for the instruction of the faithful. When you include in your personal preferences -- and that's all a political opinion can be -- you've stepped over the line.

Now, as a preacher, you can certainly spell out some significant issues; you can even go so far as to say that civil rights, to pick something non-controversial (I should hope), is an important issue, and this is the Christian response as I see it, but to go onto support a specific candidate isn't on.

Beyond that, you've got the issue of political favours. You back a candidate, he owes you. Which brings us to:

2) Dependence. Take the Steven Williams case (the nutjob teacher who's fighting California for the right to proselytize his pupils). There are clearly agendas of the Religious Right to take over classrooms and de facto proselytize kids (with evolution, or sex ed, for instance), but more disturbingly with dissolving the church/state boundary (exactly what Williams was doing).

Place that alongside the anti-gay-marriage nutjobs in Massachusetts who are trying to get rid of constitution-loving judges.

Place that alongside the Texan nutjob who wanted to outlaw gay adoption.

There's a clear political movement to enforce "Christian" values that are anti-constitutional (i.e. they impose "Christian" values that are opposed to civil liberties).

At that point, they're contravening constitutional freedom of religion.

So what politics can a church recommend:

3) Making church halls available to political groups. That's perfectly reasonable (and goes back to the historical value of the local church as public building; the church would be a literal marketplace, meeting ground, defensible fortress, etc.). I should think there ought to be a rule that says: so long as what you're doing is constitutionally protected, you're in. So you can say no to Neo-Nazis on the ground that they want to remove constitutional rights. Both anti- and pro-abortion groups would be okay. Missionary Christians and Third World activists would be okay. Environmental groups would be okay, but specific parties should be out (sorry Greens!).

I think of it as the difference between, say, Sinn Fein and the IRA. Sinn Fein gets elected, the IRA campaigns for a free Ireland. So the IRA gets a pass, but Sinn Fein doesn't. Of course, if you can prove that they're the same thing (ha ha), then the IRA is out too.

On top of that, the pastor can advise his congregation on his understanding of Christian principles on the issues (though where it's a personal opinion, it should be out of the pulpit).

[Mike Smash!]

3) Making church halls available to political groups. That's perfectly reasonable (and goes back to the historical value of the local church as public building; the church would be a literal marketplace, meeting ground, defensible fortress, etc.). I should think there ought to be a rule that says: so long as what you're doing is constitutionally protected, you're in. So you can say no to Neo-Nazis on the ground that they want to remove constitutional rights. Both anti- and pro-abortion groups would be okay. Missionary Christians and Third World activists would be okay. Environmental groups would be okay, but specific parties should be out (sorry Greens!).Just to be fair, the pastor didn't host our event or even attend or hype it to Church membership.

He just knows us through one of the head Greens going to his church and his experience with us at past events and on issues.

He didn't host the Campaign School, in fact, the only event he hosted that we went to as a group, was a "Rolling Thunder" event for various progressive organizations, including Democratic groups and various PACs.

I do understand what you're saying however, but my beef is mostly with the church and its leaders openly endorsing, backing or promoting a candidate or political party.

Local political party affiliates getting access to church basements and gyms for meetings that they organize, finance, promote and attend themselves, I am completely fine with.

[Archangel_29]

Religion and politics they both don't mix very well just like oil and water. I am certain the church involved will come to it's senses when the collection plate is passed around this coming Sunday.

[Fenris]

Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are not mutually exclusive.

The Separation is what keeps people like me out of second class citizenship and one's relgious affilliation as much a non-issue as possible when running for public office.

I plan on eventually running for office, and the last thing I want in that campaign is to be called a godless heathen and to have to worry about church endorsements and the sort of slander that would bring about.

Argh. Mike, I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but... you certainly are going to be called a "godless heathen" at some point, by someone. By many someones, if you rise to a position of real prominence.

I hate that, but it's bound to happen. Unless Washington politics is really, really different than politics down here in the south. And I can't believe it's that different.

That vexes me, but it doesn't worry me. Because I'm confident that such flimsy charges won't stand for much against your character. You are a caring and decent person, and that shines through even the impersonal medium of your posts. If this is the worst your opponents can do, you'll sail to one victory after another.

But (there had to be a but!) with all that said: political liberties are not really about making things convenient for candidates. The fact that you don't want to be called a name (which of course is understandable) just doesn't stack up to much, one way or the other, on the question of whether churches should have this right or not.

Because you can take it. And you can win, not least because you will have churches on your side.

[Nate C.]

Doubt it. But there should be a branch of the IRS.

When churches become fronts for a political party, they should lose their tax exempt status. Same goes for "religious" organizations like Ralph Reed's.

And I say this as someone who's courted religious support for a Nicaraguan sister city project.

Paul, I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's initial assesment of the current church's transgression, but I don't agree with yours on religious groups being involved in politics. This in fact is the best way for religious people to gather their resources and power; you might not like it, but it's as appropriate as any other idealogically motivated group, i.e. all others. :)

[Nate C.]

Well, the deconstructionist in me says that everything's religious, and everything's political.

Aristotle would agree.

[Fenris]

Many political party locals hold meetings in church basements or rallies.

The difference was, our rally wasn't organized or hosted by the church. We made a donation to the church and they let us use their property.

We didn't use Rich Lang to get access to his congregation or get him to hype our event during services. We just used the building and his only interaction with the event was shaking my hand and me thanking him for letting us use the building.

Okay. That is pretty mild. Did you choose it because his "rates" were better than a convention center, or some such?


Social pressure, like I said above.

Hm. How does this not apply to general political issues, though? If a church sermonizes against the war in Iraq, it's building social pressure against voting for Bush. Which is exactly the point of the sermon, and it doesn't need to mention him by name. If social pressure is a bad thing, then churches should stay out of any kind of politics whatsoever.



Members of that congregation are therefore largely afraid to actively campaign for another candidate they feel lives their values -- perhaps better than the church-sponsored one. Michael Peroutka or Pat Buchanan or another candidate for a right-of-center church or Ralph Nader or David Cobb for a left-of-center church.

Imagine wanting to vote and campain for them, but being afraid to do so for fear of being kicked out of your church the way that the people in the two articles above were.

I can imagine it. What I'm imagining is that social pressure is horizontal, not vertical.

By that, I mean: real intimidation doesn't come from the fact that you disagree with the Pastor's sermon. Any Pastor will tell you that people disagree with his sermons all the time, and generally aren't shy about telling him so. That's the problem with speaking every week: you annoy or disappoint everyone, sooner or later.

Real intimidation comes when all the people around you feel one way, and you're the only dissenter. It's not something that the Pastor creates, in most cases (unless he's a marvel of persuasion); it's usually something that people bring to church with them. It's one of the problems that Pastors are there to deal with.

