In Theory: Should nonprofits endorse candidates?
According to a story on Politico.com, in the recent election some pastors across the nation endorsed candidates from the pulpit, ignoring IRS rules barring nonprofits from participating in political campaigns. Although that means they’re using tax exempt money for political purposes, they appear to be getting away with it. Pastors argue that the law infringes on their 1st Amendment right of free speech.
Q: Should a tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization be allowed to endorse political candidates or causes under the 1st Amendment, or should the IRS take action to enforce the law? Where should the line be drawn between leaders making sure members are informed of important issues that relate to their lives and endorsing certain political figures or causes?
The tax issue is the wrong question. The right question is about pastoral ethics. I think that regardless of the law, it’s unethical for a religious leader to tell people who to vote for. It’s an abuse of power and an abuse of the pulpit.
We clergy have both a right and a mandate to speak prophetically on social issues. (“Prophetically” is church-speak which remembers the role of prophets in ages past, which was to be the conscience of both king and people, and because of their unique visionary gifts, to speak for God’s will in the world.) We’re the voice of WWJD (“what would Jesus do?”), and when there are issues specifically addressed by scripture, we have a right to share our understanding of what the Bible says on that point — and then leave people to make their own decisions.
We do not have the right to use the pulpit to spout our own personal agendas and opinions. The furthest we should go is a fair-handed presentation of the issue, including an understanding of both sides.
In the Episcopal Church, we’re fond of quoting Elizabeth I, as she was setting the bounds for the crown’s power in the church: “I will not make windows into men’s souls.” We believe that the voice of God is just as active within each person’s understanding and conscience as it is in the Bible or the church. And that inner working of God is a sacred thing, not to be interfered with by clerical bluster.
So the line to be drawn is between “FYI, here’s what I think the Bible says on this issue” and “In my opinion, here’s how you should vote.” And that difference shouldn’t be a line, it should be a big stone wall, built by a pastor’s own integrity.
Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
I don’t think the government should infringe on my freedom of religion or speech, nor should they have anything to say about what gets conveyed from the Christian pulpit. The Supreme Court has agreed with this, and that’s why the government doesn’t levy taxes against religious institutions; it prevents Free Exercise violation. It wasn’t until President Johnson that churches got muzzled from freely speaking politically, and that was because Johnson wanted to silence opposition. Tax exemption was already a given, and suddenly it could be used to manipulate churches that spoke their mind. Look, if politics goes contrary to Scripture, we’re bound to expound! The Bible (i.e., God) speaks, and whatever is relevant to cultural currents must be expressed.
I receive solicitations annually from the Pulpit Freedom Sunday organization, and I’m more than drawn to it. Its ministerial constituents protest the IRS threat by deliberately preaching politically and naming names (en masse). Personally, I try conveying morals without doing so, and that’s why I haven’t yet jumped on the bandwagon. I usually preach Scripture and then point to current social ills without directly pointing fingers, but why must I? If you had poison in your glass, would you like it specifically named, or would you rather hear about “a poison going ‘round?” Sometimes a preacher should finger a bad egg. Think King George, or …Hitler.
Liberal churches are notorious for inviting left-wing politicos to speak, without repercussions, but when conservatives do it, the IRS seems more aggressive. Political correctness? It’s always been about politics. Look, you have congregations full of good, tax-paying citizens who choose to assemble in their venues of worship, and they don’t want their churches (themselves) taxed again for the places where they develop and practice their faith. Besides, what makes this government “of the people” so entitled to our every nickel anyway?
Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose
--
True believers like these endorsing pastors and their churches should be willing to put their money where their mouths are. They can give up their tax-exempt status. They should be glad to pay taxes for the right to endorse candidates and issues so important to them.
If on the other hand paying taxes isn’t for them, they should play by the rules and the IRS should take away their tax exemption if they don’t.
I am sure that any number of nonpartisan organizations, say the local League of Women Voters, or an informed church member with a conscience, would be glad to explain the line between information and endorsement.
It always puzzles me that all pastors and churches don’t firmly support the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment — can’t they imagine that a religion antithetical to their beliefs could become the official state religion, worst-case scenario, if church and state become unseparated?
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
--
Virtually every political candidate in America runs on a platform that involves moral issues that are directly addressed by Scripture. Specific examples of this include politicians’ stances on same-sex marriage, abortion and the legalization of marijuana. To impose silence about candidates upon pastors is not only a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, it’s a gross intrusion into the process of teaching Scripture in ways that are applicable to their congregation members’ meaningful participation in society. This is assuming, of course, that the “church” in question is actually a legitimate church, and not a 501(c)(3) organization formed as a front for a political campaign. Any legitimate pastor who expresses a Scriptural evaluation of a candidate is simply doing his job. I have found that most politicians’ views on moral issues are usually well-known, and that simply teaching what the Bible says about those topics is sufficient for congregants to make biblically informed decisions without mentioning candidates by name.
Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank
--
It has always been the policy of our Temple to stay out of politics and political endorsements, not due to fear of the IRS but from fear of backing the losing candidate and then having to ask help from his/her opponent. Truly, there must be a distinction between political ideology and matters of life and death. For example, if one candidate is for a strong federal government and one is for states’ rights, the pulpit is not the correct place for endorsing either one. If, however, one candidate’s philosophy could endanger the life of even one person then we should oppose that candidate and what he represents. In our tradition, in order to save a life, we are permitted to violate 610 out of the 613 commandments given to Jews to perform in the Bible. The three we are not permitted to transgress are: taking a life (to save a life), performing sexual perversions or performing religious perversions. Defying the IRS is not one of the three we are not permitted to break to save a life. A corollary to this concept is found in the Declaration of Independence where it states that all men have certain inalienable rights, the first of which is life. As American clergy, it is our job divinely and constitutionally to defend the lives of our parishioners, even in the face of possible punishment.
Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank
--
As long as churches accept tax-exempt status from the federal government, they have an obligation to follow the tax-code regulations that apply to partisan political speech.
As a matter of policy, the LDS church does not endorse candidates or political parties, nor does it permit leaders above the local level to participate as volunteers in candidates’ organizations. This neutrality is emphasized in a letter from church leaders that is read from the pulpit in U.S. congregations before a national election. It is noteworthy that the church refrained from making, or even implying, an endorsement even when one of its members, Mitt Romney, ran for president.
The church does speak out from time to time regarding nonpartisan issues that are seen to have “significant community or moral consequences” or that directly affect the interests of the Church. The issues have included gambling, the legal definition of marriage and abortion. In these cases, however, the church typically approaches the issue from a doctrinal rather than political perspective.
The reasons for the church’s position go beyond respect for the law. As noted on Mormons.org, the church’s primary mission is “to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians.” The church tries to avoid activities that detract from that crucial purpose.
Furthermore, the church respects individuals’ right to participate freely in the political process. With more than 15 million members, more than half of them living outside the U.S., the LDS people represent a diverse range of political opinions. For example, current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, is LDS. So is Sen. Orrin Hatch, a conservative Republican. Quoting again from official statements, “principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties.”
Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta