Tuesday, January 17, 2006

If it's wrong? Then it's wrong for both sides...

(This article is written for the Carnival of Ohio Politics, brought to you courtesy of Paul Miller of Northwest Ohio Net, be sure to stop by his site tomorrow morning for the 6th edition of what some of Ohio's best bloggers have to share)

There's been some discussion at several Ohio blogs concerning the story of 30 Ohio ministers who have requested the IRS investigate the tax-exempt status of two "mega-churches"; World Harvest Church of Columbus and Fairfield Christian Church of Lancaster. This has been reported in the Columbus Dispatch and the New York Times. It's felt thru the Reformation Ohio and the Center for Moral Clarity as well as thru Pastor Rod Parsley's Breakthru Net that lines are being crossed in support of Ken Blackwell.

Reformation Ohio lists as one of their goals:

Empowering Communities through Voter Registration – Through diverse means, Reformation Ohio will help to increase the state’s voter registration rolls by at least 400,000 persons..

The Center for Moral Clarity has several links to legislative information, as well as ironically containing this in their FAQS:

10. As a Pastor with a church that operates as a 501c3 not-for-profit organization, what are my boundaries as it relates to politics, elections and lobbying?

Click onto the following information which will detail the "dos and don’ts" for pastors and ministries.

Elections, churches, and ministers: playing by the rules

which if you follow that link lists this among the many requirements:

Candidate appearances and speeches. Appearances by individual candidates at churches—apart from a multi-candidate forum or debate—can pose thorny issues for the church. Again, the “neutrality” principle must be used to determine whether the activity is prohibited.

and this:

Candidate endorsements and denouncements. A church may not, as a matter of its official position, endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. Thus, a pastor speaking from the pulpit or otherwise in his capacity as the pastor, may not urge his audience to vote for or against a particular candidate. Likewise, a church may not publish an article in its newsletter, or place an advertisement exhorting readers to vote for or against a particular candidate.

Sounds pretty straighforward doesn't it? It also appears given the access these churches have given to Ken Blackwell that there could be a problem. However, where was this same outcry in the past? Or is it only an issue now?

This goes beyond our local issues of having several Pastors openly support Jack Ford when he was campaigning for election and re-election. While that was obvious even thru the use of one of his campaign ads where Rev. Mansour Bey, associate pastor of First Church of God, participated in a television commercial in support of Jack Ford's re-election, this is not the first or the only time Church Congregations in this area have behaved in a very similar manner to what is being discussed right now.

During the Presidential election, there was a GOP event, "Empowering People of Color" held here in Toledo. African-American clergy members from around the country flew into Toledo to listen to members of Bush-Cheney's national African-American Steering Committee talk about the President's policies to improve the lives of African-Americans and to denounce Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential contender, for playing of what they called "the race card."

Several local ministers who were invited did not attend, instead, they joined Mayor Jack Ford and had their own press conference in support of Mr. Kerry.

The Revs. John Roberts, Gerald Fletcher, Benjamin Green, Cedric Brock, John Walthall, W.L. Perryman, and Lee Williams, all of Toledo, stood beside the mayor as he made his comments in the Stevenson Roberts Hall, adjacent to the Indiana Avenue Missionary Baptist Church.

"I want you all to know that we stand behind Senator Kerry," Mr. Brock said. "I'm sure there will be ups and downs on the journey, but I hope that he is the right choice."
Cedric Brock is the minister of Mt. Nebo Missionary Baptist Church.

Granted, the ministers in attendence were quick to state:

The Toledo-area pastors all stressed that they keep their political opinions out of their sermons, and don't plan to endorse any candidates before their congregations.

"We keep it out, don't mix it in with what we preach. Our people are intelligent enough to make their own decisions," Mr. Green said. "One sermon isn't going to change their minds one way or another anyway."


But...."I want you all to know that we stand behind Senator Kerry," certainly sounds like an endorsement....

If the unspoken rule is going to be what Pastor Green stated that "Our people are intelligent enough to make their own decisions" then so be it. If it is going to be let's follow the law (which is the way I would suggest) then let's make sure that this is applied on both sides.

All of these ministers know the law, even Pastor Parsley states on his own website:

16. Does Pastor Parsley endorse candidates for public office?

No, because that would be illegal. CMC is an outreach of World Harvest Church, and as such is bound by IRS regulations that prohibit him from endorsing political candidates. In fact, clergy of all faith expressions have been prohibited from endorsing candidates for the past 50 years.

So to paraphrase from the Bible...Let he who is without the first implied endorsement throw the first stone....

:-)

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is obviously a local issue that has long-term consequences...

But, from an outside, more generalized perspective, I think there's some stretching going on here. Any person in this country has the right and freedom to personally favor any given politician and to support them as a person. Those who are involved in non-profit organizations retain their right to do so, however they cannot and should not do so "on company time" so to speak.

