Recently in Church Politicking Category

The Lynchburg News and Advance reported on Liberty University's announcement yesterday that it was changing its policy in regard to student political clubs.  From now on, no partisan clubs, even the Republican Club, will be given "official" status or receive any student funding.  This is a significant step in the right direction.

As I mentioned before, I felt strongly that the previous policy of granting the campus Republicans preferential treatment  was a sort of "in kind" contribution to one party that could jeopardize Liberty University's tax exempt status.  Americans United actually filed a formal complaint with the Internal Revenue Service suggesting a timely investigation.

Jay, just a few days ago I was a participant in an event on "church politicking" at the National Press Club here in Washington.  The event was reported by your friends over at the Christian Broadcasting Network.  The focus of that afternoon was principally on whether pastors do or do not have the right to endorse candidates in sermons.  The Tax Code suggests they do not--and I argued that was the correct position.

Today, the Washington Post reports that Liberty University, founded by the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, has just terminated the right of the Democratic student club to be recognized at the university.  Effectively, Liberty has declared itself a Democratic Party-free zone.  This is quite shocking, violating basic tenets of free speech, free association, and even religious liberty (can't you be a Democrat and religious?). 

.

As noted in my last post, if that school assignment was to draw anything you want (and that's the end of the story), then you were right to intervene.  I would have done the same if her mother had called me.

Now, we have been in longtime disagreement about politicking from the pulpit-- I like the 1954 provision of the IRS Code that allows for discussion of political issues but strictly prohibits actions that constitute endorsement of or opposition to any candidate for public office.  Recently, about 31 pastors violated that provision with the encouragement of a group called the Alliance Defense Fund, and they hope to create a test case for what they erroneously call "pulpit freedom."

Two religious bodies have now gone way beyond the idea of speaking out on a Saturday or Sunday morning in praise of somebody's election. 

Let's start in New Jersey.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paterson, N.J., has published a letter on its website and in the diocesan newspaper by its bishop Arthur J. Serratelli.  In it, Serratelli "cleverly" never mentions the name Barack Obama but suggests that "the present democratic candidate" (who could that be?) is comparable to the biblical monarch Herod Antipas, the fellow who ordered the beheading of John the Baptist.  Serratelli then goes on a screed about how in this election we either "choose to respect life...or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedom".  The Archdiocese denies it's an intervention against Obama. 

Jay, I'd like to think you would agree that it is obviously partisan politicking even if you think the church should be allowed to do it.

And, then, let's move over to New Mexico. There, the Rock Christian Fellowship in Espanola posted two large photographs on its building.  One showed a smiling baby; the other the remains of what appears to be an aborted fetus.  Under the healthy baby are the name of three Republican office seekers, including John McCain; under the fetus, the names are of three Democrats including Barack Obama.  Below the whole display: "YOU WILL DECIDE."

Leaving aside seriously sight-impaired individuals who cannot see this presentation, can anyone believe this is not a blatant anti-choice message combined with a clear and unequivocal "vote Republican" add-on.  Without any reference to the election, a church can put up pretty much anything; with the candidate endorsement it is a clear violation of the law.  Pastor Michael Naranjo told the local paper : "I'd rather lose my 501 c (3) than lose my soul."

If the IRS does its job, he should get his wish.

The fact that tonight represents the final debate between Senators McCain and Obama at Hofstra University on Long Island also marks the final opportunity for these two candidates to address - in a debate format - key issues that have been virtually ignored in this campaign.

The fact is that these candidates - and the media - have paid little attention to issues that millions of Americans want discussed:  the future direction of the Supreme Court, judicial nominations, abortion, marriage, and even issues like the role that religion and faith should play in the public square.

Sure, there are some reports about how the candidates approach such issues like abortion, but the fact is there is very little discussion of these issues by the candidates themselves.

With one of the largest audiences likely to watch the final debate tonight, CBS News' Bob Schieffer will direct the discussion.  He has said that he intends to seek more specifics from the candidates. "By now we've all heard their talking points," he said. "We've heard the general outlines of what they are talking about. The time has come to be a little more specific."

I would like to see some of these questions asked:

1.  With the next president likely to have the opportunity to make multiple appointments to the Supreme Court, who would you consider specifically as potential nominees?

2.  How should the courts interpret the Constitution?  What is your judicial philosophy on how the Constitution should be interpreted?

3.  Should partial-birth abortion remain illegal?   Do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned by the Supreme Court?

4.  The state of Connecticut became the third state recently to legalize same-sex marriage.  Should the legal definition of marriage be changed to accommodate relationships other than marriage meaning the union of one man, one woman?

5.  Do you support a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" - a measure that would hamper the free speech of Christian broadcasters by requiring them to offer 'equal time' to opposing viewpoints?

6.  Should pastors and church leaders be permitted to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status?

Sure, the economy is at the top of everyone's list as we await the debate tonight.  We expect and know there will be plenty of discussion about that topic.  Barry, do you see anything wrong with the candidates addressing these and other questions that are of interest to millions of Americans?