The politico-Evangelicals have come up with a novel argument about why they should be able to endorse—or codemn—specific candidates in church. A number of church pastors seem willing to break the law and do just that on Sept. 28, for which they may be prosecuted and risk lose their tax-exempt status.
Those who would limit many of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are astute in turning traditional liberal principles on their heads when the tactic supports their freedom-denying agendas. The Alliance Defence Fund ( ADF ) has announced that it is recruiting pastors willing to participate in its 'Pulpit Initiative' on Sept. 28, when they will intentionally violate the decades-long ban against tax-exempt organizations making political endorsements.
'We are excited about this opportunity that will, God-willing, give us the opportunity to restore now missing aspects of the First Amendment to our nation's spiritual leaders, the ADF Web site explains. ( The ADF's devout attorney sounds exactly like his Muslim counterparts when in piously invoking his desire that God's will coincides with his own: subsitute 'Inshallah' for 'God-willing'; they are the same words. ) He continues: 'It's no surprise that not everyone agrees and we have recently come under attack.
'Many Americans' attitudes and actions toward slavery, child labor, civil rights, and even the American Revolution itself started in the pews of our nation's churches. As pastors preached and taught Biblical principles related to those issues and evaluated the politicians who promoted or decried them, their parishioners could decide their own stance in light of Scripture,' ADF states. Evangelists of earlier days proclaimed freedom from slavery, rights to those oppressed and child welfare for children abused by industry; today it's not freedom but the restrictions of a God-in-my-image state that they're working towards. A kind of Christian Sharia, mind-boggling as it is.
But back to the First Amendment. It sounds simple: the IRS has, for more than 50 years, restricted the First-Amendment right of pastors to free speech in the pulpit, unconstitutionally, the ADF claims, with the threat of lawsuits and, most terrifying of all, the loss of tax-exempt status, for offenders. Now, in the spirit of ( presumably ) non-violent protest, pastors will break the law and invite the Feds to do their worst. The 'test cases' that Sept. 28 will provide will be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court—loaded with more Evangelical Fundamentalists by the time it gets there, if the ADF has its way, once must assume—where it will be decided once and for all that Freedom of Speech applies as much in the pulpit as anywhere else.
Church and faith are inseparable from the political sphere. Whether Evangelicals are more directly involved than more mainstream or liberal congregations, well, if I were a betting man, I think you can figure where I'd put the odds. Roman Catholic bishops have stated that politicians belonging to that church should be denied communion—excommunication is arguably the strongest sanction at the denomination's disposal, in the absence of the Inquisition—for support of a woman's right to choose abortion or for supporting equal rights for LGBT citizens. Sen. John Kerry was the target of excommunacation threats from Catholic bishops in 2004, and even those who voted for politicians supporting abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanisa or gay marriage were to be denied communion in the Colorado Springs diocese, the state's second largest. ( How the bishops would find out who you voted for is another issue. )
Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joseph Biden, a Roman Catholic, has already run afoul of Cardinal Joseph Rigali of Philadelphia for affirming his 'belief' as a Catholic that life begins at conception, but stating he believes it wrong to impose that belief on others in a pluralistic society. Joined by Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., the bishops were quoted on 'Meet the Press' as saying 'the church does not teach this as matter of faith [ i.e., 'belief' ] ; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact … Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.' Can ex-communication be far behind?
Ironically, or calculatedly, under the Bush Administration, the IRS prosecuted a nationally-known liberal parish, All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, for violating the principle that ADF is all geared up to challenge, based on a sermon preached by its emeritus rector on Oct. 31, 2004—just days before the election—entitled, 'If Jesus Debated Senator Kerry and President Bush.' The sermon laid out a lot of reasons the Jesus might disagree with Bush, though the preacher stated several times that he was not endorsing any candidate or telling anyone how they should vote.
The liberal church posted the sermon on its Web site in a PDF, as it does most, if not all, of its sermons over the years —shades of John Donne or Jonathan Edward; some of the liberals are still pretty staid and traditional when it comes to thoughtfully preparing what they say on Sunday morning and actually writing it on paper—and a year later the IRS wrote the church threatening to withdraw its tax-exempt status.
Last year, the IRS closed its investigation without changing the church's tax exemption while at the same time saying the sermon constituted an illegal intervention in the election process. The church has requested that the IRS clarify its findings and has begun Freedom of Information Act inquiries into whether the Justice Department inappropriately directed the IRS in the investigation. The church has also demanded an apology. The bottom line: the IRS investigation and its subesquent withdrawal did nothing to clarify what may be said in church on political topics. The irony: a liberal mainstream church was singled out, while we can be confident that countless right-wing churches were at least as explicit on politics as All Saints Church Pasadena.
Those who believe that their version of scripture or their church's heirarchy has a monopoly on what is an 'objective fact' are spared the burden of decision-making the rest of us who use our reason—whether or not combined with faith or scripture or just what our parents taught us about ethics—must suffer. And, given its record over the centuries of getting 'objective facts' right, there's not much hope for the present.
Many of us are able to see our vote as more complex that one single issue but, alas, for LGBT citizens that one issue involves our very being and our right to be treated equally and must trump other concerns.
If the religious right wants to overtly tell the sheep how to vote, they should pay taxes like any other partisan group. The Sept. 28 action by the pastors will already make Amercan democracy much more closely resemble the Iranian version.
