Pastors and Politics
 

Ok, so I heard this on KLOVE today and I thought i'd get GCers opinions on the topic.

I knowt hat the whole idea of "separation of Church and State" was to keep religion out of politics, but I didn't know it meant the reverse as well (keeping politics out of religion).


Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors

Do you think that Pastors should be able to mention that "I'm going to vote for Obama" or "I'm going to vote for McCain" from their pulpit (of course without going to the extreme like Rev. Wright)?

I wouldn't mind my pastor casually mentioning that he was gonna vote for Obama or McCain, but I WOULD mind if he said "I'm voting for _____ and you should too because...."

It would bother me if my pastor did that. I think it's somewhat of an abuse of power. But then again, I don't like when celebs do it either. Even Oprah, and I agree with her.

Is there really a ban or is it a condition of tax exempt status?

Does that distinction make sense to anyone but me?

A church could always elect to be taxed just like any other entity and make as many endorsement as it chose, right?

Will someone with a really strong understanding of the tax exempt status rules and background weigh in?

I absolutely agree with every bit of this (except for the agreeing with Oprah part). Specifically for the topic at hand, I wouldn't want my Pastor/Religious Leader talking about politics from the pulpit.

According to the article (and what I heard on KLOVE) its a 54 year old ban (done by the Supreme Court) on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship. If a pastor voiced his "endorsement" of a candidate, his church/synagogue/etc would be in violation of their tax-exempt status and thus be investigated by the IRS.

What I wonder is if there is a difference between saying it from the pulpit or saying it in private. Would a pastor still be in violation if it a private conversation between him and another person?

Not making an actual endorsement also seems pretty easy anyway. Any pastor who wants to be political can address social issues in such a way as to make a implicit endorsement without probably breaching the tax exempt status rules, right?

What's up with this move really? Firing up the perception of hostility on the part of the government for religion?

It seems like kind of a dumb move right now with more potential backlash than real support.

With the consequence only being they would lose tax exempt status and maybe pay a tax penalty?

I suspect that private individuals making private statements aren't limited but if the pastor spoke as a pastor of the church, the church would be in danger of losing the exemption.

It's the latter.

If I could make JUST ONE election law, it would be that a candidate's religious beliefs/attendance/denomination/etc. NOT be mentioned.

I don't know that I'd agree with that. I certainly would want to know if someone was a follower of David Koresh or the Reverand Sun Myung Moon.. or a Scientologist.

I don't believe a religious leader should be talking about politics or endorsing certain candidates. This pisses me the f*ck off, and it's mostly Liberal and Democratic "pastors" who do this (just stating the facts).

If I wanted to hear about politics I'd turn on the news, I don't want to hear that from the pulpit. Religious leaders who do this really lose my respect.

It really depends on the type of church you go to and what sort of faith leader you want.

If a pastor wants to endorse a candidate, and his congregation is cool with that, it doesn't bother me a bit. But the church needs to be paying taxes.

This is the same ADF that was part of suing Georgia Tech for, amongst other things, providing student affairs funding to the GLBT group on campus because some of the events they held had too many political overtones. PLEASE.

Throughout history, anytime people in any society think that public policy is or should be dictated by men who talk to God, it's been bad joojoo. What a recipe for disaster this could be.

Then again, this is America, we should be able to freely express our ideas. is there really a huge difference between the devout following some talk show hosts have with regard to public and political opinion and that the relationship which might exist between someone and the guy or gal at the pulpit?

With the choice of religion we have these days, might "blue" folks seek "blue" parishes and vice-versa? Don't we all sort of do that already?

The difference between us and say.. Iran is that we have several thousand churches while they have one which is exceedingly dominant. There's enough diversity, I think to stave off a blending of church and state.

A huge part of my faith is social justice, which means we talk politics. We even have a presence in DC and when bills are going through of interest to us, we know about it. However we do not and will not candidate endorse. If my religion stopped having a focus on social justice I'd leave it. My pastor and other community members have a peaceful protest every Friday night where they meet at Friendship Square and some people do bring signs or get into debates over the war, but he is doing it as an individual, not my pastor (though it is a small town and everyone knows he is the pastor of my church).