My point is that all of this is not a pastor-centric problem, and it can't be fixed (or even addressed) by focusing on what words the pastor puts into his sermon every week.


Yes, but that's horribly unlikely.

The FOX News channel could start promoting Hillary Clinton tomorrow, but it's not going to happen. FOX and NewsMax are de facto and private wings of the Republican Party.

It was admittedly very hypothetical.

This would allow churches to join that group as well. And for churches to join or be pressured to join the Democrats to counter it. If this happens, it will not only hurt the separation of church and state, it will hurt third parties.

Oh, hmph. The Democrats have had their own churches for decades now. Why do you think that the position of standard-bearer for Black Democratic America shifted from the Reverend Jesse Jackson to the Reverend Al Sharpton? It's because black political power, among the Democrats, is structured through the churches.


No, because most churches want to keep their tax exemption. If that fear was taken away, we'd see a lot more of it.

Well, maybe. How many churches have actually lost their tax-exempt status? Is it a realistic fear for a church to have?


I never mentioned a silent majority or implied that there was, but inevitably, this will put undue social pressure of people who don't hold with the church's choice, even if they share the churches' ideology.

Well, silent group, anyway. The "majority" part sort of slipped in carelessly as I was writing it.


But campaigning is not. Nor is being able to put up a yard sign or a bumper sticker on your car. And being scared to do that for fear of being a pariah, is what I'm talking about.

I never claimed you sided with them, Fenris. I know you too well, and like you quite a bit. But one can get into the specifics without endorsing a partisan candidate and pressuring church members to do so.

Aw, I like you too, Mike!

Again, this distinction just doesn't ring true to me. If your church preaches earnestly against abortion, and most of the congregation gets into it (which is part of the assumption here, since otherwise there'd be no fear of pariah-hood) then everyone will know which candidate is pro-life and which is pro-choice. The social pressure will be there. It makes no effective difference at all whether a candidate's name is mentioned.


They can talk about politicans, but they can't put a stamp of approval on one, or bar church members from voting for one for fear of punishment unless they want to start paying taxes.

Now that's an interesting distinction! So they can say, "Abortion is wrong, Candidate X is against abortion, remember what I just said and vote for whomever you think best"?

And they would have been wrong and lost even more influence. They knew Gore's record when he was a Senator and as a member of the Clinton Administration. They weren't happy with him.

That's not true, though this is a different debate. Most Americans believe that we need to protect the environment, even most conservatives. It's in blind allegiance to one of two parties that we say what is and isnt important. Not to mention that both parties limit the topics of debate to about seven things every election year anyways.

Well, yeah. "Should we protect the environment?" is a no-brain question, along the same lines as "Should children be safe?" or "Should the government waste money?" The political complications come in when we go into greater detail, and start haggling over the tradeoffs we'll have to make.

But you're right, this is mostly off-topic.

Churches SHOULD be involved in politics, just not partisanship, IMO. They're free to do as they wish, as long as they're willing to give up a perk.

A "perk"!

The tax-free status of churches isn't some whimsical detail. It's a recognized necessity of religious freedom, which limits the power of the state to favor some churches over others.

The real problem here is this: by specifically tying tax-free status to the absence of certain words in sermons, you're requiring the state to supervise everything that's said there. And it's hard to imagine any good coming of that.


So do I. I really do believe in the ability of regular people to affect real change. If I didn't, I wouldnt be involved in politics.

I know you do. It's one of the most inspiring things about you!


Which can happen even in circles of friends and families sometimes. That doesn't make it easy to leave.

No. But all of this is the human condition: people squabbling and voicing opinions and sometimes being afraid to stand out. It's not the sort of thing that a law can fix.

[Mike Smash!]

Argh. Mike, I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but... you certainly are going to be called a "godless heathen" at some point, by someone. By many someones, if you rise to a position of real prominence.Yeah, it's going to happen. Hell, it's happened before.

But if getting church endorsements is a must for elections, it muddies the whole thing and would largely make it even more unlikely for any non-Christian to be elected to office.

Personally, a candidate's religious affilliation means absolutely nothing to me. And I would hope that my Atheism would be a non-issue to progressive Christians whose votes I'd be hoping to capture.

But when you're going for endorsements, you generally approach a group or paper, with their aims in mind and pitch yourself that way. When you talk to a gun group, you talk about the Second Amendment, when you talk to an environmental group, you talk about your environmental policies. But if you talk to a church?

It would be like a litmus test for my religious beliefs, and frankly, I think to use faith as a sales tactic as I see the Republican Party (and increasingly, the Democrats, too), I find the whole thing cheap, tasteless and cynical. It's like a rock band getting a cheap pop for mentioning the town they're playing in, rather than getting them to cheer for something substantive.

I hate that, but it's bound to happen. Unless Washington politics is really, really different than politics down here in the south. And I can't believe it's that different.I really can't say, because I've never lived in the South, but I talked to Idaho Greens at the campaign school and they say there's a very different feel to religion in daily life in that state than in Washington. For instance, we have two or three openly gay state legislators here.

That vexes me, but it doesn't worry me. Because I'm confident that such flimsy charges won't stand for much against your character. You are a caring and decent person, and that shines through even the impersonal medium of your posts. If this is the worst your opponents can do, you'll sail to one victory after another.

But (there had to be a but!) with all that said: political liberties are not really about making things convenient for candidates. The fact that you don't want to be called a name (which of course is understandable) just doesn't stack up to much, one way or the other, on the question of whether churches should have this right or not.I appreciate the compliments, but it's not that I don't want to deal with these charges. They'll come up and I'm not afraid to face them. But allowing churches to get partisan and hold to their tax-free status will only increase them tenfold and I don't know about you, but I'd much rather talk about actual issues, rather than whether I go to church or not or having to say ad nauseum that Atheists are just as moral as any Christian.

Because you can take it. And you can win, not least because you will have churches on your side.I'm sure if I ran I could pick up the endorsement of a progressive church or two, but that's not how politics is supposed to be. A church is not the Sierra Club.

A church has a lot more power to influence a vote than any special interest group. For one, if I don't vote the way a PAC I belong to recommends, I don't have to worry about becomming a pariah in my community or worse yet, facing the sort of exile that the people in the article faced.

And yes, if there were Democratic churches, you can only imagine what they'd think of a Naderite like me. I could see a church booting out someone like that or putting social pressure on them to vote for a Gore/Kerry candidate.

[Fenris]

Conflation of several issues:
1) "Candidate is...". Still out of order. What you say in the pulpit is for the instruction of the faithful. When you include in your personal preferences -- and that's all a political opinion can be -- you've stepped over the line.

