Pulpit to polls without preaching

If Pastor X endorses a “born again” Christian for president during

his sermon and asks his 10,000 congregants to vote for the candidate,

under this proposal our tax dollars would be supporting it!

The tax break given to donors for their contributions to houses of

worship is a highly significant source of income to churches, and it

is based on the principle that these funds were given for the public

good, not for the political campaigns of certain individuals. Though

it is indirect through tax exemption, this is nonetheless use of

public money for church support of political candidates, which

violates separation of church and state.

Other not-for-profit organizations would not be given this option

-- it only applies to churches -- and they do not support the

resolution. Not only does it allow churches to endorse or oppose

candidates, it also allows churches to use church funds for partisan

political activities. This loophole would give churches an advantage

in electioneering and create serious campaign finance issues, since

other donations to political campaigns are usually not

tax-deductible.

Given the emergence of “mega-churches” with thousands of

congregants, the audience for television and radio sermons, as well

as national denominational outreach, the political impact is

meaningful. Pastor X might also give talks at “church gatherings” --

not just from “the pulpit”; he might request that donations to the

candidate’s campaign be sent to the candidate; and he might call for

volunteers to assist the candidate.

Supporters of this resolution, which failed in the last Congress,

pitch it as a “free speech” issue, implying that clergy are now

“gagged.” The limitations placed on clergy, in exchange for

tax-exempt status, are really quite minimal -- clergy are prohibited

from endorsing or opposing a particular candidate from the pulpit.

The Internal Revenue Service does not prohibit clergy from

speaking about the moral issues of the campaign. For example, I gave

a talk last weekend on sexual morality in general and made the

specific points that Zen Buddhism does not prohibit abortion or

homosexual activities, leaving these matters to the meditation

practice of each person. The week before our community discussed

“World Peace and the War in Iraq.”

I do not see it as my role to tell people which candidates to

support or how to vote on the many critical issues we face. When I am

not at the Zen Center, I do exercise my right to wear a campaign

button supporting my choice for president, and I also wear a vintage

anti-Vietnam War bracelet. Finally, if clergy insist upon speaking

from the pulpit in support of a candidate, the church can opt to give

up their tax-exempt privilege.

A 2001 Gallup Poll found that 77% of clergy were opposed to fellow

clergy endorsing political candidates. According to a Pew Research

Center poll, 70% of Americans believe that houses of worship should

not favor one candidate over another during political elections. The

People for the American Way point out: “Houses of worship need to

continue to be a voice of conscience for society, not a tool for the

parties and politicians.” Churches, synagogues, temples and mosques

should continue to speak out strongly on all issues, but should not

endorse political candidates.

REV. DR. DEBORAH

BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange

County

Costa Mesa

If the question is about someone using his or her position in

society to influence people votes, then we should ask the same

questions of celebrities and rock stars. If the objection is that a

pastor yields the power to shape or determine someone’s vote, why

wouldn’t we hold other popular figures to the same standard? I

personally don’t think movie stars and musicians should use their

positions to preach their morality, but they do. So, why can’t the

clergy? If it was OK before 1954, why isn’t it OK now? The Founding

Fathers obviously didn’t think it was a problem.

Personally, I teach about issues rather than about people. It is

important that our people have a Biblical understanding of the

issues. They need to study for themselves, understand the issues and

then make up their own minds. I love helping them in this discovery

process. In doing so, we need to understand that there are basic

tenets of our faith that are not up for a vote.

I agree with the Catholic bishops for excluding certain

politicians from taking communion because of certain stands the

politicians have taken. Not because the bishops are making political

statements, but because those politicians are members of their

congregations and have strayed from the teachings they both held in

common. The act of communion would be false. This is a faith issue,

not a political one.

Another reason I would not personally endorse a candidate is we

have people of many political persuasions in our congregation. I

would hate for someone to feel unwelcome in our congregation because

of the party they are registered under. Most people in our church do

not know -- until now -- that I am a registered independent, but they

do know where I stand on the issues that are important to us as

Christ followers.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

I believe that the 300,000 houses of worship in America and their

religious leaders should engage in politics, but not in politicking.

Clergy must address the great issues of the day and mobilize their

membership to confront them. They must speak out about democracy,

poverty, prejudice, terrorism, disease, education, health care,

abortion, civil rights, employment, housing, gay rights, gun control,

capital punishment, war and peace. It is vital that they urge

congregants to exercise their franchise and vote as a free people.

But it is not proper to urge one candidate over another or use the

church or synagogue’s resources to assist a particular candidate. I

could not imagine myself using (abusing) the pulpit to exhort my

congregants to contribute to a campaign or to place a candidate’s

literature in the lobby of my Synagogue or plant an office-seeker’s

placards on our lawn. I would not invite one candidate to address my

membership without inviting his opponent. I would never seek to

instruct my congregants on the “right” candidate, for whom they

should cast their ballot.

I think it proper to speak passionately about the moral dimension

of political positions, but not to identify one candidate as more

moral than another. Since my synagogue accepts tax-exempt status, it

must abide by the condition that its focus be religious, educational,

charitable and devoted to the general public good and that it refrain

from partisan politics and electioneering. I do not believe faith

should be a political tool. In the dialectical dance between church

and state, our singular goal is the prophetic calling to be a moral

prod. Religious voices should enrich the political process, not

become enmeshed with it.

“I just think the religious entities of America need to keep their

prophetic voice,” said the Rev. Ed Young, senior minister of the

Second Baptist Church in Houston. “And you lose that if you send

money to politicians or openly support them during an election

season.”

In using a religious tradition to advance a partisan agenda, we

are culpable for an action even more egregious than violating an IRS

statute -- we are guilty of trivializing the holy.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

In Islam, state and religion are one. Nonetheless, the U.S. is a

secular nation in which state and religion are separate, but that

should not mean that people or religious organizations must remain

silent about political decisions or politicians that could affect

them or may deem contrary to their belief.

People, whether as an individual or group, must be able to exert

their first right -- freedom of speech -- even if they were tax

exempted.

IMAM SAYED MOUSTAFA

AL-QAZWINI

Islamic Educational Center

of Orange County

The Episcopal Church of my childhood was “the Republican Party at

prayer.” I appreciate that the parish church I now serve has members

who are Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians and others who are

registered in the Green, American Independent and Peace and Freedom

parties. This makes KOINONIA, that peculiar kind of communion marked

by mutual empathy and concern which the New Testament tells us

Christians should have with one another, much more likely. I would

not presume to tell beloveds here who to vote for or specifically how

to vote. Often I am challenged to figure this out for myself; others

should enjoy this same challenge.

“Vote your hopes, not your fears. Vote!” is the only direction I

give other parishioners. I do so before each and every election.

People of faith must consciously and intentionally base our political

opinions on our spiritual heritages and regularly and faithfully vote

... our hopes, not our fears.

POLITIKOS, the root word of our word “political,” means “the total

complex of relations between human beings in society.” So, almost

everything I do as an individual, and everything faith communities do

as groups, is “political.” Yes, we must “speak out!” Religious groups

witness for justice, peace, equality, choice and life. I try to do so

by speaking to gospel imperatives behind ballot initiatives and

candidacies, like hospitality to strangers, protection for orphans

and widows and feeding the hungry without endorsing particular

“hows,” or “whos.”

Why return to times when people identified faith communities

saying, “Oh, they’re ‘the Democrats in worship,’” or “the Green

Party’s sanctuary,” or “the Libertarians’ Bible study” or “the

Republican Party at prayer?”

THE VERY REV’D

CANON PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Parish Church

Corona del Mar