If you may recall,
during the 04 election campaign, Bush officials pushed churches to take sides in
the political arena, and endorse a candidate. As it's coming out now, it appears
democrats attempted to do the same thing, although less visibly. Some of these
churches did end up essentially endorsing a candidate, and thanks to some
whistle-blowers (and some organizations that seem to be all-whistle), they may
be losing their tax exempt status this
year.
It appears that some of the
religious organizations facing questioning are getting it not for big "Vote
Kerry" signs or pamphlets, but also for infractions like the content of a sermon
being strongly one-sided. At this point I say something to the effect of "whoaaa
now..."
At the first sight of this
issue, especially since only Bush was involved, I was disgusted. How could a
church in its right mind wholeheartedly endorse a presidential candidate, when
any "bible believing" Christian should know that we should be
in the world but not of the
world. We're supposed to put our home in
heaven, not in DC. If someone (as a mediocre Christian Rock band titled their
CD) were to ask us "Take me to your leader," we should skip over finding
directions to a ranch in Texas, and start talking about Jesus.
As a social/political event, what does
this mean to the church? I'm certainly not okay with my pastor insisting we all
vote for a republican. A democrat? Well, it would still bug me. But when it
comes to critiquing politics from the pulpit, it seems like the IRS shouldn't be
able to touch it. Does the separation of church and state give rights to the
government to maintain that separation? I would hate to think that every time a
preacher talks about one candidate as a fallible individual from the pulpit (or
in today's terms, from the fresnel-spotlight lit stage) they would be forced to
either mention the other candidates, or face federal taxes on behalf of their
church. Not only is this a free speech problem-- but who says the pastor
represents the motives of the church when he says something politically biased?
And who owns the money that would be taxed? Many times, the legal body of a
church is separated from those people who are responsible for its overall
message.
The outcome of this is yet to
be seen, obviously-- but we could have a very strange battle on our hands. My
favorites, like Tony Campolo should be safe- he does a good job of yelling at
both sides equally. Any preacher I'm prone to appreciate has a good sense of how
to tear at both sides-- and any congregation I would like to be a part of would
be at least slightly politically mixed. I sure would love it if Mr. Falwell
ended up with a big IRS bill after all of the embarrassing comments he made on
the unwilling behalf of Christianity... but this is getting dangerous.
Thoughts? Candidates for who the
most-taxed preacher in America aught to be? Stories? Comment,
dangit!
.. Hitting the fan..