Now, as a preacher, you can certainly spell out some significant issues; you can even go so far as to say that civil rights, to pick something non-controversial (I should hope), is an important issue, and this is the Christian response as I see it, but to go onto support a specific candidate isn't on.

I would probably enjoy that style of sermon. It's very civil. It would be polite and noncontroversial and avoid all kinds of trouble.

Since when is it the government's job to make sure that all churches are civil, polite and noncontroversial?

I ask because we are basically discussing a speech code: we started with the banning of proper names from sermons, and now you've given me several more guidelines of what preachers should be allowed to say. All with the understanding that, if this speech code is violated, the state will start demanding tax payments from the church.

It takes an almost Orwellian leap of logic to say that this regulation is done in the name of religious freedom. When you put down limits on what people are allowed to say, freedom isn't coming into it.


Beyond that, you've got the issue of political favours. You back a candidate, he owes you.

True. Though on this point I revert back to my "trivial distinction" argument. If you back a candidate by issue, not by name, he still owes you. You helped him get elected and you both know it. If that's bad, then churches should avoid politics altogether.


Which brings us to:

2) Dependence. Take the Steven Williams case (the nutjob teacher who's fighting California for the right to proselytize his pupils). There are clearly agendas of the Religious Right to take over classrooms and de facto proselytize kids (with evolution, or sex ed, for instance), but more disturbingly with dissolving the church/state boundary (exactly what Williams was doing).

Place that alongside the anti-gay-marriage nutjobs in Massachusetts who are trying to get rid of constitution-loving judges.

Place that alongside the Texan nutjob who wanted to outlaw gay adoption.

There's a clear political movement to enforce "Christian" values that are anti-constitutional (i.e. they impose "Christian" values that are opposed to civil liberties).

Stripped of the boilerplate rhetoric, all I see in this is the fact that some religious people support things you don't like. Which is not surprising; politics is full of people supporting things we don't like.

Why is this an argument that churches should not be allowed to endorse candidates? Because they'll endorse the wrong ones?


At that point, they're contravening constitutional freedom of religion.

The Stephen Williams case would probably be an establishment of religion. But the others? You're telling me that I'm establishing a state church if I oppose gay marriage?

In that case, we've had a state church all through our history, since it's never been legal; and the whole point is moot.


So what politics can a church recommend:

3) Making church halls available to political groups. That's perfectly reasonable (and goes back to the historical value of the local church as public building; the church would be a literal marketplace, meeting ground, defensible fortress, etc.). I should think there ought to be a rule that says: so long as what you're doing is constitutionally protected, you're in. So you can say no to Neo-Nazis on the ground that they want to remove constitutional rights. Both anti- and pro-abortion groups would be okay. Missionary Christians and Third World activists would be okay. Environmental groups would be okay, but specific parties should be out (sorry Greens!).

Errr... where does all this come from? Church halls should be available to anyone the church wants to open them to, on the grounds that the hall belongs to the church. Not to the government.


I think of it as the difference between, say, Sinn Fein and the IRA. Sinn Fein gets elected, the IRA campaigns for a free Ireland. So the IRA gets a pass, but Sinn Fein doesn't. Of course, if you can prove that they're the same thing (ha ha), then the IRA is out too.

On top of that, the pastor can advise his congregation on his understanding of Christian principles on the issues (though where it's a personal opinion, it should be out of the pulpit).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Are you speaking legally (as in, the churches should do this or pay taxes) or morally (as in, a church should do this or it's wrong)?

[Mike Smash!]

Okay. That is pretty mild. Did you choose it because his "rates" were better than a convention center, or some such?Dude! We're a third party! We's poor, bro!

Rich helped us out because he's good friends with Jody Haug, the co-chair of the national party and a mover and shaker in the Seattle area. And because we donated some money to his church -- 500 bucks, much less than any convention center would cost us.

He's active in social justice and issue activism and the peace movement and was so nice that we went that extra mile to make sure he could keep his tax exemption and called the Campaign School "the Cascadia Campaign School: sponsored by the Green Party of Washington State" rather than "The Green Party campaign school. We also had a handful of non-Greens come.

Hm. How does this not apply to general political issues, though? If a church sermonizes against the war in Iraq, it's building social pressure against voting for Bush. Which is exactly the point of the sermon, and it doesn't need to mention him by name. If social pressure is a bad thing, then churches should stay out of any kind of politics whatsoever.There's a big difference between a pastor taking a stand against the war or abortion and saying "Vote Kerry!/Vote Bush!"

As for the Iraq War example, Kerry voted for the war, too. So it's not a clear cut thing. And by social pressure, I don't mean pressure from the church directed outward. I mean social pressure from the church leadership, directed inward. Essentially peer pressure to conform or possibly be kicked out or excluded because of the bumper sticker on your car, and no one should be scared to openly support a candidate for President.

I can imagine it. What I'm imagining is that social pressure is horizontal, not vertical.

By that, I mean: real intimidation doesn't come from the fact that you disagree with the Pastor's sermon. Any Pastor will tell you that people disagree with his sermons all the time, and generally aren't shy about telling him so. That's the problem with speaking every week: you annoy or disappoint everyone, sooner or later.

Real intimidation comes when all the people around you feel one way, and you're the only dissenter. It's not something that the Pastor creates, in most cases (unless he's a marvel of persuasion); it's usually something that people bring to church with them. It's one of the problems that Pastors are there to deal with.Exactly what I mean. The pastor sets the tone and largely, the congregation will enforce that tone and god knows that every group of people will always have at least one overzealous jerk in it, who like to pick on dissenters.

Now I have no problem standing up to people like that. But most people don't like confrontation or to be the odd man out.

My point is that all of this is not a pastor-centric problem, and it can't be fixed (or even addressed) by focusing on what words the pastor puts into his sermon every week.Again, I never said that they shouldn't be allowed. They currently have the power to say what they please, they just have to pay taxes.

Oh, hmph. The Democrats have had their own churches for decades now. Why do you think that the position of standard-bearer for Black Democratic America shifted from the Reverend Jesse Jackson to the Reverend Al Sharpton? It's because black political power, among the Democrats, is structured through the churches.And I know progressive churches that are incredibly independent and will take stances on the war and gay marriage that the DNC shys away from.

I certainly don't want Democratic Churches, no more than I want Republican ones. I don't even want Green churches.

AU cracked down on a violation of the Kerry campaign involving Al Sharpton in the 2004 election, including a pastor at a black church who introduced Kerry and told everyone to vote for him.

AU got their tax exemption revoked.

I want progressive churches, liberal churches, conservatives churches...ideological churches, but not partisan ones.

And like I said above, there is a good mile of difference between ideology and partisanship.