Hmmmm . . .my husband is an Anglican priest AND a political columnist. I will say, however, that his byline doesn't mention his religious work. It's just a case of his wearing two different hats - he also doesn't preach about politics. His sermons are based on the scripture reading for the day.
Anglicans have enough internal politics of their own to fuel the post-service discussions - issues, such as abortion, might be a topic, but not specific candidates.

Seriously? Billy Graham, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson ring a bell?

Billy Graham? Really? You do realize that both of the Clintons have praised him and seen him as a spiritual advisor as have both Bush presidents, don't you?

Billy Graham really doesn't belong in that group. One thing I admire about him is his ability to rise above partisanship.

Don't forget the Catholic church whose American leaders announced during the last election that if a Catholic supported someone who was pro-choice that they could not take communion?

No, you're not stating facts. It happens often enough on both sides of the church aisle.

:rolleyes: As others have noted, Billy Graham has always been noted for not getting into politics or endorsing candidates. Nor do I recall Oral Roberts getting political or endorsing candidates -- saying God would take him if people didn't send money, yes; endorsing candidates, no.

As for Bob Jones, are you talking about Senior, Junior or III? Or did you know there have been three of them? Senior was indeed quite political active; Jr. not so much. III did denounce Reagan, write to W that he had been given a divine mandate and endorse Romney.

Oral Roberts University was actually recently near losing its tax exempt status because it was using university funds to support political candidates.

That's getting into something a little more nuanced than endorsing a candidate. The ROMAN Catholic church (which is the one I assume you mean) was simply following through on their church doctrine concerning their sacraments. It's not as though they made up some arbitrary rule just to punish those who supported a pro-abortion candidate.

I am not Roman Catholic, and I disagree with some of their conditions for communion, but the political aspect of enforcing those strictures is not as clear-cut as out and out recommending a candidate, or calling on members to NOT support a candidate.

It raises an interesting question - do y'all have a problem with churches delineating their doctrines during an election season? For example, pro-life parishes, or those who act as "sanctuary" parishes for illegal aliens, those against capital punishment, etc.? (I am reminded of the Unitarian church where my sister was married - they had a poster with their goals for the parish for the year. #1? Legalize marijuana. )

But Oral hadn't been president of ORU since 1993. His son Richard was president when the tax-exemption issues came up, and that was part of what brought about Richard Robert's resignation and brought Oral Roberts ought of retirement to help run the university again.

Saying that ORU or Richard Roberts was endorsing candidates =/= Oral Robers endorsing candidates.

I would have no problem with what your husband is doing. My problem is when the person steps onto the pulpit and says "Vote for XYZ Candidate."

When I was an active church member at my church in Boston, I had several political conversations with the leaders of the church; they were intelligent and thoughtful people and always had something interesting to say. If they had stepped up to the lectern and preached those beliefs to the church members, that's where I would have drawn the line.

I don't think that this stopped anyone who voted for Kerry (including Kerry himself) from taking Communion. I haven't been turned away yet. ;)

I have no problem with this. When I was in law school I went to a very politically active church. I think these are policy aims rather than a direct endorsement.

Totally agree with you. I've been dating a pastor's kid for a long time now and it's absurd to think that priests/pastors/rabbis don't have political views at all. I think most people who have read the Bible have their political views influenced by it so I can only imagine what it would do to someone whose life revolves around the book. My problem is when religious leaders exhort their congregations to vote for someone. If a parishioner asked their priest who they were voting for and the priest answered, that wouldn't even bother me, but I certainly don't want to hear a homily about why I must vote for a candidate.

Billy Graham came out for Vietnam and the Gulf War, to me that is encouraging people to vote for candidates that support those. He also supposedly became friends with Kim Jong Il, and called him a "different kind of communitst." To me- a very political move.

I’ve never heard an endorsement of a candidate in all the years I’ve been going to my church. I wonder if that has more to do with my denomination or the fact that I don’t live in a battleground state.

