CNN recently interviewed Jim Wallis and Erik Stanley about the Alliance Defense Fund’s attempt to let pastors make political endorsements from the pulpit. Watch the video below, or click here to see it on YouTube.
What’s wrong here is painfully obvious. In his typical fervor to infuse politics with non-partisan religious activism on social issues like poverty, Jim Wallis forgets to mention the black-and-white issue that puts this needless debate to rest: it’s your tax-exempt status, stupid.
Nobody’s saying that American citizens and normal, tax-paying businesses can’t make political endorsements. The whole point is that churches are typically non-profit organizations that are voluntarily limited by the same laws that apply to other organizations that get those tax breaks: they can’t be politically partisan. CNN mentioned this question at the beginning of the interview, but then no one addressed it at all until they read a random message board comment at the end–which ended up speaking more clearly about what’s really going on than Wallis and Stanley combined.
Besides awkwardly waltzing around the real issue, here’s what really bothered me about this video: Erik Stanley predictably set up the debate as a religious persecution issue, and no one called him out on it. Instead of acknowledging that pastors/churches are voluntarily surrendering their freedom of speech in this one area in order to attain tax-exempt status, he pretends like pastors are being persecuted by a government that is hell-bent on suppressing the free exercise of religion and crossing the “boundary between church and state” that he’s now so willing to talk about in a positive light (surprise!). I can’t imagine a set of circumstances that would make his plea appear more disingenuous: if you want separation of church and state, give up your special federal status, pay your taxes like everyone else, and watch this issue magically disappear.
About: I've considered myself a secular humanist since March of 2008, a date preceded on my part by moderate Christian strivings in a fundamentalist environment. I majored in English at a conservative Christian college, and one of my main interests at the time was theology. I enjoy good food, good beer, good conversation, and the skeptical community in Pittsburgh. Read more from this author
on Sep 14th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I’m torn over this issue. In a perfect world Churches wouldn’t be tax exempt and this would be moot. I don’t want pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit, but I know they’re going to do it anyway (and face no government penalties for it). And, I would like other non-profit organizations to be able to endorse candidates because they’re opinions do matter to me.
I don’t think individual pastors endorsements matter in national elections, but they could make or break local elections. The idea of a mega-church pastor endorsing a pro-ID school board candidate is scary because it would most certainly work.
on Sep 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has actually been covering this issue with astounding (if not eloquent) clarity. Read up: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08271/915490-192.stm