preaching the word of mccain
by Cameron Contois
Published: October 3, 2008
On Sunday, September 28, 2008, the congregation of Bethlehem’s First Baptist Church heard a sermon given by Pastor Jody Hice in which Hice endorsed John McCain for president of the United States. The church, located just outside of Atlanta, Georgia, participated in an effort organized by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Taking part in the ADF’s “Pulpit Initiative,” an estimated 30 pastors in 22 states endorsed John McCain during their church sermon. The ADF claims these pastors are exercising their constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The truth is, when Pastor Jody Hice and those other pastors endorsed a candidate from the pulpit, they broke federal tax law.
The ADF wants to repeal the Internal Revenue Service’s 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt entities. Furthermore, Hice states, “It’s not a matter of whether or not a pastor endorses a candidate. The issue really comes down to who’s going to regulate what a pastor can say.”
Good for Pastor Hice and all those other pastors who stood before the alter and endorsed a candidate for president! I hope the sermon on Saint McCain’s second coming was a good one because the second Pastor Hice and his cohorts endorsed John McCain, they lost their eligibility for tax exemption and it must be taken away immediately.
When I contribute money to the Obama campaign, it’s not tax exempt. If these churches get away with candidate endorsement, I suggest MoveOn.org declare itself a religion and Obama supporters contribute as much money as we can to it. After all, we’re just supporting the word of our prophet, Michael Moore. Imagine all of the tax-exempt Obama campaigning we can do!
The purpose of these tax codes is to safeguard the separation of church and state, and not to silence religion. They must be enforced. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State points out that federal tax law is not meant to penalize churches or restrict freedom of speech, but “simply to distinguish between religious, educational and charitable institutions, which are entitled to tax exemption, and political organizations, which are not.” Tax-exempt organizations are free to give their views on the issues and assert their beliefs, but cannot endorse a candidate directly or hold political rallies. If a church feels it can’t live by these rules, then it’s free to endorse a candidate. This church must then pay taxes, just like everyone else.
The ADF is under heavy criticism for it’s Pulpit Initiative. Three former IRS agents assert that the ADF is soliciting these churches as clients and then encouraging them to break the law. These blatantly unethical actions by ADF and it’s lawyers are disturbing.
Many other religious leaders are speaking out against pastor endorsement of candidates. Catholic Archbishop of Miami, John C. Favalora, states, “[The] role of the church is not to be like the ‘party boss’ who goes around telling people how to vote. Our responsibility is to remind people to vote wisely; to reveal to them the wisdom of Scripture, the wisdom of the church’s moral tradition, so that they can base their votes on solid moral ground.” Favalora also notes that his church “can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax exempt.”
Besides legal ramifications, any religious leader should examine his or her faith carefully before making his or her church a partisan organization. How divinely inspired is a the message that someone is a better Christian if he or she votes a certain way? If my pastor told me Jesus loves me less because I’m voting for Obama, I’d have some serious questions about my pastor’s understanding of Jesus and His message.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Can the Mormons do what they’re doing in CA without violating the tax code?
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
In the interest of full disclosure I work at a church and would probably be considered a political conservative, but I cannot agree with you more, Cameron. Pastors that co-opt the message of Christ for their own political or personal gain are some of the worst reflections of true Christianity. For those of you that are on the outside looking in, don’t forget that Jesus actively resisted those who wanted to place him in a position of political power. And Paul wrote in Galations, of our unity and equality, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” I think if Paul were living today he would add Republican and Democrat to that list.
October 9th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I don’t see you complaining about Father Pfleger or Revereren Wright endorsing Obama and attacking Hillary Clinton from their pulpits. I don’t think preachers have to endorse a particular person, but they have an obligation to point out biblical positions to their members, even if some of those moral issues have become political issues too.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Great article Cameron! It’s a service to draw our attention to this rebellion. It’s unfortunate that neither candidate represents the American voter! We’ve been swindled on a grand scale, our money and our lives given to a scheme of unbridled worldwide capitalism…Unfortunately, it seems to rely on public money! That people of the cloth are participating in this theft is particulary embarrassing… to them.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
True Dave, but I bet Paul would still have his own political leaning.
Which I hope wouldn’t be so strictly categorical as “Democrat” and “Republican.” I honestly cannot imagine how people label themselves so rigidly - the “two-party system” is such a load of BS.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Polited, you are certainly right: Paul, as all of us do, would certainly have his opinions. However, the surpassing uniqueness of the Christian worldview is that it grounds our identity in the only thing that can give us true equality, which is Christ. This provides the only ground for escaping the inevitable categorization of the group to which we belong to versus “the other,” be it Democrat or Republican, American or foreigner, rich or poor, etc.
Regarding our two-party system, I share your frustration at the polarization of issues that are more complex than a two party “black and white” system allows. However, I would argue that many issues are well served by having two parties pulling in opposite directions. Often that means we end up somewhere in the middle, which tends to be closer to “right” than either party’s position. The genius of the American system of government is its legitimate system of checks and balances, and as we have so often seen, sometimes the best balance is achieved by two forces pulling in starkly opposite directions.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am
I agree with your checks and balances point. But I see a need for more than two directions. For example, I think the Libertarian Party has an opportunity to rebrand themselves, even change their name, and really make a cause for change. In the next 5-10 years. But breaking from the convention of 3rd parties being “formalities” is going to be tough, hopefully not impossible.
The checks and balances should be more complex than a tug-of-war. I don’t want two flavors at Baskin Robbins.