Well, maybe. How many churches have actually lost their tax-exempt status? Is it a realistic fear for a church to have?[.quote]Quite a few, actually, like the one I mentioned above. As far as I know, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have to pay taxes for statements and partisan stances made by them and their ministries in the past, endorsing the Republican Party.

[quote]Again, this distinction just doesn't ring true to me. If your church preaches earnestly against abortion, and most of the congregation gets into it (which is part of the assumption here, since otherwise there'd be no fear of pariah-hood) then everyone will know which candidate is pro-life and which is pro-choice. The social pressure will be there. It makes no effective difference at all whether a candidate's name is mentioned.But this, like I said will always pressure churches into likely backing major party candidates.

Bush wasn't the biggest pro-life candidate in the 2004 election, Mike Peroutka was. Hell, he even gave out scarves that read, "Pro-Life, No Exceptions" and said without reservations that he'd outlaw it.

But do you think many churches would endorse a third party candidate? And how would those congregations treat a dissenter who wanted to vote for Peroutka?

Probably the same way a strongly partisan Democratic Church would treat a Nader voter.

Not nicely. I know first hand how Democrats can give you a look when you say you're a Green. Now imagine tossing Jesus into the equation and seeing how much uglier it could get.

Now that's an interesting distinction! So they can say, "Abortion is wrong, Candidate X is against abortion, remember what I just said and vote for whomever you think best"?

[quote]A "perk"!

The tax-free status of churches isn't some whimsical detail. It's a recognized necessity of religious freedom, which limits the power of the state to favor some churches over others.It's a damn fine perk, I have to admit. That's the reason many churches don't go partisan.

The real problem here is this: by specifically tying tax-free status to the absence of certain words in sermons, you're requiring the state to supervise everything that's said there. And it's hard to imagine any good coming of that.The state isn't spying on churches. And when the IRS does investigate a violation like this, it's because a complaint has been made, usually by a member of the congregation or by a group like AU.

When a church becomes a partisan organization, rather than just a values based one, it becomes, essentially, PAC or 527 and should pay taxes.

They'd become a defacto wing of a political party. Like MoveOn.org. It's an independent group, but they only and ONLY back Democrats for office. And like what would happen with these churches, MoveOn, backs and champions candidates who don't live up to the values of their members, simply because they're Democrats.

Like my current Governor, Chris Gregoire, who is a stodgy centrist, who won't take any brave stances on issues and was lockstep with John Ashcroft on the PATRIOT Act when she was our state's Attorney General. MoveOn raised money for her, even though most of their members joined because of issues that Gregoire is in opposition of.

Like I said several times. A conservative church and a Republican church are two different animals altogether.

[Fenris]

Yeah, it's going to happen. Hell, it's happened before.

But if getting church endorsements is a must for elections, it muddies the whole thing and would largely make it even more unlikely for any non-Christian to be elected to office.

That's the big if, though.

Some churches advocate positions, without naming particular candidates. That has a real but finite effect. If it's possible to be elected without church support now, it'll be possible even if churches can say the names of politicians. There just isn't that big a difference in the naming of names.


Personally, a candidate's religious affilliation means absolutely nothing to me. And I would hope that my Atheism would be a non-issue to progressive Christians whose votes I'd be hoping to capture.

You're probably right. (He said, totally off the top of his head. But it matches my intuitive sense of progressive Christianity, for what that's worth.)


But when you're going for endorsements, you generally approach a group or paper, with their aims in mind and pitch yourself that way. When you talk to a gun group, you talk about the Second Amendment, when you talk to an environmental group, you talk about your environmental policies. But if you talk to a church?

*Shrug* Well, if you were talking to Trinity United Methodist, you'd talk about peace and worker's rights, yes? Because you know that they care about such things. You have stuff in common.

It's true, if you went to a church and found that their sermon for the day was titled: "THE HOMOSEXUAL-FEMINIST SCHOOL AGENDA: HOW SATAN USES EVOLUTION TO CORRUPT OUR CHILDREN" then you might not have much to say to them. But that would just mean that this particular church wasn't open to you, and doubtless there are other conservative groups that would be nearly as closed.


It would be like a litmus test for my religious beliefs, and frankly, I think to use faith as a sales tactic as I see the Republican Party (and increasingly, the Democrats, too), I find the whole thing cheap, tasteless and cynical. It's like a rock band getting a cheap pop for mentioning the town they're playing in, rather than getting them to cheer for something substantive.

I sympathize very deeply with this idea. Very deeply indeed. I'm just not sure that it's something that should be enforced by law.


I really can't say, because I've never lived in the South, but I talked to Idaho Greens at the campaign school and they say there's a very different feel to religion in daily life in that state than in Washington. For instance, we have two or three openly gay state legislators here.

Really? Neat. OK, maybe politics really is different up there.


I appreciate the compliments, but it's not that I don't want to deal with these charges. They'll come up and I'm not afraid to face them. But allowing churches to get partisan and hold to their tax-free status will only increase them tenfold and I don't know about you, but I'd much rather talk about actual issues, rather than whether I go to church or not or having to say ad nauseum that Atheists are just as moral as any Christian.

*Shrug* So talk about issues, then. If people care more about them than about your religious status, then you'll win; and if not, then denying churches the right to endorsement is a hollow gesture. (Hollow, and probably futile: if churches are really that powerful, then good luck on keeping them from getting something they want. But I don't think they are.)


I'm sure if I ran I could pick up the endorsement of a progressive church or two, but that's not how politics is supposed to be. A church is not the Sierra Club.

A church has a lot more power to influence a vote than any special interest group. For one, if I don't vote the way a PAC I belong to recommends, I don't have to worry about becomming a pariah in my community or worse yet, facing the sort of exile that the people in the article faced.

And yes, if there were Democratic churches, you can only imagine what they'd think of a Naderite like me. I could see a church booting out someone like that or putting social pressure on them to vote for a Gore/Kerry candidate.

Hm. Did the pastor at Trinity face a lot of pressure from his congregation to follow a more "mainstream" Democratic line?

[Mike Smash!]

That's the big if, though.

Some churches advocate positions, without naming particular candidates. That has a real but finite effect. If it's possible to be elected without church support now, it'll be possible even if churches can say the names of politicians. There just isn't that big a difference in the naming of names.There is a big difference.

I'm still not quite sure if you've caught this yet, and I know you're a very intelligent guy, but I myself didn't quite grasp this until I left the Democratic Party.

The difference between ideological and partisan. That "liberal" and "Democrat" and "conservative" and "Republican" aren't synonmous and to someone like myself or an independent, it's a world of difference.

*Shrug* Well, if you were talking to Trinity United Methodist, you'd talk about peace and worker's rights, yes? Because you know that they care about such things. You have stuff in common.But what about conservative Atheists?

