According to a 1954 law, tax-exempt organizations, including churches, may not participate or intervene in political campaigns on behalf of any candidate. According to the Internal Revenue Service, "intervention" is broadly defined as "any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office."
Those that wish to undermine our system have, of course, discovered ways around this law in much the same manner that existing campaign finance legislation has been circumvented, thus eroding our democratic process.
The familiar loophole referred to here is that churches can campaign on policy issues, even if that effort benefits a particular candidate. As a result, many sermons are currently focusing on such issues as embryonic stem-cell research, abortion and gay marriage, providing support to the politicians who represent whatever position the churches have on these issues.
By far the most aggressive of these activities seem to be aimed towards helping GOP candidates. And, despite this, the only church that has currently been required to turn over its records to the IRS is one from Pasadena with liberal leanings.
The LA Times reports today that "With a pivotal election five weeks away, leaders of the religious right have launched an all-out drive to get Christians from pew to voting booth. Their target: the nearly 30 million Americans who attend church at least once a week but did not vote in 2004."
The Times says that "those guiding the movement say they owe it to God and to their own moral principles to do everything they can to keep social conservatives in power."
Interestingly, those are very close to the same words uttered by the owner of Diebold, the controversial voting machine company, prior to the 2004 election.
According to the Times, "The Reverand Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical in Texas, has recruited 5,000 'patriot pastors' nationwide to promote an agenda that aligns neatly with Republican platforms."
Furthermore, Focus on the Family founder, James C. Dobson advised his followers that "if there is a good Christian on the ballot, failing to vote would be a sin."
The right-wing campaign encourages individual pastors to use sermons, bible studies and rallies to drive Christians to the polls and by implication or outright endorsement, to Republican candidates.
So beware - GOP's the name, but dirty tricks is still the game.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.
There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it or to muzzle it.
I agree with you. Let's tax any church that lets a politician speak or that supports a particular party.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
You leave out, significantly, the fact that there are non-christian religions. Not all the founding fathers, certainly not Hamilton, were interested in making "...sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
Freedom of Religion means each of us is free to beleive, or not beleive. If the Government reflects only Christian values, where does that leave the non-Christians in society.
Of course, we could refer to the government reflectin Judo-Christian values. But what about Islam? Should we incorporate Islamic values into our government too?
How about Wicca or worse, Republicans. Let's hope it does not come to that.
Felix, that was an interesting summary of the history of the first amendment. I think that the country has matured and in so doing has come to have a better appreciation for, and a slightly different take on, the concept of the separation of Church and state. Today, it's my opinion that this concept is as much a protection from organized religion as it is a protection of organized religion.
After all, when was the last time an atheist attacked a religious zealot? We certainly know of instances where religious zealots have attacked atheists and - even today - threaten any that have the nerve to go public.
And when was the last time that pro lifers bombed a right wing church? Maybe never. Yet there are many examples of religious zealots bombing abortion clinics and taking lives in the process.
The evolution of our culture has made it necessary to take a somewhat different look at the situation from the one taken by our forefathers.
As Anthony pointed out, there are more religions than "Christianity" to consider today. And there is also the matter of being free to reject all religions. In this respect, this country has a ways to go to truly be able to say that we enjoy religious freedom. We are slowly moving in that direction. However, the assaults on the concept of separation by the right wing are counter productive.
Enforcing those laws and regs against the Pat Dobsons, Jerry Falwells, and Pat Robertsons are long overdue.
"The familiar loophole referred to here is that churches can campaign on policy issues, even if that effort benefits a particular candidate. As a result, many sermons are currently focusing on such issues as embryonic stem-cell research, abortion and gay marriage, providing support to the politicians who represent whatever position the churches have on these issues."
If I am, say a minister or a rabbi and I give a homily on abortion because it is pertinent to church doctrine or to Christian or Judaic exegesis or on the destruction of human embryos...the fact that this issue is also being argued in politics doesn't mean that I am endorsing a candidate or a party platform. I am merely talking of matters that are of importance to my religion. On the other hand if I get up on a pulpit and endorse a politician or a political party than I am crossing that devide that seperates Church and State. I as a religious leader should be able to preach on any issue that is of moment to Church doctrine and teachings, but, I should never campaign for any party or politician. You want me to have the freedom to worship, but, I should not preach...not even to my own congregants about issues that are also being argued in politics. I say that you can't take away from me the ability to preach to my congregation issues that we deem relevant to religious people...so long as I don't campaign for or against politicians.
Some would love to drive us back into the catacombs...it's not going to happen.
"why are you so concerned with christians organizing to vote? is it because you are afraid? afraid that, if christians will pray, God will answer their prayer and put into power a christian president?"
I am not aware that we have yet had a president that was not a Christian. What you mean is your kind of Christian. In 1980 I ran for State Representative in Missouri, as a Republican. During the campaign I was called by the Moral Majority to answer a questionnaire. The first question was: Do you favor the Equal Rights Amendment? My response was yes. The second question was: "Are you pro life? My response was that I believed that the government should not be involved in the decision, that was a decision best left to the mother. The third question was: Do you consider yourself to be a Christian? My response was Yes. The next question was what church did I attend. I responded that it was the United Methodist Church, to which they responded, Oh, that explains it. I was the wrong kind of Christian. It is not about being a Christian, but rather supporting their own twisted view of Christianity and imposing it on everyone else. Why is it that you want to a "put into power a christian president?" The answer is so that you can have your twisted view of Christianity and the morals that you believe that it implies imposed on the entire country. It sounds to me precisely like the reason for separation of church and state.
