Tweet
Since the Stupak Amendment was attached to the House health care bill, a new wave of outcry has arisen about churches, political speech, and their tax-exempt status. In particular, the Catholic church has come under fire for its unabashed opposition to the possibility that the new bill could support the practice of abortion. Lobbying by bishops and publications such as this church bulletin have been condemned by the left as violations of the principle of separation of church and state. Organizations receiving tax breaks, the argument goes, should not be allowed to engage in such partisan ways in such politically charged issues.
But before we go trying to revoke the tax-exempt status of every church that takes a public stand against abortion, perhaps we should take a step back and examine what it is we are really objecting to. Are we against non-profit organizations taking political positions, or just against the ones that take positions we don’t agree with?
As a preacher, I occasionally run into the accusation that "your sermons are too political, and politics has no place in the pulpit." I have finally learned to translate this complaint to, "I don’t agree with your politics, and I wish you would preach sermons that are more in line with my convictions." People really do want to hear political issues engaged from the pulpit. They just want it to come from their side of the aisle.
It seems to be the same way with churches and the public arena. We object to bishops advocating a pro-life agenda in the halls of the Capitol, and to Catholic church newsletters expressing concern over health care legislation; but do we voice the same outrage over the Presbyterian Church USA (my denomination) having a permanent office in Washington that lobbies on the progressive side of everything from pro-choice to workers’ rights to policy in the Middle East?
Are we up in arms when liberal churches advertise the fact that they ordain gay ministers and perform same-sex weddings? Do we care when churches publish newsletters about helping illegal immigrants, organizing workers, or fighting the dangers of globalism? All of these can be hot-button political issues that churces are taking strong stances on. Why is the ire reserved for the churches on the right?
And beyond churches, if we declare open season on political speech by non-profit organizations, what about secular groups such as Planned Parenthood. Will they have to stop distributing material that in any away condones abortion? If you say that the Catholic Church can’t fight for it’s anti-abortion beliefs, its opens a whole Pandora’s Box of attacks on any non-profit that works in any area that touches on a political issue (which would be just about all of them).
In effect, the only way to consistently enforce this line of thinking would be to eliminate the category of non-profit altogether. All organizations must pay taxes just as any for-profit business would. Instead, perhaps it’s better to live and let live, and simply to make sure that non-profits are not working to support particular parties or candidates. Otherwise, it’s a slippery slope that’s impossible to define.
4 Comments
I don’t know if the Bishops lobbied by offering assistance to the politicians or that they would not hinder future campaigns for office…but if there was any mention of their “naming names” from the pulpit or literature they will have crossed the line.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html
This is true for any non-profit.
Of course groups can advocate positions or laws, but they are constrained from using certain methods if they wish to retain their non-profit status. The Catholic Church and Mormon Church have come very close, if not crossed, that line.
Jim, it’s an interesting thang you posit.
Basic human nature is it’s ok if it fits MY belief system, it’s not ok if it don’t fit my belief system.
But maybe, we could narrow down what’s ok and not, using the constitution, the amendments.
So, lobbying AGAINST present abortion law would be bad.
Of course, I’d like ANYone to lobby AGAINST the Hyde Amendment, and so the circle goes.
I think it has to come back to the greater good of the people, it has to be a matter of service to the greater masses of people, it has to all center around taking CARE of the greater amount of the people.
In that regard, the Catholics and Xtian’s and their narrow windows of tolerance are definitely not fulfilling the good of most of the people, only their base.
Frame it like that, and I say, we take away the tax exemptions from churches based on the greater good of the mass of the people.
Course, that might lead to a mob mentality that could empower the rise of despots we’ve seen in the past.
A sad state of state.
Separation of church and state, clean, fully.
NO LOBBY by ANY churches!
And frankly, no lobbying at all!
Close the door to campaign giving, too.
Now that’s reform I pray for!!!!
*G*
(yeah, I know, when Hades cools down significantly)
Sigh. We gotta dream, though.
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject at hand!
Larue – You make some good points, but I’m not sure how practical they are. Who decides what is good for the people and what isn’t? I don’t like the idea of majority rule, since that tends to oppress minorities, but with no objective measure, I don’t see how else it could be determined.
I guess it really must be an all or nothing thing. In a free society, I think it’s better to go with all. Besides, do we really want a nation with no lobbying, where the only voices politicians hear are themselves and the media?
Perhaps the line is between talk and action. Churches have a right to get political in the sermons, but they don’t have a right to actively organize their members?
Of course, it gets tricky, even there.