Even if they match up ideologically, I can imagine that many conservative churches would be much less forgiving.

It's true, if you went to a church and found that their sermon for the day was titled: "THE HOMOSEXUAL-FEMINIST SCHOOL AGENDA: HOW SATAN USES EVOLUTION TO CORRUPT OUR CHILDREN" then you might not have much to say to them. But that would just mean that this particular church wasn't open to you, and doubtless there are other conservative groups that would be nearly as closed.I personally wouldn't want the endorsement of a church with sermons like that. I don't want them to associate with me, any more than they wouldn't want to be associated with my campaign.

I sympathize very deeply with this idea. Very deeply indeed. I'm just not sure that it's something that should be enforced by law.It's not enforced by law. Churches can right at this moment, become partisan organizations. Many, like Robertson and Falwell are essentially religious branches of a political party.

But the cost of acting like a PAC is paying taxes.

Hm. Did the pastor at Trinity face a lot of pressure from his congregation to follow a more "mainstream" Democratic line?Nope, but if the United Methodist Church became a partisan faith based organization, then I imagine there would be a lot of pressure to vote Democrat, both on Rich and on his congregation.

Try being an independent or a Green in that sort of environment. Or being encouraged to muffle certain "controversial" stances for fear of it hurting that party's candidate.

Pastors like Rich would probably be encouraged to speak out against the war and for marriage equality less and more on topics that wouldn't hurt someone like Kerry.

[Brian Cronin]

It would be like a litmus test for my religious beliefs,

Excellent phrasing!

-Brian

[Paul McEnery]

I would probably enjoy that style of sermon. It's very civil. It would be polite and noncontroversial and avoid all kinds of trouble.

Oh, c'mon.


Since when is it the government's job to make sure that all churches are civil, polite and noncontroversial?

Since the first amendment, it's been the guvmint's job to tell churches to shut up when they're out of line.


I ask because we are basically discussing a speech code: we started with the banning of proper names from sermons, and now you've given me several more guidelines of what preachers should be allowed to say. All with the understanding that, if this speech code is violated, the state will start demanding tax payments from the church.
[/quote]
Tell you what. How 'bout no churches get tax emption till they prove they're not against the constitution.


It takes an almost Orwellian leap of logic to say that this regulation is done in the name of religious freedom. When you put down limits on what people are allowed to say, freedom isn't coming into it.

Oh, really. Now you're going ridiculously far. There are crazy religious bastards who want to shut me up. By standing up for myself against them, I'm standing against free speech? Pull the other one.

The limits of tolerance are simple.

Intolerant bastards get to shut up. The rest of us get to live a quiet life.


True. Though on this point I revert back to my "trivial distinction" argument. If you back a candidate by issue, not by name, he still owes you. You helped him get elected and you both know it. If that's bad, then churches should avoid politics altogether.

Failure to understand politics.

There are two schools of politics.

1) I maximize my power base in order to take control.

2) We organize to tell you to shut the hell up; it's our life, goddammit.

Where 1), unconstitutional; where 2), it's peachy.


Stripped of the boilerplate rhetoric, all I see in this is the fact that some religious people support things you don't like. Which is not surprising; politics is full of people supporting things we don't like.

Cheap rhetoric. Where people force their religious agenda against my civil liberities, to hell with them.


Why is this an argument that churches should not be allowed to endorse candidates? Because they'll endorse the wrong ones?

No. Because bastard priests have used the pulpit to support fascists. And, indeed, genocide.


The Stephen Williams case would probably be an establishment of religion. But the others? You're telling me that I'm establishing a state church if I oppose gay marriage?

Since the only argument against gay marriage is religious, hell yes I am. It sure as hell ain't constitutional.


In that case, we've had a state church all through our history, since it's never been legal; and the whole point is moot.

Bollocks. Bollocks. Bollocks.

You could say exactly the same against miscegenation laws. And countless racists did. And they were not only unconstitutional, they were unmitigated bastards who deserved to stew in a crockpot full of anchovies.

Apply the bloody constitution. Add salt. Allow to simmer for ten minutes.

Oh look. Gay pie!


Errr... where does all this come from? Church halls should be available to anyone the church wants to open them to, on the grounds that the hall belongs to the church. Not to the government.

The "government" in this case is my tax dollars. When the churches give up their tax deductible status, then I don't own a piece of them. Till then, they can stop backing candidates or parties.

Mind, if they offer their halls to each party at an equal rate, that might be a get out clause.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Are you speaking legally (as in, the churches should do this or pay taxes) or morally (as in, a church should do this or it's wrong)?
I'm saying there's a significant ethical concern as to how "religious" organizations involve themselves in electoral politics.

Political organizations that pass themselves off as religious in order to scam votes off the public should be beaten with a stinky wallaby.

Dumbass pastors who have such theological weakness that they can't tell the difference between the Will of God and the Republican Manifesto should be beaten with a stinky wallaby until they never stop stinking of stinky wallaby.

And Ralph Reed should be sodomized with a stinky wallaby.

Unless he keeps grinning. In which case, move on up to the spikey echidna.

[Paul McEnery]

Some churches advocate positions, without naming particular candidates. That has a real but finite effect. If it's possible to be elected without church support now, it'll be possible even if churches can say the names of politicians. There just isn't that big a difference in the naming of names.

Agreed.

That's why the Catholic Church should be considered as an agent of a foreign power, and should lose its tax exemption.

[Deathstroke]

Sounds like a certain "MOG" didn't get enough mother's milk when he was little.

Guess we could call this story "This week's sign of the Apocalypse."

Why is it only stupid people make the news lately?

[MushMouth]

I'm reminded of Samuel Adams' desire to ban Roman Catholicism because he feared that Catholics would try to subvert American government to the will of the Church.

Its really frustrating when people use tolerance as a device to not tolerate others.

[Mike Smash!]

I'm reminded of Samuel Adams' desire to ban Roman Catholicism because he feared that Catholics would try to subvert American government to the will of the Church.

Its really frustrating when people use tolerance as a device to not tolerate others.I really think you're missing what I'm saying here.

I am not anti-Christian. I do not, nor have I ever, wanted to take take away the right of religious people to practice their faith.

I do, however like our nation's founders, believe in the concept of minority rights and the danger of "the tyranny of the majority", where a majority can squash the rights of even strong minorities of opinion, religion, race any just about anything else. Demogogues and corrupt church leaders could very easily lead us in very scary directions.

When I see things like the Federal Marriage Amendment, whose motivation cannot be explained without "it's always been this way" or "it's against my religion", I see cracks forming in our wall between church and state that was put in place by our founders and written of extensively by Jefferson and Madison. I see the same with the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act", which is not about religious freedom, but about guarenteeing the inability to stop an employee from religious-based harrassment.

