Churches Have Enough Problems

Rabbi David Saperstein
Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Reverend J. Brent Walker
Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee

Op-Ed
September 6, 2002

The so-called "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" (H.R. 2357) -- which reports indicate may be on the fast track for a vote by the House of Representatives this month -- sounds good, but it's one of the worst bills pending in the 107th Congress. It would pervert, not protect, houses of worship.

Introduced by Rep. Walter Jones R-N.C., this bill would allow houses of worship explicitly to endorse or oppose candidates for public office and even contribute money and resources to activities benefiting candidates and political parties - all the while maintaining their tax-exempt status.

Proponents of the bill (currently 128 House Members) claim that this measure is necessary to allow churches and clergy to speak out on the great social and political issues of the day. Not so - as a look at what churches can do now dramatically shows.

• Clergy can speak out with impunity, even from the pulpit, on any political, moral, or ethical issue and churches, synagogues and mosques may engage in some lobbying to advocate their positions.
• Houses of worship may encourage good citizenship among their members by launching voter registration and education projects, conducting nonpartisan forums for the candidates and distributing the answers to impartial candidate questionnaires.
• Clergy, congregational leaders and members, as individuals, can participate in the electoral political process as much as they wish.

What churches and all other nonprofits that receive tax-deductible contributions cannot do is electioneer - support or oppose candidates for office - without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. If they are willing to give up their tax exemption, the First Amendment guarantees that they can engage in as much electioneering as they want - subject to the same campaign finance laws that apply to all groups in America.

In part because this legislation is not needed and even more because it's a bad idea, polls show overwhelming opposition. A recent survey by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed that 70 percent of Americans said churches should not endorse political candidates (22 percent supported church involvement in campaigns). A recent Gallup poll of clergy for the Interfaith Alliance found that 77 percent opposed clergy endorsements of candidates.

So why are so many religious people and clergy concerned about houses of worship endorsing a candidate or giving money to a political party?

First, electioneering would be highly divisive. Congregants in the pew have widely divergent views on all kinds of issues - and politics is no exception. For congregations to endorse and contribute money to partisan political activity on behalf of the entire congregation would risk tearing that congregation apart over their political differences and would deeply alienate those who, through their houses of worship, are forced to support candidates to whom they object.

Second, electioneering by houses of worship would compromise their prophetic witness. When a church throws in with a particular candidate or political party, it becomes nearly impossible to maintain a prophetic voice. Thus, not only is the Jones bill not needed to preserve religion's prophetic voice as some claim, ironically it would put in motion forces that surely will weaken it. As conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote: "When churches become...appendages of political parties and politicians, they tend to depart from their primary obligations...and become identified with earthly causes and political kingdom-building."

Finally, a house of worship could set up a Political Action Committee (PAC), and a special PAC collection plate could be passed down the pews. A disturbing loophole could be opened up in our campaign finance laws, as tax-deductible contributions could be funneled to partisan "issue advocacy" attack ads, push polling and slanted "voter guides." Extending to religious organizations the unique right to give tax-deductible money for partisan political purposes would represent a step back in the quest for campaign finance reform and invite politicians to exploit the good name and resources of houses of worship.

The Jones bill would do America's houses of worship no favor. It would compromise their autonomy, turn pulpit prophets into political puppets, and politicize and divide our houses of worship.

No thank you, Mr. Jones. We don't need that kind of "protection."

The authors teach a church-state seminar at the Georgetown University Law Center.