This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

This seems to in response to allegations that the Bush/Cheney campaign are potentially causing churches to loose their tax-exampt status.

http://wwww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19082-2004Jun30.html

Could they not be trying to protect them?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, seeking to mobilize religious conservatives for his reelection campaign, has asked church-going volunteers to turn over church membership directories, campaign officials said on Thursday.

In a move civil liberties activists decried as a potential violation of the U.S. constitution, the Bush-Cheney campaign has issued a guide listing about two-dozen "duties" and a series of deadlines for organizing support among conservative church congregations.

A copy of the guide obtained by Reuters directs religious volunteers to send church directories to state campaign committees, identify new churches that can be organized by the Bush campaign and talk to clergy about holding voter registration drives.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID;=5570217

I couldn't get to the Washington Post article that Justin linked to, so forgive me if this is the same story!

The WP story just elaborates on the Reuters story.

jt

As I understand the stories, this seems a far cry from what the Johnson County Mainstream Coalition is attempting to do.

While I find the intentional use of membership directories for political mailing lists somewhat (heck, very) troubling, it seems pretty clear that Bush/Cheney are trying to organize and mobilize voters. I wonder in what ways this is different from what Democrats do among the churches of their black constituents.

There's not a whiff of Bush/Cheney using coercive means to ensure certain churches do not speak on certain topics or pass some sort of speech code.

Many churches invite both sides of the aisle to come and speak. I would bet that one would chooses not to speak at a church that would not fit the demographic of your core constintuancy.

On another side...while I agree that the "undercover" stuff is shady, but the Mainstream coalition is a non-partisian, non-sectarian monitor of church/state issues. So, maybe they should look at how they go about being a watchdog, but I think they should continue.

Justin:

I don't think there should be any watchdogs for any group, period, but especially when it comes to free speech and free exercise of religion issues.

If Jesse Jackson wants to go to some church and preach his Christian beliefs and apply them to the political arena--then I say Go for it! But by God let Dobson (what's his first name?) also exercise his first amendment rights as well.

Screw separation of Church and state (at least as it is now meant). Heck, I'd even go for an established national church--even if it weren't Orthodox. At least then I could bring out my Whore of Babylon sermons!

James Dobson

I agree...let 'em both, but the church itself can not endorse one view or the other.

We just have to agree to disagree on the church/state issue. I think because of it that is why the USA is the most religious country on Earth.

But then again I am a die-hard cradle baptist ;-)

There was a letter to the editor in today's Suntimes from one of the big wigs at Americans United for Separation of Church and State stating that one of their first "issues" was 1988 when Jesse Jackson was doing the same type thing that Bush/Cheney are doing.

I would post a link to the Suntimes website, but they do not have letters to the editor on the web page.

Yes they do. Here is the letter:

Keep partisan politics out of the churches

July 7, 2004

Robert D. Novak's June 28 column ["Civil war looms for Republicans''] contains allegations against Americans United for Separation of Church and State that are inaccurate.

Novak asserts that partisan political activity by liberal churches "never incurs" the wrath of Americans United. Had Novak called us first, he would have learned that our efforts in this area are quite even-handed. Since 1996, we have asked the IRS to investigate 48 houses of worship and religious nonprofits for intervention in political campaigns. Twenty-four endorsed Republicans, and 19 endorsed Democrats. (The other five endorsed third-party candidates or intervened in nonpartisan races.)

The incident that sparked Americans United's involvement in this issue occurred in 1988 when we protested Jesse Jackson's "Super Sunday" plan to ask black churches to collect money for his presidential campaign.

Novak also misleads his readers by stating that tax law muzzles pastors "who talk politics in their churches." In fact, the prohibition properly extends only to endorsement of or opposition to specific candidates. Pastors are free to discuss political issues, and many do so. I should also note that the ban on partisan endorsements covers every nonprofit that holds a 501(c) (3) tax exemption. It's not a special restraint on churches.

Novak and U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones want to change tax law to allow houses of worship to jump head-first into partisan politics. Every poll I have seen on this question shows that the American people disagree by a wide margin. Perhaps the people know something Novak and Jones do not: that politicized pulpits are a recipe for divided congregations and would be a disaster for both religion and democracy in America.

Barry W. Lynn,
executive director,
Americans United for Separation of Church and State

I'll be taking on the notion that law is separate from religion in a forthcoming post tentatively entitled "Law always, necessarily inescapably legislates morality" which also necessarily entails religious input. Thus one cannot separate out church from state.

I am white, but I’ve been in a few Black churches (my wife is African American, and we were married in a Black church). There is definitely a double standard when it comes to enforcing rules regarding the involvement of the Church in politics; Black churches are unabashedly political. Perhaps white churches are, too, but they are forced to be much less vocal and covert about it. I don’t know if this situation is harmful or not, and I have to ask myself if my sense of entitlement and the privilege of being part of the dominant culture affect my negative attitude toward it.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that in following the restrictions on open endorsement of candidates, white churches tend more to teach political principles based on their spirituality, while Black churches seem to blindly endorse Democratic candidates based on past support of civil rights or liberal social agendas. I’m still somewhat baffled by the political differences between Black and white Christians, and I can’t quite put my finger on exactly what the Democratic Party has done to tangibly improve life for Black Americans that the Republicans haven’t. Perhaps the roots of the ideological differences are cultural (especially the priority of communalism over individualism), or perhaps I’m blinded by privilege.

I agree that Church and State cannot be separated in reality, but perhaps there is something valuable to be gained in this restrictive exercise, even if it isn’t uniformly enforced.

We should expect that the enemies of biblical values would use the very laws that churches have volunteered to obey against those churches. There's no surprise in that.

If churches expect to have freedom of speech, they shouldn't surrender their constitutional rights by becoming a "creature of the state," which is precisely what most churches in America have become in the fast fifty years.

President James Madison, in 1811, vetoed a bill to incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Church. In his veto message he stated the reason for his veto was that incorporating a church violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Madison understood that all corporations are "creatures of the State." In other words, it's impossible for a church to incorporate and not be subordinate and beholden to its "creator." However, in our day the majority of churches have incorporated.

IRS 501c3 recognition is no less a subordination of the church to the government. This isn't the fault of the IRS, but those naive pastors who think that seeking this government privilege won't compromise their churches.

No church needs 501c3 status because the IRS has no jurisdiction to tax a church anyway. The IRS admits as much when they state in their publications that "churches are automatically tax exempt" without ever having to apply. The same is the case for tax-deductible status.

Churches who don't want to have to comply with 501c3 regs need to dump their 501c3 and quit being "tax exempt nonprofit religious organizations" and return to being churches. One site that gives particulars on how to do it is at http://hushmoney.org