I believe in an America with many voices, many opinions, many ideologies... But people like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed and their followers want an America where they are the only voice, the only opinion and their religious ideology is written into law under the guise of "religious freedom".

Religious freedom that makes people like me and any non-Christian second class citizens.

If Churches endorse candidates and retain tax free status, they will increasingly cease to be ideology or value based and become de facto wings of political parties, in most cases to further erode the separation of church and state.

I would never advocate taking the churches' voice away or ban them from speaking on certain topics. They aren't now.

But they have a bonus right now that they would have to be willing to relinquish if they wish to become partisan organizations. Most choose not to. Some, like Falwell and Robertson choose to pay taxes.

It's interesting that I'm accused of intolerance when I want to stop people like Falwell and Robertson -- men who've openly declared me their enemy -- to get any sort of political monopoly in this country.

No one is trying to ban anyone here. No one is trying to stifle speech. These churches can speak however they like, but would have to pay taxes if they wish to become PACs.

[MushMouth]

Mike, I think you've actually misunderstood me. When I mentioned people being intolerant I was alluding to the Fallwells and Robertson who use use the cloak of tolerance to themselves push their intolerance - I was not implying that you are being intolerant. Indeed, if you've read many of my posts (including one from today in which I questioned the motives of HR 235) you'll see that I share your position.

The reason I referenced Sam Adams was because it highlights the liberal dilemma: how do you tolerate the intolerant? Adams solution is unacceptable because we value freedom of conscience, but complete passiveness is also untenable because we must protect our own freedoms.

This is the same problem that the Dutch face as they try to figure out what to do with an insular Muslim community that expects the Dutch to tolerate their intolerance.

[Mike Smash!]

Mike, I think you've actually misunderstood me. When I mentioned people being intolerant I was alluding to the Fallwells and Robertson who use use the cloak of tolerance to themselves push their intolerance - I was not implying that you are being intolerant. Indeed, if you've read many of my posts (including one from today in which I questioned the motives of HR 235) you'll see that I share your position.

The reason I referenced Sam Adams was because it highlights the liberal dilemma: how do you tolerate the intolerant? Adams solution is unacceptable because we value freedom of conscience, but complete passiveness is also untenable because we must protect our own freedoms.

This is the same problem that the Dutch face as they try to figure out what to do with an insular Muslim community that expects the Dutch to tolerate their intolerance.I see I have totally jumped the gun.

I hope you will accept the apology spoken from behind my foot... :)

[Andy S.]

My 2 cents:

This had to happen in North Carolina, didn't it?
I really, really hate it when pastors misuse their authority to impose their own political views on their congregation. This kind of stupidity is one of the reasons why people distrust the church.


stupid question: How does promoting a particular political agenda put a church in danger of losing tax-exempt status, legally?

Edit: OK, i see where that was answered now.

[Mike Smash!]

stupid question: How does promoting a particular political agenda put a church in danger of losing tax-exempt status, legally?

A political agenda is fine. If a church is against the war, or is anti-abortion or wants or hate gay marriage....etc... that's fine.

But it's when a church becomes partisan, and endorses political parties and candidates, that it essentially becomes a PAC rather than a religious organization and thing get sketchy for all the reasons I list above in other posts.

[Winslow]

stupid question: How does promoting a particular political agenda put a church in danger of losing tax-exempt status, legally?

I thought your question has already been answered, so I'm not real sure what you're asking.

But practically speaking, when a church loses tax exampt status, the members can no longer deduct thier tithes to the church from their income tax. So it neuters the ability of a church to generate income.

[macul]

A political agenda is fine. If a church is against the war, or is anti-abortion or wants or hate gay marriage....etc... that's fine.

But it's when a church becomes partisan, and endorses political parties and candidates, that it essentially becomes a PAC rather than a religious organization and thing get sketchy for all the reasons I list above in other posts.

Doesn't that seem to happen every election year, though?

[Hoss]

If you are an easily offended conservative please follow this link. I have not been a good flame war since last November, :) I got the link from Balloon-Juice.com by the way. A great site by a great liberterian Republican.


The 2015 SAT test - Fox Schools Style

http://thepoorman.net/?p=115

[Loren]

But it's when a church becomes partisan, and endorses political parties and candidates, that it essentially becomes a PAC rather than a religious organization and thing get sketchy for all the reasons I list above in other posts.

The current law, barring 501(c)(3) churches and other nonprofits from endorsing candidates, didn't come about until 1954. That means that they were free to endorse candidates for the first ~170 years of American history.

If partisanship was OK with people for such a long time (and the change was led by a Senator who wanted to neuter a particular, secular nonprofit), then what's different today?

Loren

[Hoss]

The current law, barring 501(c)(3) churches and other nonprofits from endorsing candidates, didn't come about until 1954. That means that they were free to endorse candidates for the first ~170 years of American history.

If partisanship was OK with people for such a long time (and the change was led by a Senator who wanted to neuter a particular, secular nonprofit), then what's different today?

Loren

come on counselor - Jim Crow was ok for people for a long time, then what's different today? The pledge of allegiance with out "under God" was ok with people until the 1950's, then what's different today? Women not voting was ok with people for a long time, then what's different today?

[Winslow]

I don't know what's different today . . .

But to me, a pastor is stepping out of the bounds of his authority when he starts endorsing political parties or candidates, so the line of seperation fits within my values so I'm O.K. with it. :D

I think one can make an argument that the current 501(c)(3) law is a violation of a church's free speech. But I guess most American's are comfortable with where that line is drawn (I know I am).

[Hoss]

I don't know what's different today . . .

But to me, a pastor is stepping out of the bounds of his authority when he starts endorsing political parties or candidates, so the line of seperation fits within my values so I'm O.K. with it. :D

I think one can make an argument that the current 501(c)(3) law is a violation of a church's free speech. But I guess most American's are comfortable with where that line is drawn (I know I am).

Actually, I think that the ban on politically biased speech in churches could be ditched. As others have pointed out, Churches make it pretty darned clear which candidate you should vote for anyhow. A well placed "Amen" by a senior pastor during a speech by a politician at a baptist service and the whole church knows who to vote for anyways.

And if the argument is that allowing churches to endorse candidates somehow favors one party over another, well, that seems like the party's promblem and not the church's. I'm getting fairly liberterian about my views of government regulations in my old age. We got too many legal restrictions in this country.

[west3man]

Actually, I think that the ban on politically biased speech in churches could be ditched. As others have pointed out, Churches make it pretty darned clear which candidate you should vote for anyhow. A well placed "Amen" by a senior pastor during a speech by a politician at a baptist service and the whole church knows who to vote for anyways.

