Kraichgauer wrote:
I fully understand, if religious institutions were taxed, many of the smaller ones could be forced to close - and that might mean that much less contributions to food and clothing banks. But if they stick their noses into politics, we have the right to withdraw that tax exemption.
Though I will be the first to say that there are exceptions to even that rule, as the civil rights movement got its start in black churches.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The thing is, though, is that politicians are supposed to represent the interests of their constituency, which includes churchgoers among others. If a particular politician has goals in common with a certain religions group, religious folks would be interested to know that. Or if a particular politician has an agenda that squarely violates doctrinal matters, religious folks would be interested in voting against that guy. The way I grew up, it was nobody's business--not a pastor, not a church leader, not even the guy sitting on the same pew with you--who you voted for. You vote your conscience. But where public policy and religious doctrine collide, religious people deserve just as much as anybody to make an informed decision. Personally, I don't see why the pulpit is an inappropriate place to disseminate such information.
In a strange kind of way, it reminds me of a U/U "minister" who said that all Christians are cannibalistic, blood-sucking vampire-zombie worshippers and he found our religion disgusting, and in the same breath reminded the congregation that "all are welcome."
The point is that it's a tax law that really does marginalize (in a very, very small way) what a church leader can say from the pulpit. It's not something I'm really all that concerned about. I think it might be foolish to directly challenge the law. But I do understand why someone would in exceptional circumstances. And I think mentioning racial civil rights is a prime example. I think you can make more of an exception for black civil rights leaders in the church because black churches do seek to serve the interests of the black community. It's the perfect platform for mobilizing a community of an oppressed minority.
As far as I'm aware, addressing political issues has never been a reason the government would want to interfere with a church. The idea is to go after churches who endorse specific candidates.
Black preachers have long actively endorsed candidates. The only complaints I've ever heard were when predominantly white church pastors endorsed candidates. Every time, warnings and threats have gone out, but I'm unaware of any church that's gotten their exemption status yanked. So I'm not sure what the motivation is for deliberately challenging the law. I mean, it's really unenforceable, anyway, because enforcement would require that government officials to infiltrate churches and monitor their activities, and that would mean an intrusion into the churches by what would effectively be regulators. It's a clear violation of freedom of religion by that point. And why anyone would WANT the government, as if to say "I double-dog DARE you," is beyond me.
03 Oct 2012, 10:10 am
