Tightening the Bible Belt

For religious institutions, maintaining their tax exempt status requires them to remain politically neutral. The law emanated during the Lyndon Johnson administration in the 1960s. But it’s the Bible Belt, and if the U.S. Supreme Court’s pattern of opening the floodgates to anyone wanting to express themselves with open advocacy, as long as they are not directed by the candidates themselves, is the bell cow for such issues, churches are quite likely to see increased legal freedom to express strong political views from the pulpit.

Indeed, if a union or a corporation can be a “person” within the meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, why can’t that include a church? “Free speech” is the call, but is there more than “speech” involved? If “free speech” and “religious freedom” require the right to endorse candidates, okay, but why exactly should taxpayers subsidize these activities?

There’s an uncomfortable feeling when a minister, priest, etc. condemns his/her congregation to perpetual hellfire if they vote one way or the other on any issue or for any particular candidate. Many of the self-proclaimed ministers of smaller churches around the United States are neither particularly well-educated nor particularly prepared to analyze complex issues that our nation must address. That does not, however, prevent their using their position to “force” their congregations with more than simple expressions of opinion; threats and religious mandates are common.

There’s something that sends extra shivers down my spine when the expression from the pulpit carries with it more than the mere expression of an opinion, rather a clear definition to the congregation of what is right and what is wrong. Should we allow police officers to let traffic offenders drive off without a ticket if they express compatible political views? Where exactly is there a line to be drawn? Should the price for such activities be a rather simple loss of tax exempt status?

The IRS appears to recognize that pursuing these religious/political proselytizers and their tax exempt status is a lose-lose, one that will inevitably wind up in court, and result in Congressional subpoenas and featured stories on Fox News. “The IRS has taken virtually no action against the pastors, whose churches risk losing their tax-exempt status over their election messages… Clergy are free to talk about hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage in front of their congregations, but current law bars tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing individuals who run for office.” Washington Post, November 4^th. The IRS seems to be saying that they don’t believe that they can sustain this Johnson-era legislation under contemporary judicial rulings. In fact, some from the religious right are begging for that court challenge.

“[C]hurch leaders who oppose [the law] have made no secret of their actions on the pulpit, even sending tapes of their political sermons to the IRS… The defiance movement, known as Pulpit Freedom Sunday, has grown from a few dozen ministers to more than 1,600 over the past six years, according to the alliance.

“Church leaders involved in the effort have weighed in on key races that could tip the balance of power in the Senate during this year’s midterms, openly endorsing candidates such Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) and Thom Tillis (R) over Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.).

“But the clergy don’t just support Republicans… Jim Garlow, senior pastor at Skyline Church in San Diego, has backed Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) over GOP candidate Carl DeMaio, who is gay. Garlow said the Republican challenger would advance a ‘radical homosexual agenda’ if elected, according to Politico.” The Post. We are in a world where institutions are the big influencers, whether with raw and unbridled cash or the threat of losing God’s favor (or perhaps incurring His wrath). It no longer seems that the United States is a nation of the people or government by the people.

I’m Peter Dekom, and individual voters are increasingly losing their voice in the overall American political system.