I don’t believe that the framers EVER intended that churches couldn’t embrace (or reject) any particular issue with there flocks regarding political support of an issue(s). I think the references to seperation of Church and State are more about the spirit of the intent … i.e., something along the lines of “Don’t let the King talk to the Vicar and pass on the levies to the parishioners in return for favor with the Royal Court.”

I think that the passion play for the right is ” God would want it done thusly” and the passion play for the left is “God should tend to heaven, and we will tend to the fields” witha few “What Gods?” thrown in for the sake of confusion.

We have seen the “God thing” imposed in government recently, i.e., “Terry Shaivo, GWB with I answer to a higher power when asked about seeking counsel from GB Sr. , and many other examples that scratch the [spirit] of seperation of Church and State.” conversely, we have seen the ” we can’t have commandments, public displays of the manger, yadda yadda yadda, on the other extreme.”

The argument that Church’s should not be allowed to pitch a candidate and retain their tax exempt status never held any water for me (in my humble opinion) and is just one more tributary issue that is utilized to take our eyes off of the ball on individual issues.

Example: When the congress worked the weekend to impose a conscience vote on america due to the RR views of the leadership … that was a major violation of the framers’ spirit in SCand S, but there was not any focused outrage from the electorate. There should have been sanctions imposed on those folks. AND, the electorate could have made a strong statement about it, as they did on the ports deal.

The spirit of the language in the Constitution is that anyone can practice or NOT according to their personal beliefs. There is nothing that says non-practitioners have the right to go around with a big eraser and remove all reference to anything that offends them. there is also no language that says practitioners can go around imposing there beliefs on anyone because they “know the WAY”.

The Churches themselves are merely institutions that minister a system of beliefs. The “institution” is not meant to administer LAW.

Any argument that attempts to weaken a particular sect by breaking traditions that have been in place for a long time is off the mark.

Any argument that puts Congress in session to break a law that has been in place (and over-ride the courts) is off the mark.

Anyone in the electorate who engages in this winner take all scenario and chooses either extreme is off the mark ….from the spirit of the language in the Constitution.

There are bullies on both sides of this argument, but the choice to participate (or not) is an individual right and responsibility.

My role is to normally poo-poo everyone else’s ideas, while not coming up with any solutions of my own. You see, that makes it easier to complain and nag others while never having to suggest anything that could be shut-down or called stupid. I’m sure no one has caught on so far . . . . Well, Justin calls bulls*** on me, and god bless him for that.

I’m sure that many people believe in a power much greater than the State - I’ll address that later. However, I suspect (maybe unfairly in a broad generalization) that there are many churches that will not want to be parted from their money. Call me crazy to suggest that there are some churches out there that are in it for the cash, but it’s a thought. And again, it would be done on a case-by-case basis using specific criteria, not in the most ass-backwards and ridiculous way possible. Your proposal for ferreting out violators does sound ridiculous, as I’m sure you intended it to.

On to a higher power . . . Are you suggesting that churches feel God wants them to promote certain politicians or parties? OK, so now God is a republican or a democrat? Sure, sure. And, if the crack down sparks more open and flagrant violations, I suppose we won’t need any moles to investigate and spy, because the churches will proudly and indignantly break the rules for all to see . . . right. And then, they will have to pay taxes because of that flagrant violation . . . right.

Threatening to take away tax exempt status would be a very persuasive tool to enforce this important rule.

No it wouldn’t. Sorry Meredith, but a lot of people believe in a power much large and in much more control that the State. I know that distresses some, but all a “crack down” would do would spark open and flaggerant violations. People aren’t that scared.

Actually, now that you’ve expressed such confidence — I think it is a great idea. I think the IRS should try to take away the Southern Baptist Conventions tax-exempt status or maybe the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, this would be an absolutely fantastic move!

To enforce this wonderful little new world, the IRS should send in secret “pew agents” with recorders. Homilies will be scored for their political content on a 1-10 scale. After a 3 month period if the Church has an aggregate political speech of 60 or more — yank the tax-exempt status. Oh, of course, there will be appellate review — won’t that be FUN!

Folks, I love ya’, but I just don’t want a moderate/centrist protecting my constitutional rights — tommorrow I’d wake up and my Church would be taxed and my daughter would be at an abortion clinic. EEaaks.

I hate to sound mean (well, no I don’t actually), but if churches are put out of business (pun intended) because they are getting too involved in politics, too bad. And, as I’ve said before, that should apply to everyone equally, dems, repubs, and otherwise, alike. Of course if this were to occur there would have to be some specific rules about what is and is not allowed, and I would suggest that the examples Justin cites are a good starting place. Just because a priest, on his own time, pursues political interests does not seem to be that bad. However, if priests are purposely trying to learn campaign strategies in order to conduct that activity during Sunday service . . . that’s a no go.

Also, the slippery slope argument just doesn’t hold. Any rule or law can be abused. Period. That doesn’t mean we don’t have and enforce them. In addition, whether or not you think separation of church and state has always been more about keeping the government out of churches or the other way around is irrelevant because it does, in fact, cover both scenarios no matter what anyone else personally thinks. This issue needs to be addressed now, before it gets out of control. Threatening to take away tax exempt status would be a very persuasive tool to enforce this important rule.

William - It may be that churches don’t support specific campaigns because of campaign rules, but it is absolutely true that tax laws forbid supporting specific campaigns, so whether or not they don’t do it because of campaign laws instead of tax laws is irrelevant.

However, what I’m saying “Amen� too, is that right now some religious leaders are going to GOP “get-out-the-vote� seminars and learning how to mobilize, use talking points to motivate their congregation, etc. That’s a clear conflict, and I feel it’s grounds for losing tax exempt status.

I think your use of the word “clear” to modify “conflict” might be just a hair too bold JG. Here is the problem:

Week 1: Priest: If you vote for a pro-choice candidate you are going to hell.

Week 2: Priest: G. Bush is pro-life and John Kerry is pro-choice.

Would this be acceptable? Would it be acceptable if he made both comments on the same day in the same sermon? Does the lapse in time effect things? Here’s another one:

Week 1: Jesuit Priest: War is always evil.
Week 2: Jesuit Priest: Bush is pro-war. Kerry is anti-war.

And you want the IRS to be parsing out these Constitutional Rights. Thanks, but no thanks.

What??? Going to seminars of ANY type is not a violation of any law or regulation having to do with taxes. It flat-out isn’t. Nor is it a clear conflict, or “grounds for losing tax exempt status” anymore than attending a teach-in about how to mobilize the congregation to support, say, gay marriage, or liberalizing immigration, or lower taxes, or expanded pension benefits, or universal health care, would be.

Advocating a specific candidate or party is a different thing, and THE critical distinction. Establishing “A Ministry To Promote The Republican (or Democratic) Party” would be a violoation, or Hillary Clinton’s candidacy vs. Condoleezza Rice’s, or … well you get the picture.

The problem isn’t helped by misstating the facts. Certainly, if you don’t like the fact that some churches engage in the above activities, by all means lobby for a law change. I’m not sure you’d like 100% of the results, however.

By the way, I strongly, strongly dislike mixing electoral politics, or even policy politics, within the context of church, so don’t count me as a supporter of the activities I’ve outlined above.

My own church (in this case, I’m speaking of my congregation, not the bigger denomination) does not get involved in electoral politics. The one time in recent memory that a voter guide (the legal kind–you know, just listing polling places, ballot samples, self-submitted candidate profiles, etc.) was suggested, it was done so by a member who is extremely active in the local Democratic party.

So it really does cut both ways.

