|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2012 01:25 Post subject: Politics and religion in America: Partisan pastors |
|
 |
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/politics-and-religion
| Quote: | IN RESPONSE to my post last week calling out Marco Rubio for equivocating on the age of the Earth, many of you noted that Barack Obama gave a similarly elusive answer when asked about the origin of the universe in 2008. So politicians will be politicians, the calmer amongst you argued, and we should give Mr Rubio a break for trying not to offend anyone.
In this case, I agree with the more vitriolic commenters who accused me of journalistic malfeasance. I was not aware of Mr Obama's comment, but he deserves the same treatment as Mr Rubio. When it is generally held that 1+1=2, our leaders should not feel comfortable saying it could also equal 3, even if it spares the feelings of an irrational group of Threeists. They need not ridicule such thinking, as Richard Dawkins might like, but they must not accede to its propagation. If there is a "legitimate debate" between "those who read the Bible literally and those who don't", as Mr Obama claims, then we need to redefine the word legitimate.
For Mr Obama, the pandering has done him little good. Those who tend to take the Bible literally have voted for his opponents in the last two elections. (Born-again and evangelical Christians went 70%-29% for Mitt Romney. And while biblical literalism and born-again/evangelical status are not identical, it is likely that literalists went for Mr Romney in numbers that were equally large, if not larger.) In some cases, they did so at the public behest of their pastors. Which brings me, in an admittedly roundabout way, to the main point of this post: America's churches have become increasingly political in very public ways.
Churches have tax-exempt status so long as they abide by certain restrictions on their political activity (laid out here), like not endorsing candidates. But this year at least 1,500 church leaders flouted those rules. In an effort called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom (who can argue with a name like that?), pastors were urged to preach the "biblical Truth about candidates and elections". As the San Francisco Chronicle notes, "Pastors across the country have posted videos on the Internet of their direct or thinly veiled political endorsements and sent letters to the Internal Revenue Service, daring the agency to revoke their tax-exempt status for political speech."
The IRS, for its part, doesn't seem to care. After a period in the 2000s when warnings were meted out to churches endorsing candidates, the agency abruptly stopped its enforcement in 2009. This was the result of a quirky court decision. Under procedures drawn up by Congress in 1984, an IRS regional supervisor (or higher) has to sign off on any audit of a church. But in 1998, when Congress reorganised the IRS, regional supervisors were done away with. So when a church in Minnesota faced an audit in 2009, it argued that the original procedures weren't followed—that the official overseeing the audit wasn't senior enough—and a federal district court agreed. Since then, pastors have been left to preach politics as they please.
Ironically, there are pastors who would like to see the issue go before the courts, but they can't force the matter due to the IRS's inaction. They wonder how a pastor is to preach about morality without assessing the people who translate it into policy. Others, though, wonder why churches that act in overtly political ways are not taxed like other political organisations. It's more than a matter of principle. Reuters says, "Combined, federal tax breaks on donations to churches and exemptions from state and local property taxes likely add up to something on the order of $25 billion in lost revenue each year." Another estimate puts the loss at $71 billion.
Like charities, churches are seen to provide a public good, but their tax-exempt status has also been justified as a way to maintain the separation between church and state. A noble goal, but churches have increasingly involved themselves in state affairs and the state in church affairs. It therefore seems unjustified that the one place where the wall remains impenetrable is the tax code.
One solution, sometimes put forward by those opposed to Scientology's tax-exempt status, would bestow tax breaks on activities, rather than organisations (which would turn religious groups into something closer to 501(c)(4) organisations). But which activities could be said to justify a tax break by fostering a community's moral or mental improvement? Does mass count? What if it features a meaty political sermon? According to Pew, two-thirds of those who might be improved don't want houses of worship endorsing candidates.
It's a tricky issue, but religious conservatives may eventually need to take solace in the faith of their market conservative brethren. If Americans so ardently desire churches, they should be able to survive and thrive without the tax break. If they cannot, they will have indicated a dependence on government largesse—as a dollar in tax break is equal to a dollar in subsidy—and undercut their own divine status, as James Madison once argued. The pious, meanwhile, should agree that giving to a church is the right thing to do, subsidy from the satanic government or no. Render unto Caesar, and all that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Invasor
Moderator
Posts: 7638
Location: On the road
|
| Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2012 02:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Born-again and evangelical Christians already have a strong and rapidly growing lobby in the brazilian congress, while conservative Catholics (who do take their religion into account while deciding matters of public interest, incl. abortion, gay rights, etc.) are the majority. In every election, the main candidates visit churches to gather votes... So much for church and state separation...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2012 15:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Separation of state and church is actually often misunderstood. This is not, what it means.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
| Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2012 15:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| Radicalus wrote: | | Separation of state and church is actually often misunderstood. This is not, what it means. |
What do you mean? A separation should work both ways. The state stays out of religion and in turn religion stays out of the state.
The US government already violated it though. Since they grant tax exemption to religious organizations, they are basically in the business of deciding what constitutes as religion and what isn't. If that doesn't violate the establishment clause, nothing does.
But that aside, if the churches want to take part in the political process, they better pay their due. Preach all the hell they want from their imaginary high-horse, endorse whichever candidate they like, there is nothing wrong with that. But in return, they better damn well pay the entry fee as well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
