Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Did You Leave Your Religious Community Because It ‘Left’ You?
“The church is not partisan. The Catholic Church is probably a great example of a church that offends both Democrats and Republicans alike.” – – Rev. David Boettner, rector of the cathedral and vicar general of the Diocese of Knoxville, Tennessee.
My heart goes out to all those church and synagogue leaders who try to lead their communities and congregations with integrity and honor. Too often, some of them go far beyond the content that they should be sharing with their members. What drives a religious leader to indulge (and I do mean to use that word) in spreading political positions? Have they considered the implications of acting in this way? I’ve come to my own conclusions.
First, I think there are some leaders who are simply zealots, which I think primarily describes the far Left. They think they are correct in their beliefs, and those people who believe otherwise are terribly misguided at best, or evil at worst. These are the spiritual leaders who are supposed to bring their members to a closer relationship with G-d and each other, but they are certain to offend at least a percentage of their community that believes that church sermons should be politics-free or shouldn’t denigrate their own political views. Preaching politics from the pulpit is arrogant, thoughtless, and inconsiderate; if a religious leader can’t keep his views to himself, he doesn’t belong at the pulpit.
Another reason for religious leaders preaching politics is because they don’t know how to clarify for themselves and their community the reasons for not speaking on politics, but they are also afraid to be disliked or rejected (particularly if a group within the community disagrees with their positions). One aspect of being a religious leader (it would seem to me) is to demonstrate courage in the face of adversity. That means that you may preach on inclusiveness and tolerance, but you won’t voice a political agenda.
There is also the issue of people who want their religious leader to take a public position on politics; in other words, they are trying to coerce them to “speak to their side.” Religious leaders are certainly entitled to their own views, but they are out of line to take public positions on specific political ideas. If their congregants reject that decision to remain neutral, they can simply look for a new church.
Another issue is that people say they want their pastor to help them relate the bible to their own lives. An excellent way to do this is for the pastor not to list off a palette of views, but instead to ask questions of his members, explaining that it is their challenge and responsibility to answer those questions for themselves, as they relate their lives to the words of the Bible.
There are other rationales we can give for preaching politics, and I encourage you to list them in your comments. But I think it’s also helpful to look at the restrictions that the Internal Revenue Service has enacted:
What political activities are prohibited under the Internal Revenue Code?
Religious organizations, as well as all other organizations exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, are prohibited from participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office. This prohibition encompasses a wide array of activities. It precludes direct political campaign intervention, including the making of statements, whether oral, written or in an electronic medium, supporting or opposing any candidate, political party or political action committee (“PAC”); creating a PAC; rating candidates; and providing or soliciting financial support (including loans or loan guarantees) or in-kind support for any candidate, political party or PAC. It also precludes indirect political campaign intervention of a sort that reflects bias for or against any candidate, political party or PAC, such as distributing biased voter education materials or conducting a biased candidate forum or voter registration drive.
Must religious organizations restrict their discussion of issues during election campaign periods?
No. The political campaign intervention prohibition does not restrict discussions of issues that are not linked to support for or opposition to candidates. The fact that candidates may align themselves on one side or another of an issue does not restrict the ability of religious organizations to engage in discussions of that issue. That said, a religious organization may nonetheless violate the political campaign intervention prohibition if it communicates preferences for or against particular candidates as part of its issue discussions.
What is the likelihood that a religious leader will be able to be objective, and not take sides, in these types of discussions? Why allow for discussions that are not faith-related and are likely to create conflict within the community?
What conclusions do you draw from these thoughts I’ve shared?
My advice: don’t preach politics from the pulpit.
Published in General
@manny ‘s position that legal or practical difference (tax breaks, hospital visitation, etc.) is all that matters is too narrow a view of whether “civil union” is the same as “marriage.” “Marriage” is a public commitment to the future of society through the formation of families. “Civil union” is a legal convenience concerned entirely with the here and now. Even if the law treats them the same, social attitudes are different. We know this because of the amount by which homosexual activists lied to the public in order to eventually force society to redefine “marriage” to give them the social blessing they sought. Remember, initially they said, “We just want the legal rights, so ‘civil unions’ will satisfy us.” But then as soon as that was created they proceeded to say, “No, that’s not enough. We need society’s approval and celebration, so we demand ‘marriage’.”
I posted this on another thread and it is worth posting here as well. A great explanation of what marriage is.