And if the argument is that allowing churches to endorse candidates somehow favors one party over another, well, that seems like the party's promblem and not the church's. I'm getting fairly liberterian about my views of government regulations in my old age. We got too many legal restrictions in this country.
I'm less concerned. I feel where you're coming from and having similar feelings, m'self.

However, I see value in drawing lines between what makes a church entitled to x,y,z and what makes other organizations NOT entitled to those things.

No one's stopping a church from being a church. They're just saying that there are certain benefits of being a church that one must sacrifice if one is going to be so politically overt.

Doing the thing matters, but so does the degree to which you do it.

[Loren]

come on counselor - Jim Crow was ok for people for a long time, then what's different today? ... Women not voting was ok with people for a long time, then what's different today?

Nothing (times two; I'm not sure about the pledge thing). In both instances, the argument for change was that it was *always* a bad thing, even if people once tolerated it. It's easy to point to the injustices of Jim Crow or disenfranchisement before change was brought about, and how things got better afterward.

But I don't see that pattern with partisan endorsements by nonprofits. Were endorsements of candidates by nonprofit organizations (both secular and religious) a problem before 1954? I've certainly never heard of any pattern of abuse, and the arguments I've read in favor of the ban haven't pointed any out. The civil rights and suffrage movements pointed to years past as illustrations of why change was needed; supporters of the ban on nonprofit endorsements seem to largely ignore those first 170 years, and instead focus on hypothetical abuses.

Loren

[west3man]

Nothing (times two; I'm not sure about the pledge thing). In both instances, the argument for change was that it was *always* a bad thing, even if people once tolerated it. It's easy to point to the injustices of Jim Crow or disenfranchisement before change was brought about, and how things got better afterward.

But I don't see that pattern with partisan endorsements by nonprofits. Were endorsements of candidates by nonprofit organizations (both secular and religious) a problem before 1954? I've certainly never heard of any pattern of abuse, and the arguments I've read in favor of the ban haven't pointed any out. The civil rights and suffrage movements pointed to years past as illustrations of why change was needed; supporters of the ban on nonprofit endorsements seem to largely ignore those first 170 years, and instead focus on hypothetical abuses.

Loren
I think I see your point, but the above sounds enough like certain less-popular philosophies to support Hoss's point, as well.

[Hoss]

supporters of the ban on nonprofit endorsements seem to largely ignore those first 170 years, and instead focus on hypothetical abuses.

Loren

Well, with out reading the specifics, I'll defer to what you are saying. Thanks for clarifying. And like I said, I'm not crazy about the laws as they are.

Though I gotta tell you, I think it is pretty obvious that if the gag on partisanship was lifted from non-profits, K-street would find a way to exploit the heck out of that loophole.

[Paul McEnery]

Wait a second -- all non-profits are banned from partisanship? Then how did the Sierra Club back Gore?

[Hoss]

Doing the thing matters, but so does the degree to which you do it.



This definitely goes to how our society sees church and religion. Should churches be treated with special privileges or seen like any other non-profit? I prefer the former. However, there is an entrenched believe by many non-believers that insitutions of faith should not get special treatment. So, what do you do? From a practical POV, I think that allowing Churches more freedom as far as their non-profit status would be a good olive branch for the left. Sure, it might seem like it would benefit the right - and it might in the short-term. But longterm, it could help mend the rift between what used to be great allies - people of faith and the Democratic party.

And as someone who gives 10% of his income to his Church and is a Democrat, I'm putting my money where my mouth is since the bulk of the folks at my church are Republicans and my pastor is a huge Bush supporter. We need to change the relationship between progressivism and the church from within but we can't do that if we turn everything into an us versus them thing between Churches and secular liberals.

[Hoss]

Wait a second -- all non-profits are banned from partisanship? Then how did the Sierra Club back Gore?


I'm probably wrong and its probably just churches.

[MushMouth]

Loren, I can't comment on the first 170 years because I have not researched them, but it seems quite obvious to me what the implications of partisan church are in today's political atmosphere. It will degenerate towards politically orthodox churches which compromises the practice of religion. Its bad enough that an atheist can't get elected to office, but I envision one day in the future when you can't get elected to office unless you're a member of the Christian Republican Church of America.

Perhaps the first 170 years needed not a law regarding tax exemption because taxes never were much of an issue until after the civil war and because possibly politicians, at least at the national level, were less likely to pander to religion than they do now.

You mentioned the motives of the politicians who introduced the legislation in '54. What about the politicians today who are going after the NAACP for being partisan while at the same time arguing that churches should be allowed to be partisan? This sort of hypocrisy tends to make me suspect they aren't interested in allowing free speech but rather creating free speech for themselves and taking it away from others. I am extremely suspicious of anything these men do. When I found out about HR 235 my immediate thought was that they're tearing down the wall of separation from both ends - at one end you have this bill and at the other end you have faith-based initiatives, aka, tax payer funded religion.

If partisanship is going to be allowed it should be allowed for all non-profit tax exempt organizations - these laws are only concerned with granting priveleges to the church while still handcuffing other organizations.

[Loren]

Wait a second -- all non-profits are banned from partisanship? Then how did the Sierra Club back Gore?

Sorry. Where I said nonprofit, I should've specified 501(c)(3). Those are the tax-exempt nonprofits, which can lose that status if they endorse candidates or such.

The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) (http://www.t-tlaw.com/lr-05.htm) nonprofit organization. Political endorsement and lobbying by such organizations are permitted (and taxed), but donations to the Sierra Club aren't deductible as charitable donations. And there are some other differences (http://members.aol.com/irsform1023/misc/comp501s.html).

Loren

[Paul McEnery]

Sorry. Where I said nonprofit, I should've specified 501(c)(3). Those are the tax-exempt nonprofits, which can lose that status if they endorse candidates or such.

The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) (http://www.t-tlaw.com/lr-05.htm) nonprofit organization. Political endorsement and lobbying by such organizations are permitted (and taxed), but donations to the Sierra Club aren't deductible as charitable donations. And there are some other differences (http://members.aol.com/irsform1023/misc/comp501s.html).

Loren
Then that makes total sense. Otherwise, you could make the Democratic Party a tax-exempt non-profit, which is clearly wrong.

And this clears it up still further.

If you can be a non-profit but do without tax-exempt status to do party politics, then that's what you get if you turn into a partisan church.

[sixstringguild]

If a pastor did indeed do what the initial post said he did, he is in the wrong field. I'm tired of being associated w/ nutjobs like this.

On behalf of the evangelical Christians out there, let me assure you, we are not all crazy or so fervent in our political beliefs that we lose sight of what's important (to reach out to ALL men and women despite their baggage, because we all have some)...

[Mike Smash!]

Doesn't that seem to happen every election year, though?Election years are when they have to be watched the most.

