Well, about 35 pastors, most with the aid of the Alliance Defense Fund, have issued a challenge to the Internal Revenue Service’s statutory authority to prohibit preachers from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit using church resources.
For example, the pastor at Warroad (Minnesota) Community Church said, ”We need to vote for the most righteous of candidates..the most righteous is John McCain.” And from Edmond, Oklahoma comes Fairview Baptist Church’s pastor Paul Blair telling the faithful that “as a Christian and an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain.” The Wall Street Journal reports additional pulpit endorsements in California, Texas, and Pennsylvania. You get the picture.
In your last posting, Jay, you noted that you had defended the Church at Pierce Creek in its challenge to the prohibition on partisan politicking by churches. Why didn’t that church try to “take its case to the Supreme Court”? Do you think it was a smart tactic for the Alliance Defense Fund to have multiple churches disobey the law yesterday? Do you think that even with the more conservative Supreme Court of 2008 that any members believe you can’t attach this non-politicking prohibition to a grant of tax-exemption?
It seems to me that all this posturing is just one more effort by the so-called “Religious Right” to gain more clout. It is about its incessant effort to tell how Americans should act from the moment of conception until the moment of death (which you guys also want to define, by the way). I’m willing to have preachers, pastors, priests and all other religious figures tell me how they think I should act in the most intimate areas of my life. If I don’t want to pay attention to their thoughts on intimate matters, though, I don’t want them heading off to the legislature for a “moral bailout”. What’s that? It is when the clergy says: “we just don’t seem to be able to use our powers of moral suasion to change people, so let’s get the government to force them to change.”
The aforementioned Pastor Gus Booth recently summed up his view for Religion News Service: “If we can tell you what to do in the bedroom, we can certainly tell you what to do in the voting booth.” No further comment is necessary.
posted September 29, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Religious leaders are entitled to preach politics in Houses of Worship. However, they hould not apply for and receive tax exemptions.
posted September 29, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The IRS has a moral obligation
to make these politikal preachers pay the price of politiks.
They want to preach politiks
but they don’t want to pay the price of admission.
The IRS has a duty to do and that means putting the screws to these so-called preachers of politiks.
I can’t stand politiks in my pulpit.
They aren’t preaching Christ
they’re preaching for politiks.
So make them pay for it…
just like the rest of US..
posted September 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm
This one sounds more like a personal rant than a professional discussion…
Regardless, a pastor should be able to preach whatever he wants from the pulpit. People aren’t forced to go to that church. If they don’t like it, don’t go. It’s really simple.
If endorsing a candidate from the pulpit risks the church’s tax exemption status, then that’s the risk they are free to take. If the ACLJ wants to defend these churched because they believe the law is unjust, then they have the freedon to do so. What’s the problem?
“It is about its incessant effort to tell how Americans should act from the moment of conception until the moment of death (which you guys also want to define, by the way).”
-And what’s the difference than what public schools strictly teaching about evolution only? Or what about what Planned Parenthood teaches about contraception? Every religion, organization or what-have-you have their ‘doctrine’ they live and teach by. Focusing incessantly on Christianity just proves that Rev. Barry W. Lynn has ‘it in’ for that particular faith group.
“The aforementioned Pastor Gus Booth recently summed up his view for Religion News Service: “If we can tell you what to do in the bedroom, we can certainly tell you what to do in the voting booth.” No further comment is necessary.”
-Granted, this type of quote does sound a bit forceful, but again, if you don’t like what the pastor is stating, don’t go to his church!
posted September 29, 2008 at 4:23 pm
And he can preach what he wants in the pulpit.
Just don’t take the tax exemption.
posted September 29, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Christian churches in America have always been tax-exempt. I’ve heard a lot of Christians claim that this tax-exemption for churches began in 1954. The quote below from Mark Twain proves this isn’t true and illustrates just how unfair it is to unbelievers that we have to pay an unfair share of taxes because Christian churches don’t pay theirs.
“No church property is taxed, and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up for the deficit in the public income this has caused.” – Mark Twain
I say let Christian pastors say whatever they want. Intelligent people know to ignore people who make the kind of unwarranted and indefensible claims and pie-in-the-sky promises that Christian pastors have always made.
posted September 29, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“I say let Christian pastors say whatever they want.”
They already can, unless they value money more than freedom.
posted September 29, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Rev. Lynn – I was just wondering, if a left-wing organization pushed this agenda, and churches endorsed Obama, would you have the same problem?
For the record, I don’t really believe that partisan or candidate-based politics belong in the church, but I do think that churches should feel free to speak about the issues.
posted September 30, 2008 at 9:01 am
Sounds like these preachers want to have their cake, their tax exempt cake, and eat it (or politically endorse it from the pulpit) too.
These preachers can’t have it both ways and there is a long presidence. If they want to endorse a particular candidate I say go for it. That is as long as you have enough in the bank to pay the IRS.
posted September 30, 2008 at 9:10 am
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
posted September 7, 2009 at 8:08 pm
A person’s religious values and morals should not be compartmentalized and put in a box separate from their actions. The two go hand in hand. Pastors voices should not be silenced just because of their religious affiliation.