I don't see any inherent conflict with these men participating in political rallies. I don't see any inherenet legal problem with them using their own name, including their religious title, in support of a political candidate. It's when they use the name of their organization that they cross the line. It's a delicate balance to walk, but one that can be done successfully if integrity is of an utmost importance, which it probably should be for ANY clergyman.

Anonymous said...

For instance, I personally support one of the GOP contenders for the Wisconsin governorship. I have every right to do this as an individual. However, because I'm a member of VOID, and a fairly "important" member at that, I have to be very careful not to give anyone the impression that VOID supports this candidate.

(Thus, since I will be linking my name to the VOID site now, I cannot and will not name the candidate I support. However, I can wear the t-shirt I have with the candidate's name on it whenever I want, just so long as I'm not at a VOID function.)

Cyberseaer said...

This is just a little loophole that the ministers have found in order to keep their IRS non-profit so not to give tax to the country. I guess Mr. Brock's church people weren't that intelligent in that Kerry lost Ohio. ;) I guess God really wanted people from Ohio to vote Bush in. Double ;)

If my priest started to tell me that I should vote for one person in an election on the pulpit, forget the IRS problems, I would vote for the other person just to piss him off.

In a very weak linked topic, I think that all houses of worship should pay tax. Hell, they try to get in the political arena through the back door. Let them have their say and pay for it like the rest of us do. Two things will happen. All these half assed churches and temples will shut themselves down in a heartbeat and the national deficit will be wiped out in two years just on property taxes alone (a tip of the hat to Mr. Carlin). Just something to think about.

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...

"So to paraphrase from the Bible...Let he who is without the first implied endorsement throw the first stone...."

I'm glad you mentioned paraphrasing ;-)

The "religous" are tending to bend the rules of late, and might just get away with it; our's is a changing world...

But it doesn't mean that it is right.

Unknown said...

Matt, you know you are welcome here, even though we disagree on some topics you have always been civil to me.

I figured it was the fake Isis and the id number confirms that. I also know the games going on with the fake id's and blogs. But that's not welcome here. So next time one of them shows up I'll start deleting.

Thanks Matt for posting that, I was up at the ER with one of my daughters.

:-)

historymike said...

I am in a cynical mood today, and I am agreeing with cyberseaer's "abolish nonprofits" mentality vis a vis houses of worship.

Let's extend non-profit staus only to entities like homeless shelters or the Goodwill, which have easily verifiable missions and socially-valuable functions.

Unknown said...

On second thought? After reading what "it" wrote?

It's gone, so no matt and I are not talking to ourselves...

Anonymous said...

Now I'm definitely confused...
Is somebody who's pretending to be Isis pretending to be cyberseaer???

I'm hoping not, because I'm going to respond...

"This is just a little loophole that the ministers have found..."

To take away, either implied or with punative action, these ministers' right to voice their political opinions on their own time would be infringing on their Constitutional rights. If they do it on company time, i.e. at the pulpit, OR with the use of their organization's name, then they are PROBABLY breaking the contract that allows them to be non-profit. From what Lisa described, admitting I did not follow all the links, it sounds like these men were doing this on their own time, and thus legally.

"If my priest started to tell me that I should vote for one person in an election on the pulpit..."

I would either find another church or go to whoever was above that person in the religious heirarchy.

"...and the national deficit will be wiped out in two years just on property taxes alone..."

Not even close, sadly. 8 trillion is a really big number.

Anonymous said...

historymike,

"Let's extend non-profit staus only to entities like homeless shelters or the Goodwill, which have easily verifiable missions and socially-valuable functions."

Exactly what social value does Goodwill have? They get their material donated to them, but then sell it. And, at least at the local one, they sell their merchandise for higher than one would be pay at most rumage sales, and often for product that's not in as good of condition. Granted, they pay decent wages to their employees (again, that's comparitive to the job and specifically for around here in Wis.), but that doesn't make them non-profit.

I personally prefer to donate my used items to an organization called ECHO who then gives them to other people in need.

Cyberseaer said...

Steph,

Trust me, I'm I don't live in LA, I am the only cyberseaer here.

As for the church, I like the church i go to. Sure, I see lots of hyopcrits there and sometimes the priests dull me into a coma from time to tim, but those are little things that bug me when I'm at church. So, if the priest went on a polictial rant, I'd still go to the church. Church is like a family. I'm sure that you have lots of relatives that you wish weren't related to you by blood, but are you going to find another family? Of course not. That's how I feel about the church I go to.


And when someone gets their message out in a backended way, that is a loophole. Sure these men aren't speaking in a church, but please don't be so simpleminded that these men stop being the leaders of their churches when they exit the church doors.

