Metro Views: Politics and religion

Religious institutions must choose between campaigns and qualifying for tax-deductible donations.

By MARILYN HENRY
marilyn henry 88 (photo credit: )
marilyn henry 88
(photo credit: )
Americans cherish their freedoms. I do not say this lightly or in jest. The Constitution's First Amendment - enshrining the freedom of speech, of the press, of religion and to peacefully assemble - is nearly sacred in its significance. In this dramatic electoral season, there is angst in some circles that those who lead us in our religious freedom - the clergy - must limit their freedom of speech on the pulpit. Despite the fact that political candidates talk about God and religion, if the clergy appear to be politically partisan or openly endorse a candidate, they could jeopardize their institution's tax-exempt status. These limits do not target only synagogues, churches and mosques. The tax rules, which have been on the books for more than 50 years, apply to all American religious and charitable agencies (which is why American Jewish organizations often seem overly cautious in the political arena). Steering clear of partisan advocacy ensures that agencies and institutions retain the favorable tax status that is their financial lifeline. American Jewish organizations are wealthy relative to their European counterparts not because American Jews are richer than Europeans, but because American tax incentives promote donations to charity. The gist of the issue is that religious institutions and their leaders have a choice: participate in political campaigns or qualify for tax-deductible donations. It's politics vs. the pocketbooks. The gauntlet was to be thrown down on "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," which was organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian advocacy group. The idea was that pastors would preach specifically political sermons to goad the US Internal Revenue Service to enforce the law, which could cost the churches their favorable tax status. Then, according to the plan, the defense fund, which is based in Phoenix, would file lawsuits to challenge the IRS sanctions. The defense fund has said that the US, through the tax law, is stifling free speech and intimidating the church. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society," said defense fund attorney Erik Stanley. "It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society." Opponents, primarily from an organization called Americans United for Separation of Church and State, say: "Churches are charitable institutions that exist to do charitable things. That does not include politics." AT TIMES, this debate seems hypocritical, especially when the most interesting and informative interviews with the current presidential contenders, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, were conducted in August by Rick Warren, an evangelical Christian minister of the Saddleback Church, a "megachurch" in California. While there is a difference between interviewing a candidate and advocating for one, the fact was that the minister-as-moderator was seen as legitimate. Once candidates are invited inside religious institutions to express views, isn't it natural to expect a response from the moderator, or probing questions that may strike some as partisan? In the meantime, a new grassroots group called "Rabbis for Obama" was formed by more than 300 rabbis - acting as private citizens who happen to be rabbis, according to a report in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. They couch their involvement in religious terms: the need to counter what they call lashon hara, attacks on Obama using innuendo, rumors and guilt by association. But they also go farther, saying in an open letter, "We join together to support Senator Obama for president, and we do so in the belief that he will best support the issues important to us in the Jewish community." (Presumably if any of the rabbis make these pronouncements from their pulpits, the defense fund would come to their aid, although it is unlikely the fund's backers would vote for Obama.) Americans are divided in their sentiment about the role of religious institutions in politics. A slim majority - including about 50 percent of those who identify themselves as conservatives - think houses of worship should be a "no politics zone," according to a national survey published in August by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. However, four in 10 Americans believe that religious leaders should be permitted to endorse candidates from the pulpit without risking their organization's tax-exempt status, according to a survey by the First Amendment Center. THE IRS hasn't revoked a church's tax-exempt status since 1995. The case originated with ads placed in two newspapers only days before the 1992 presidential election, in which an upstate New York church warned Christians to "beware" of Bill Clinton for his stands on abortion and homosexuality. More recently, a liberal church in Pasadena, California, was investigated by the IRS after a minister gave an antiwar sermon that concerned what Jesus would have said about war to George W. Bush and John Kerry. These days, the only things that seem to be clear are that it is unclear where the IRS boundary is in practice,and whether Americans want politics from the pulpit. Free speech is not stifled; it's all about location - where something is said and by whom. Those seeking moral guidance on political candidates may get it from their spiritual leaders, just not from pulpits and not in the name of tax-exempt houses of worship. At the same time, though, determined clergy can find ways to indicate political preferences. For instance, they can remind parishioners about a denomination's view on divisive issues, such as abortion. When candidates hold sharply different positions on some issues, a religious leader's comments on morality or a doctrinal statement may sound strikingly like political advocacy. As ministers, imams and rabbis decide how far to push the IRS this election season, it is worth recalling that in the US, there is a strict separation of church and state. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and also bars the government from establishing religion. Nonetheless, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the American law that created the "National Day of Prayer," which - in a good year - does not have Christian overtones.