Huh. Oh well. I guess this means I'm not being saved. :p

As a Baptist, we hear about the abortion issue a lot (doesn't matter to me, but it does to most of my church). I've never heard our pastor endorse a specific candidate or policy though, it's enough that most of my church is going to vote for a pro-life candidate without having to be told to do so.

I agree. Do you think there is a difference between what you said and someone who says "I am going to vote for so-and-so."

Are you really suggesting that no member of the clergy should talk about politics at all? Not just in the pulpit but ever?

And where do you get that he "supported the Gulf War," especially in such a way as to constitute an endorsement of candidates that supported it (especially given that it was over before any presidential election)? The fact that Bush asked him for advice on the "just war" doctrine?

Yes, Billy Graham was very anticommunist, the context in which his comment about Kim Il Sung (not Kim Jong Il) and his support of the Vietnam War have to be understood. Exactly how did that support equal endorsement of a candidate? One can certainly take sides on an issue without implicitly endorsing any candidate who shares the same position. Or are you suggesting that everyone who speaks out against the Iraq War is endorsing Ralph Nader?

The reality is he made it a policy early on not to endorse any candidate or party, and he has never done so.

Billy Graham
 

Not to mention - there were Democrats who supported both Vietnam and the Gulf War (s?). LBJ, anyone? Why, bless my buttons, I believe Hillary herself (among others) voted for the Gulf War, part deux, even though she later changed her mind.

I perhaps agree that Graham did not endorse any candidate/party outright, but I still believe that he strongly encouraged his congregation or tv audience to vote with the candidates that supported his personal issues. That is endorsement enough for me. (However, yes, it was Kim Il Sung.)

However, I think a Pastor has his first amendment right just like anyone else. Billy Graham could warmonger all he wanted.

I only took issue with PANTHERTEKE stating that only liberal or Democratic pastors took political stances, when there are religious icons on both sides of the aisle speaking out.

I have to give you credit, you do bring an interesting perspective to these political discussions...

No; when they're up on the pulpit, speaking to the congregation, I think that a statement like that constitutes an (in my opinion) unacceptable political endorsement. I think it would be a different story if they were talking in a 1-on-1 context with a church member about politics.

I don't think this is accurate.

What was addressed was Catholic elected officials who had supported abortion themselves not receiving it, I'm pretty sure.

And honestly, if you openly support violating church teaching aren't your already outside of the communion of the church? It's not a democracy after all.

Didn't they say should not take communion? And leave it up to the priest whether or not to administer it?

-an EX-Catholic

That's what I thought too, but I'm not Catholic so I decided not to speak up about it in case whoever made that assertion is.

Well, what's interesting about it is that they are also completely anti-war and anti-death penalty but only made the statement about those who voted for a candidate who was pro-choice, so it's selective.

I think politics and religion should be separate. One is moral, one is legal and that distinction is big to me.

No, I don't think they did say anything about those who voted for a candidate. They said something about the politicians who had supported abortion. I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if you can find a quote. I just believe the quotes will be about political figures who themselves passed/supported laws that supported abortion.


Laws are a reflection of what we think it moral though.

I understand that you (and I in a lot of areas) don't think it's the government's job to regulate moral issues it doesn't need to regulate, but it's kind of silly to pretend that they are completely separate. It's a question of what morality is so objectively harmful that it becomes the government's business to act.

The church isn't completely anti-war; there's a just war standard that is pretty much left to the secular power to determine except in extreme circumstances. While you may be onto something about a failure to condemn politicians who supported the death penalty, I think there are two distinctions: there aren't as many Catholic politicians who promote both their Catholicism and their pro-death penalty stance AND while the church opposes the death penalty, I don't think it regards it as being as significant a cultural issue when it comes to devaluing life overall. The straight number of deaths involved aren't comparable.

ETA: I think the point of the officials making that comment was to try to say, you can't continue to openly flout church teaching and expect to receive the sacraments. I suspect that if the church had spoken as directly about the other issues that you named as it has about abortion and people continued to publicly support something other than church teaching in their public lives, you might have seen a more blanket statement.

EATA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042701209.html

It's weird that it's a Novak column, but I couldn't find anything that makes the general, deny communion to voters thing that you were referencing.