A church fighting for a ban on gay marriage? Fine. A church fighting to elect George W. Bush? Not.

[Mike Smash!]

The current law, barring 501(c)(3) churches and other nonprofits from endorsing candidates, didn't come about until 1954. That means that they were free to endorse candidates for the first ~170 years of American history.

If partisanship was OK with people for such a long time (and the change was led by a Senator who wanted to neuter a particular, secular nonprofit), then what's different today?

LorenPeople could say the same on many things like slavery, women not having the right to vote, civil rights legislation, the direct election of US Senators... people could say the same and say, "we've gone forever without this before, why change it?"

[Mike Smash!]

Wait a second -- all non-profits are banned from partisanship? Then how did the Sierra Club back Gore?It's churches and religious non-profits, as far as I can tell.

the Sierra Club and others are a PAC. Like the NRA and other groups. They exist with the sole purpose of effecting legislation and politiicans that support their values.

Churches are not PACs, certainly not partisan ones.

[Mike Smash!]

This definitely goes to how our society sees church and religion. Should churches be treated with special privileges or seen like any other non-profit? I prefer the former. However, there is an entrenched believe by many non-believers that insitutions of faith should not get special treatment. So, what do you do? From a practical POV, I think that allowing Churches more freedom as far as their non-profit status would be a good olive branch for the left. Sure, it might seem like it would benefit the right - and it might in the short-term. But longterm, it could help mend the rift between what used to be great allies - people of faith and the Democratic party.

And as someone who gives 10% of his income to his Church and is a Democrat, I'm putting my money where my mouth is since the bulk of the folks at my church are Republicans and my pastor is a huge Bush supporter. We need to change the relationship between progressivism and the church from within but we can't do that if we turn everything into an us versus them thing between Churches and secular liberals.Hoss, the one thing you are not grasping is the point I've made ad nauseum in this thread.

The difference between ideology and partisanship. Liberal is not Democratic and Conservative is not Republican.

There are also independents and Greens and Libertarians and members of the Constitution Party and socialists and countless others.

And getting crap for voting and supporting Greens or Libertarians or others is hard enough against the Dems and the GOP, but imagine how ugly it would get if Nader or Badnarik or Cobb or Peroutka voters had to deal with their churches pressuring them to vote for a major party candidate.

To me, this isn't a question of me being afraid that this will help the Republicans. That's never been a consideration of any of my posts. I support churches (or anyone) of all ideological backgrounds becoming more political active.

What I don't want is partisanship in churches.

Like I've said, some of the Greens' biggest allies in Seattle are in progressive churches. I'm not a believer, but I feel a greater sense of brotherhood with those church activists acting independently of any political party than I ever did with the Democrats.

Partisanship silences dissent. Partisanship subjugates values to strategy. Partisanship makes churches de facto wings of political parties.

[fly on the wall]

I wish I could expell all the Unitarians from Costco. They are pushy with their shopping carts and hog all the free samples.

[Fenris]

Dude! We're a third party! We's poor, bro!

Aw, c'mon! We all know that you're secretly backed by Bill Gates. :)


Rich helped us out because he's good friends with Jody Haug, the co-chair of the national party and a mover and shaker in the Seattle area. And because we donated some money to his church -- 500 bucks, much less than any convention center would cost us.

He's active in social justice and issue activism and the peace movement and was so nice that we went that extra mile to make sure he could keep his tax exemption and called the Campaign School "the Cascadia Campaign School: sponsored by the Green Party of Washington State" rather than "The Green Party campaign school. We also had a handful of non-Greens come.

Urk. See, this is the first part of my problem with the whole notion: it seems very trivial. You've changed a few words in the label, and that makes all the difference between it being constitutional religious behavior and mere political activism?

(Yes, you invited some non-Greens. But the larger issue is whether or not churches can speak a candidate's proper name: a very trivial specification, especially when the church has made its political preference clear.)



There's a big difference between a pastor taking a stand against the war or abortion and saying "Vote Kerry!/Vote Bush!"

As for the Iraq War example, Kerry voted for the war, too. So it's not a clear cut thing.

Oh, grrrr. Bad example on my part. Pick some issue that Kerry disagreed with Bush about, then. (There must have been one or two.)


And by social pressure, I don't mean pressure from the church directed outward. I mean social pressure from the church leadership, directed inward. Essentially peer pressure to conform or possibly be kicked out or excluded because of the bumper sticker on your car, and no one should be scared to openly support a candidate for President.

Exactly what I mean. The pastor sets the tone and largely, the congregation will enforce that tone and god knows that every group of people will always have at least one overzealous jerk in it, who like to pick on dissenters.

Now I have no problem standing up to people like that. But most people don't like confrontation or to be the odd man out.

These are all problems. It's terrible when they happen, in churches or families or workplaces. But (at the risk of repeating myself) it is not the job of the government to shelter people who don't want to stand up for their politics.

This sort of intimidation is an unhappy consequence of free speech. Some people will take to it with enthusiasm and a competitive spirit, and some will withdraw and keep their opinions to themselves. It's a question of personalities; and it's not even remotely a job that the government ought to be solving.


And I know progressive churches that are incredibly independent and will take stances on the war and gay marriage that the DNC shys away from.

I certainly don't want Democratic Churches, no more than I want Republican ones. I don't even want Green churches.

*Shrug* My point is that you have Democratic Churches, whether you want them or not. Most of the Democratic Black power structure works through the churches; it's been this way since the Civil Rights Movement, and that's why Jackson and Sharpton are both Reverends.

To be blunt about it: if this principle were applied seriously, we'd have to demolish most of the left's African-American power structure in America. Because if it's wrong for a church to endorse a candidate, then it's obviously even worse for a church's Reverend to be running for office. (Now that's a clear endorsement!)


AU cracked down on a violation of the Kerry campaign involving Al Sharpton in the 2004 election, including a pastor at a black church who introduced Kerry and told everyone to vote for him.

AU got their tax exemption revoked.

I want progressive churches, liberal churches, conservatives churches...ideological churches, but not partisan ones.

And like I said above, there is a good mile of difference between ideology and partisanship.

Yes, you've been very clear on that difference. And no doubt you're more conscious of this than I am, since you've moved to a third party.

But I'm not aware that the distinction has any relevance. I'm making a straightforward First Amendment case: that churches, like anyone else, should have very broad freedom to say what they like. You're drawing a line between political ideology and political partisanship, and saying that free speech stops here, at the mention of people's names.

Why? Where in the First Amendment does that distinction come up?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't. It's an arbitrary line, and it has nothing to do with Constitutional liberties, which are very basic and clear: free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

Yes, I know, you don't advocate making it illegal, you just advocate making the churches pay for it. Which is, at best, a tenuous distinction, because the orig