Blog from the Capital

Writing in Mississippi's Clarion Ledger, Gary Pettus frames the ongoing debate over government's oversight in church political activity.with particular focus on the All Saints controversy in pasadena, CA. That congregation has decided to fight the IRS' request for documents, claiming that the sermon in question was merely critical of the government, not directly endorsing a candidate. But a representative for that church, Pettus points out, still does not want to see IRS regulations overturned. (my emphasis)

All Saints will try to thaw out the IRS in court, says Keith Holeman, church spokesman.

"The sermon was not a partisan endorsement, it was an anti-war statement ... and made it clear that Republicans and Democrats are both culpable for voting for the war," Holeman says.

"But we believe what the Internal Revenue code says is good. There are a number of people who want to take away the restrictions. So, for instance, a candidate could come to the church and say, 'Here's $10,000; endorse me from the pulpit.' That leads to corruption. It could tear a church apart."

But the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, now holding its tongue in a House committee, also would work the other way. The bill would allow churches, synagogues, etc., to endorse candidates, and to donate 5 percent of their untaxed income directly to them.

Houses of Worship should of course be free to criticize government, its policies and actions. The prophetic voice of the church on behalf of the poor and disnfranchised is, for many, a religious mandate. No claim of religious freedom could be taken seriously without that right.

But mixing tax-free money with the political process is another issue altogether. Undoing the IRS regulations would effect houses of worship not by making them havens of free speech, which they indeed already are, but by making them political finance machines. Can you even imagine a more dangerous development for the well-being and integrity of religion than allowing political money to flow into church coffers, and church money to fund political campaigns, all with the goal of one scratching the back of the other? Could there be a more offensive blow to the separation of church and state than empowering that kind of overt quid pro quo?

Free speech lines must be clearly drawn and respected, but even All Saints seems to recognize that the ban on tax-exempt political endorsement is a good thing, and a necessary protection for the separation of church and state.