Culture, Global, Justice, Politics

Clergy restrictions on political advocacy may be challenged

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., conservative legal-advocacy group is attempting to provoke a new legal challenge to the rule that requires nonprofits to refrain from intervening in political campaigns. To be clear, it is llegal for nonprofits, including churches and synagogues, to endorse or publicly oppose political candidates or to intervene in candidates’ elections, although they are free to take sides on issues.

Alliance fund staff hopes 40 or 50 houses of worship will take part in the action, including clerics from liberal-leaning congregations. About 80 ministers have expressed interest, including one Catholic priest, says Erik Stanley, the Alliance’s senior legal counsel.
“The government should not be telling the church what it should or should not be saying,” says the Rev. Steve Riggle, senior pastor of Grace Community Church in Houston, who hopes to take part in the Alliance effort. Mr. Riggle says he told his congregation from the pulpit, before the Texas primary in March, that he was supporting former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for president. “As a pastor, a private citizen, I can speak for myself. The IRS cannot quench my voice,” he says.
In recent years, attempts by members of Congress to change the law have failed. “Tax exemption is a benefit, and it comes with conditions,” says Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit that has filed more than a dozen complaints in the past year with the IRS, accusing nonprofits of tax-code violations. “So if any pastor out there feels he is gagged or can’t speak on partisan politics…forgo the tax exemption and say what you want.”

Personally, I think this is a crock. The “Alliance” is attempting to get some liberl clergy involved with it’s attempt to overturn this rule, but the rule is there for a good reason; to prevent the kind of nonsense we see in Israel with rabbis giving out amulets to vote for this one, or cursing people who vote for that one, and telling people who they must vote for or be booted. It’s not like if your minister/rabbi/preacher/ priest has an opinion on the candidate it’s likely to be a big secret (although I did once have a conversation with a rabbi who told me that their congregation couldn’t guess who they would vote for. They were proud of it, I thought it a sign that that person never engaged in real advocacy; IMO a problem if you actually believe in the words you read in our texts), which is, IMO okay. I think that clergy should have opinions – and I don’t limit it to those whose opinions agree with mine (although if they don’t they’re wrong, of course)- and act on them, but I don’t want to see the pulpit devolve into an opportunity to socially coerce the votes of their followers . As we all know, there are clergy who may not be perfect out there, and I’m just as happy for them not to abuse the privilege.

4 thoughts on “Clergy restrictions on political advocacy may be challenged

  1. The Alliance Defense Fund, based on the things they’ve done in the past, just seems to be a right-wing Christian law firm that tries to incite lawsuits. The ultimate goal of these lawsuits is at the very best to make homosexuality, abortion and any kind of legitimate sex-ed illegal.
    While I will not comment on their goals per se, enshrining Christianity (or any other religion) in our secular legal system is absurd and the ADF probably ought be dismantled for supporting it.

  2. So… “the government should not be telling the church what it should or should not be saying,” but the church should be allowed to tell the government what to say by directly working for candidates’ political campaigns?
    Upholding the principle of separation of church and state violates the separation of church and state?

  3. Whoa, there’s a big point that’s being missed here. There is no law against a church/synagogue endorsing a candidate. We do have freedom of speech in this country, and that doesn’t end at the pulpit. What is the case is that in order to be recognized as a 401(c)3 – tax empt non-profit (which most synagogues and churches are) they can’t. That’s a simple idea, and needs protecting. Otherwise, it opens the idea very wide to discriminating tax laws based on political preferences.
    Let’s keep it that way. If you want to talk politics from the bima – then start paying taxes.

  4. Let’s keep it that way. If you want to talk politics from the bima – then start paying taxes.
    Are there any religious congregations (perhaps wealthy megachurches) that have explicitly opted to do this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.