QUOTE
The essential public purpose of marriage is to connect mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. All the stated purposes of the newly redefined concept of marriage are either private purposes or inessential purposes.
A person can acquire health insurance, make a will and designate medical power of attorney without the institution of marriage. We don’t need an institution of marriage for people to make these legal provisions. These are inessential purposes of marriage.
Likewise, a couple can have a big party for themselves and declare their love for each other without marriage. A person can feel good about themselves, boost their self-esteem or win the approval of their peers with or without marriage. These are private purposes of marriage.
But the essential public purpose of marriage flows from an indisputable fact: Children need their parents. Every human being has a natural right to know the identity of the two people who brought him or her into life. And except for an unavoidable tragedy, children have a right to be in relationship with their parents. Removing the gender requirement for marriage undermines these basic human rights by demoting biology from its pride of place in the social and legal understanding of parenthood.
UNQUOTE
As for what is preached from the pulpit, Christianity at least was born in persecution, and there is no benefit to anyone to know the truth (no matter how unpopular) and not to say it out loud.
FWIW here is an excerpt of a primer on conscience, freedom of speech, religious institutions and the newish (1954) tax law:
Does a minister have the freedom to address political issues from the pulpit? Assuming yes, should he do this? Should a minister endorse a political candidate? Should the state through its agencies have the right to say what a church may or may not say? What is the principal focus of the pulpit ministry? What is a political issue? Is it different from a biblical issue? It is the intent of this primer that the reader will come away with answers to these questions.
Some history of churches and politics in America:
Last century Congress modified the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code § 501(c) (3) to restrict the speech of non-profit, tax-exempt organizations, which included churches in 1954. This legislation became the Johnson amendment for Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in July of 1954.
Before the Johnson amendment, there were no restrictions placed on churches by the government. The main stipulation in the amendment was that churches were not to endorse or oppose candidates for public office. The Johnson amendment does not prohibit church involvement in voter registration and even political debate forums among various candidates.
AND from NBC:
Its namesake is President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was a senator representing Texas when a Republican-controlled Congress passed it in 1954. Johnson pushed for the rule in response to a conservative nonprofit that supported a rich political rival — that nonprofit wasn’t a church.
The then-Democratic minority leader reasoned that if you don’t want to pay taxes, then you also can’t be involved in partisan politics.
***
I’ll point out that the issue of not taxing religious corporations has good points and bad points but goes back to the 1st Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
And really, when giving to a religious charitable organization, theoretically, the money you give to the poor or needy should go to them and changing hands in the process shouldn’t be taxable. But by this thinking using money donated for the needy should not be used for staff salaries, advertising, building costs, and various overhead. I’ve seen estimates over the years that 80 -90% of donations serve only the organization or institution (or local church) and don’t go to the people for whom it was intended.
I repeat, Christianity was born in persecution, and there is no benefit to anyone to know the truth and not to say it out loud.
Exactly. This makes my point. There was no distinction between civil unions and marriage. Civil Unions connected their children in exactly the same way as a marriage. Also no difference in insurance and health benefits, herititary and tax laws. There is no legal difference. I can’t tell if you’re disagreeing but there is nothing in that article that distinguishes civil union in the eyes of the law from marriage.
A man and a woman go before a judge and get married. A different man and a woman go before a minister, priest, or rabbi. Are the two couples equally married? Does society ( ie, “social attitudes”) treat them the same? If your neighbor (man and woman couple) is married by a judge, do you think of them as not married?
I was for civil unions until @josephstanko convinced me otherwise. He saw SSM coming a mile away. The gay activists were never going to be satisfied until they destroyed the essential purpose of marriage.
I didn’t really know what to think of the civil union vs. marriage argument until Archbishop Charles Chaput (Denver, at the time) clarified it for me:
Love that man. Should have been made a Cardinal years ago imo. He and Ryan T. Anderson spoke at my parish back in the day.
Exactly! That’s why at the time I did not support Civil Unions as well as gay marriage. When there is no distinction in fact, then marriage will conflate down to civil unions.
By supporting transgenderism I assume you mean validating the idea of being transgendered, that is, affirming a person’s claims to be a gender different from his/her biological sex. That, in my opinion, would be wrong. But if we mean to love and accept people who have strayed into transgenderism without accepting their ideas about their gender identity, then I’d support that as being the Christian response.