Politics from the Pulpit--legal or illegal?
Submitted by Samantha H.
[Related news--Ed.]
The Archbishop of LA calls on Catholic voters to vote with their religious beliefs in fairly specific terms (Full statement here). For example:
When Catholics go to the voting booth, he said, there are non-negotiable aspects of Catholic social teaching that they should recall. Abortion and euthanasia, and families based on a marriage between a man and a woman are among those non-negotiables. These issues cannot be disagreed about among Catholics who have formed their consciences with the Church, he said.
But many issues are debatable among Catholics who have well-formed consciences. Archbishop Gomez pointed to issues such as taxes, government spending, how to deal with immigration and helping the poor as examples of topics that are matters of prudential judgment.
In these areas “sincere and faithful Catholics are always going to have legitimate differences of opinion over how best to apply the Church’s moral principles,” he wrote.
In light of this year's campaign rhetoric (Romney wages 'war on women' & the Dem. Convention was a 'Carnival of Abortion'), is Archbishop Gomez's statement in effect a "religious endorsement of a candidate or party?
I do not fully understand the tax laws prohibiting politics from being preached behind the pulpit, but it seems that there has to be some leniency with this law because many of the social issues that are voted on either align with or oppose major moral values of the church. Therefore, it seems that it would certainly be constitutional to make a statement such as the Archbishop of LA's, where he does not endorse a specific candidate explicitly but instead reminds people of the moral principles of the catholic faith. When something is of such importance to a group of people, it doesn't seem to even remotely resemble religious freedom to tell people what they can and cannot say, unless, of course, they have voting registration and "RR 2012" (or the alternative) in the lobby of their church.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Archbishop Gomez's statement is an endorsement of a particular candidate, but instead simply an endorsement of morals and values that must remembered when voting. People vote on a candidate that they can most relate to, and one that has close to the same values as they do. I think that all religious organizations have the right to teach their followers morals and to remind them of the teachings of the church, even if doing so reflects on a specific candidate. They should not be attacked for disobeying the tax laws unless they specifically say "vote for Obama" or something like that. The church has every right to teach their followers morals and values that the congregation might be able to relate to a specific candidate, though.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the IRS and AU are correct in asking the churches to stop “preaching politics in the pulpit”. Honestly, if churches wish to be exempt from taxes they should not endorse political candidates at all, after all if this allowed there would be no fairness in the government system if say all the Catholic priests (the largest private organization) told Americans to vote for a certain candidate. Granted I do not know nor understand exactly how a group or organization can become exempt from taxes but if these churches are violating these tax laws they should be servilely punished. As far as the Archbishop of LA’s statement, I think that this should be allowed because he is not directly telling his congregation to vote for a particular candidate, he is just reminding people of their religious beliefs’ as the election gets closer.
ReplyDeleteI think places of worship should have the freedom to endorse whatever candidate they wish, as long as they understand they will no longer be tax exempt once they have engaged in “politics from the pulpit”. The social bonds and shared moral values of individual churches already heavily influence people’s votes, so I don’t see why some religious leaders have included political rhetoric in their speech. Since people’s votes are already influenced by their place of worship, it seems reasonable to ask that a tax exempt organization does not explicitly involve itself in the political realm. If places of worship were able to be actively involved in politics it would blur the lines between church and state and turn many heated political debates into even more serious religious debates, thus connecting church and state even more. It would also create an opening for political machines to form along religious lines, which could result in an extremely divisive political environment.
ReplyDeletePlaces of worship and non profit organizations are definitely entitled to an opinion on the elections and who they like. However, I do not think they should be allowed to endorse their campaigns large monetary quantities. Also, they should probably not be too outspoken about it or tell their congregations or followers who to vote for. That could turn people away from them. It could hurt the political campaign if one of the organizations is not publicly liked. I think all around places of worship, especially, are not a place for political campaigns and should not be involved. Non profit organizations are not campaign headquarters either and should not be involved either.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be laughable in complete honesty. That would mainly be because of my in-depth knowledge of the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund), and what their organization is all about. In reality, this is a group of lawyers who have dedicated their entire careers to defending religious liberties, I think they probably have a solid idea of what is legal and what is not. This article seems to be written by a bitter person who doesn't like the impact religious people have on politics. In my personal opinion, I believe churches should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want. Are we saying that because they have some tax exemptions that suddenly they are no longer entitled to the First Amendment freedom of speech? Let the churches themselves deal with the implications of campaigning for particular candidates, it is very probable that they will lose members of their church who donate large amounts of tithes and offerings because of their political disagreements, and that is fine, let that be their choice. The Arch Bishop's comments do not particularly endorse a particular candidate, he could even be speaking of Ron Paul. I think it more so encourages people not to vote for someone than it does to vote for someone, and in my personal opinion, that is his free right to speech.
ReplyDeleteI think places of worship should be solely for worship. It should not be “places of politics”. Churches across America violate their tax exemption status by swaying members one way or another by their teachings and “hidden” endorsements already portrayed in messages. Allowing churches to express their endorsement is a step too far. As someone stated before, people that attend churches are already influenced by the teachings and customs of that religion. Whenever you bring the topic of endorsement into play, I think it is very dangerous for religions and politics. Churches are for worship thus rallying around political ideology clearly discredits the religions values and traditions. The article implies that churches would become almost like “political hubs” for political parties. This is something that religions should respect in regards to their own validity and worth. Why would a religion or church in this case want to be guided by a political party? In a way, it that not discrediting the church’s values? I also think that churches that do violate this endorsement provision should lose their tax exemption status. Religion should not guide our country and politics should not guide our religion.
ReplyDelete