I am amused that Democrats are all bent out of shape over evangelical’s conspiring with the GOP when many black churches have been defacto arms of the Democratic Party for many years. The rhetoric may sound like a defense of church/state separation. But it sounds to me like just politics as usual. Identify your opponent’s strength (in this case, an active religious base) and then try to nuetralize it (in this case, drain their finances with taxes)

Besides, before we start bringing the tax-code hammer down on churches, we should really consider what a powerful weapon that is and how easily it could be abused. My own church just barely survives as it is. If someone decided to make us pay federal taxes because our Priest has been known to work on and promote Democratic causes, we would be in serious financial trouble and might have to close our doors. Do we really want the federal government to eagerly weild a power that can effectively shut down churches?

Only the absolutely most egregious cases of churches acting as political groups should lose their tax exemption. This is not a line you want to be hazy or moveable based on political whims. The separation of church and state was and always has been a lot more about keeping government control away from churches than about keeping churches away from government.

Churches don’t support specific political candidates due to election and campaigning rules, and their secondary effects. That is why MTV runs “Rock the vote” campaigns, and doesn’t say, “Vote for John Kerry”, which is what they clearly meant. Taxation has nothing to do with it.

Even Political action commitiees shy away from advertizing specific candidates. But that is, again because of campaign rules, not tax rules.

I know Dean said “religious community,� but don’t you think churches would loose their tax exempt status on a case-by-case basis?

Of course this is on a case-by-case basis.

Out of curiosity, if a bishop in the Catholic Church tells his communicants that voting for a pro-abortion politician is a mortal sin that can land you in the pits of hell for eternity � should the Church lose its tax-exempt status?

Hmm. Well, this would certainly be considered unsavory behavior because it’s essentially lying, but I don’t think this is what Dean is talking about. After all, politicians can come to churches and court voters if they please. I don’t see a problem with that behavior.

However, what I’m saying “Amen” too, is that right now some religious leaders are going to GOP “get-out-the-vote” seminars and learning how to mobilize, use talking points to motivate their congregation, etc. That’s a clear conflict, and I feel it’s grounds for losing tax exempt status.

Joshua,
I know Dean said “religious community,” but don’t you think churches would loose their tax exempt status on a case-by-case basis? I would never support pulling that status from ALL churches because many of them probably do not engage in political activities at all, and they should not be punished.

There are other topics that are part of the rhetoric of this polarizing and ever more absolutist ideology. The list includes the burning of the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the reference to God on American currency, the Ten Commandments displayed in public buildings, prayer in schools, and nativity scenes at Christmas time. Americans are never going to agree on all issues. Historically, the hallmark of our society has been the willingness to be inclusive and tolerant and I believe there is a reasonable silent majority that remains so. However, the combatants in this war, primarily extremists on both sides, seek to frame each debate the same. The “left� contends the “right� wants to impose God by creating a theocracy in America. The “right� contends the “left� wants to ban god and religion altogether to establish a secular socialist state. Sadly, there are some one each side who actually have these agendas. The problem is that when we allow absolute ideologues to frame the debate, the voice of reason and moderation is being muffled and ignored.

Little thought seems to be given to the rationale behind the separation of church and state that was dictated by the founding fathers. We can reopen the debate but as long as there are citizens unwilling to acknowledge the lessons inherent in the experiences of our past, we will flail in conflicts that cannot be resolved through manipulation. I would argue that the very type of conflicts identified herein precipitated this countries origin and guided the creation of our constitutional foundation. Religious views and values are legitimate but given the absolute nature of such beliefs, no one government system can assuage all of the belief systems. Further blurring the lines between religion and government cannot succeed. This may mean that the only feasiblee common ground will require both sides to accept the original lines of separation that were used by our forefathers to determine individual freedoms…and likely nothing more or nothing less. For now it would be best if both sides acknowledged this reality.

read more observations here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

It’s not easy being moderate

I thought political groups were tax-exempt also.

But if this is a way to get religion out of politics I am all for it.