You say "why should more and more religious freedoms, like praying in schools, be outlawed?" The reason is that it tends to establish an accepted religion that infringes upon the rights of those in the school to believe as they choose or not. Beverly Hills High School is approximately 70% Iranian, Shia Muslims. Under your argument, Beverly Hills High school should have their daily prayer calls and Koran readings. Is that what you really want. How would you feel if your child went to that school and had to participate or be an outcast? What you want is "your" religion taught in the schools. You want to establish your religion, just what the constitution sought to prevent.
You say "crybaby liberals like you want to push your environmetal, homosexual, baby murdering agenda on the real american people." Obviously "real american people" are those who believe just like you. I don't know what church you attend but my church holds that we have a duty to maintain the environment as stewards of God's great creation. My church holds that homosexuals are Gods children also and to be loved and treated just as any other person. My church also believed that the issue of abortion is also a matter of personal conscience. My church does believe that war is improper and that it is improper to kill. You seem to believe that it is bad to kill unborn fetuses but that once they have been born then they are fair game for capital punishment or cluster bombs.
Felix R. commented: "The assault on America's religious underpinnings is based on a distorted interpretation of the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment. . . Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another." What the religious right now seeks to do is to impose their religion and religious values on the entire country, just the issue that concerned the founding fathers. You wish to impose your values and religion on the rest of the country. Would you feel the same if a Catholic majority imposed their values on everyone, or if there were a Muslim majority that it would be OK for them to impose their morals and values on the rest of the people? The point is that the government is not here to impose any religion's values on the entire country. Each person should be able to practice their own religion, or not, without the government trying to impose competing values on them. You would undoubtedly say that the government is allowing abortion that infringes upon your religious values. The point is that the government is not telling you that you must have an abortion, just that it is a choice that is up to you, based upon your own religious beliefs.
You say: "The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." The state does not interfere with peoples ability to teach their view of "Biblical values" it merely says that you may not use the power of the government to do so. I'm not sure that I buy your assertion that it ensures that Christian values will always stay in government. The laws are based upon moral values that have been established over the centuries, many of them based upon Christian influence. These values will always be there. The problem would be, Whose Christian values. Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Mormon, or your Church of What's Happening Now? How about the church in Florida who insists that it's pastor is the return of the Messiah?
Government does not seek to prohibit the church from expressing its opinions or teaching their beliefs. What it does do is to make sure that no particular religion tries to use the state to force its views or doctrine on other religions or those who choose not to believe.
"As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion."" When you seek to impose your religious views on others through the use of the state, you infringe on the religious rights of others who believe differently from you. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
"You wish to impose your values and religion on the rest of the country."
I have no such wish...and in my postings I have not said that. As I clearly stated...when commenting on David's article...I was addressing one issue and one issue only...preaching in the church. The government or the anti-religion people can't dictate to me what I can or cannot preach to my congregation...as long as I am not endorsing any candidate or party. My homily has to do with the interpretation of Scripture on religious matters...whether they are of importance to the politics of the day is irrelevent to me. I preach religious beliefs in a religious setting. The anti-Christians can preach to them outside the church, but, inside the church I reserve the right to preach my denominations interpretation of issues that are of important to my congregation. I am not forcing anything on anyone and I want nothing to do with your' precious government. I don't want my freedom of speech being infringed upon inside my church. I don't use the government to try to force my beliefs on anyone. Yet, it is clear that you want to silence my opinion because it is different from your's. If my convictions are founded on the principles of my religion...I should just shut up. If I say one word I am trying to lord it over the people and the government. I must first renounce any allegiance to any faith before I am allowed to speak. I am not the radical Christian right so stop with the generalizations...as for the government...you can have it lock, stock and barrel. You cna have your' pro-abortion government and your' pro-war government...I stand in opposition to both. I am pro-life...across the board.
I obviously meant pro choicers when I said the opposeit in my last comment...
and secondly, Leo mentioned that documentary "Orwell Rolls in his Grave." I took his advice and googled it. It sounds very interesting, Leo. If the powers that be suppress its distribution, as was suggested, I hope it will at least be available as a rental.....
It is a false, materialistic Christianity that is promoted by many on the religious right. Jesus was not interested in establishing a kingdom of this world. Nor was he interested in helping rich people get richer. This is a perversion of Christianity and democracy.
I agree, the prosecution by the I.R.S. is very selective infavor of the churches promoting Mr. Bush's agenda. If you are against a Bush policy, you are going to be investigated.
-------
And sorry, I have become obsessive about this:
Off topic, but I need to ask the very patriotic Ben, mike s if they know that the uber Patriot Mr. Bush has signed an ageement with Mexico and Canada (March 2005) to form the North American union. One border encompassing all three nations, combined security, including cooperation at the local level. etc etc.
Here are the links to the official .gov documents. I just learned of this yesterday,
I am astonished, no congressional discussion, no public announcement.
No Fox news, No CNN news, . . . but the arrangement is proceeding and expected to be in place by 2010.
Here is a link North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership"
It is Unbelievable that this has not been in the news.
Or Click this Link: Building A North American Community
These are official .gov sites and documents, not pundit opinion or blogger rants.
I agree, you should not be restricted on what you preach in your church or in your home or in a religious school. The seperation of church and state is designed to protect everyone from having someone else brand of religion pushed on them by the government.
As I previously said:"Government does not seek to prohibit the church from expressing its opinions or teaching their beliefs. What it does do is to make sure that no particular religion tries to use the state to force its views or doctrine on other religions or those who choose not to believe.
"As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion."" When you seek to impose your religious views on others through the use of the state, you infringe on the religious rights of others who believe differently from you. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE."