Jesus Politics links to the below article, which is typical, and expected. A Church speaking up for the concerns of people, especially the ones being shut out of this thing the Bush administration keeps calling a good economy and a “compassionate conservatism”. These groups are under fire and targeted by the IRS (directed by whom , I wonder?), but the Republican party can ask for the membership roles of Churches for purposes of garnmering political support. Great. See the article below.
T R O Q U A ? Blog Archive ? pew. something stinks
So, let me get this straight. Black churches that advocate openly for Democrats are subject to IRS scrutiny, but Ohio churches that advocate openly for Republicans are not. Got it
This is something that must be resisted. Personally, to say that Churches with “an agenda” are “political” and not “religious” and therefore not eleigible for exempt status is CLUELESS. They have a warped view of what Church is. Politics and Life, and therefore politics and Church are NOT separable. Politics involve the publich and civic cooperation in the endeavor to support a just society. Bush’s own “faith-based” principle styands or falls on this principle. If Churches cannot be involved in having a voice in the public sqaure, then their legitmacy as worthy recipients of federal funding for ministries they provide is also rendered illegal.
i think churches on both sides of the political spectrum have been investigated for violating the irs”™ requirements. these requirements are the same for all 503(c) organizations, churches or otherwise.
i wonder how many churches would voluntarily give up their tax-exempt status if it meant they would have total freedom to preach the whole gospel? right now, most churches have decided they can live with the requirements (mostly just no advocacy of specific candidates).
i imagine if the republicanish churches feel more pressure to conform on topics of abortion or immoral sexual behaviors, they might consider paying taxes. leftist churches would feel the same compulsion if they are criticized over their anti-war stance and probably a few other key issues.
Thing is, I don’t recall reading anything on any of that happening against Republican supporting/politicking; and my point here was, the Bush administration campaign itself asked for Church membership roles. Should they not be held to account for breaking the law? Isn’t the idea of “no endorsement, no politicking” (which I believe, as I said, a bit CLUELESS in believing that the two can be separated.
I wouldn’t doubt that the whole purpose of the tax exempt was, in the first place, to have a “leverage” against those who dare to speak up in defiance. Of course, this would not be articulated as such. It would be cast in terms like “separation of Church and State”. David Dark, in the Gospel According to America that I’m now reading, points out this “artificial” attempt to “separate” politics from all else. It can’t be done.
This is why something of “political significance” can also be “theologically determined” rather than simply being an issue of “political partisanship”. But since this is not the theological conclusion that is arrived at by the religious right, then the opposing view is “partisan”. Of course, conservative viewpoints CAN be arrived at “theologically”, but who is to say how that “theological” view was determined in the first place? Perhaps it was , itself, an assimilation of a worldview passed on to them in Church tradition, which has gradually adopted an ideology that is accomodating to the propaganda of the political establishment, and it is assimilated into the theology of a Church tradition that wishes to increase its status in society, and become more “respectable”. And the same can certainly be true of “liberal” and/or “democratic” or “libertarian” positions.
The thing is, there IS such a thing as “theological” positions, that are apriori, and independent of political party. It’s a matter of what we consider to be , at this point, the lesser of two evils in terms of a party’s open-ness to change. Howard Zinn’s writings are quite untrusting of either major party on that score, and maintains that despite their “opposite rhetoric”, their actual implementation of their promises are sorely lacking (Clinton’s move to the right; something almost apparently unnoticed by his opponents, since they needed to maintain the appearance of having an enemy, so Clinton became all about personal morality.
just the one example i remember is falwell.
Americans United for Seperation of Church and State
The Campaign Legal Center
somehow the first link got bungled. it should be:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Thanks Chris,
That was an entertaining article for me, becuase it gave me a warm feeling to imagine Falwell squirming.
What you were responding to by posting that link, however, was a 1993 incident, before Bush was in power. Anything since 2000, and more relevant, since the election season when the Bush administration was asking Churches for their member roles (even Richard Land got a little miffed at that)
Anyway, I was still glad to read that article, even if it was 1993.
Dale
I think there is more recent action against Falwell too. This letter from Americans United is reporting activity that occurred on July 1, 2004.
Also interesting is their outline of the IRS rules.
It’s quite a large site, and a bit hard to find stuff, but I’m pretty sure they’re gunning for the big targets on both sides of the aisle.