As for the national debt, we as a country are at least eight trillion in debt. I would bet the farm that the debt is at least six to seven times that; the news gets things more wrong that right. And yes it would take only two years to wipe out that tremenous number. You would be surpirse how much real estate the Catholic Church has in the USA alone.

As for me being me. Nobody in their right mind would ever try and copy me, because of the volumes of text that I right when I comment. The first attempt of trying to would have their fingers go numb due to the amount of typing that has to be done.

You're a goood kid, Steph. Love to hear from you.

historymike said...

I would avoid engaging any of the Nazis /NIM busters/ white supremacists in conversation.

They go away when they get no attention (same for Matt; his site is about one notch above Bill White's).

Of course, by saying so I am probably cursing Lisa, but I figured I'd pass along my thoughts.

As far as Goodwill: I think the very process of getting people to recycle used clothing and household goods is a socially-desirable goal, Stephanie. They also sem to go out of their way to employ people who are struggling to re-enter mainstream society, working with ex-cons, people fresh out of rehab, and other hard-to-employ folks.

But the point was more about extending tax-exempt status to organizations that perform useful social functions, rather than giving it to groups whose primary purpose is promoting a faith (I am setting aside any ancillary benefits society might derive from having people instilled with a moral foundation).

Unknown said...

Stephanie there is a longer history that is known in this area of speaking from the pulpit yet trying to appear not to.

If these men are claiming representation of their Church and their status as ministers to make these statements then they are not speaking as regular citizens. What they are doing is similar to what the two churches here are being asked to be investigated over. They have invited one candidate more than the others, and have made similar public statements.

To me, if one is wrong than the other is wrong. If one is okay than the other is okay. I have no problem with an investigation, however I think this needs to be done consistently. This is going to be a huge issue for Ohio with Blackwell running for Governor. He has an established connection with religious organizations in Ohio so it's something they need to resolve now.

Personally I would take a stronger stance, I would eliminate the tax free status of any church who invited candidates of only one party to speak there. If they are not going to provide equal time and opportunity then they are by omission implying endorsement. I attend Mass to connect with God not with political candidates.

David said...

This should be a no-brainer, but then...

Frankly, I'm against excluding ANY voice, ANY organization of ANY kind from voicing their/its political views. The establishment clause has nothing to do with church involvement in politics. (Reading The Founders Constitution right now and man, do some modern practices stick in my craw... ) Non-profit statutes should be revised to reflect the unaienable right of ANYONE (and ANY organization of people) to express their political views.

Yeh, but of course that won't do. Why, then free (political--which is what the First Amendment was talking about) speech would actually be a RIGHT of citizens, not a licensed and controlled behavior used to control a potentially fractious bunch of subjects. (BTW, the latter was exactly the view held by King George which was so abhored by the Founders and Framers of this land... )

Boxing with the wind, here... *sigh*

Unknown said...

David, I understand your point, I however feel if there is going to be rules that they be applied across the board.

I have separate issues with the whole non-profit status of some of these organizations anyway. The original tax free status applied to churches has extended way beyond it's original intent.

Anonymous said...

cybersear,

The confusion was simply that Matt posted after you claiming the post above it was false. There was nothing to indicate that a post had been deleted, so I wasn't sure.

"...I like the church i go to."

So do I, which is why I suggested a second alternative. Because the act of politicizing at the pulpit is inappropriate religious matter (irregardless of the legal issues) I would raise the issue within the heirarchy in my church, which is clearly laid out and easily accessible to all.

Unless you made a point of telling the priest that you voted the other way as an objection to what he/she said, then the recourse is a fairly uneventful gesture that won't do anything to effect the inappropriate behavior.

"I'm sure that you have lots of relatives that you wish weren't related to you by blood, but are you going to find another family?"

Actually, I just generally ignore them and do not associate with them...but that's mostly the violent criminals.

"Sure these men aren't speaking in a church, but please don't be so simpleminded that these men stop being the leaders of their churches when they exit the church doors."

It's not a matter of being simpleminded. Would you deny these men their political voice because of their profession? What about CEO's? Do they have a right to a political voice? Librarians? Teachers?

It really depends on HOW it's done as to the appropriateness. If it's done at the pulpit, it's an improper use of authority and generally irrelevant to the faith issues at hand. If it's done as an individual, i.e. "Hi, I'm Rev. John Doe and I support Don Juan, who's challenging Joe Blow for his Senate seat." That's one thing and generally permissible. If he says, however, "I'm Rev. John Doe, the spiritual leader of the Church of Hypocrisy, and I want to tell you of the divine sign I received from heaven to spread the word that EVERY GOOD CHRISTIAN should support future Senator Don Juan, because current Senator Joe Blow is an evil devil-worshipping scum bag who, and I know this straight from the mouth of God, is going to burn in Hell..." Then, that's inappropriate.

But to say that an employee (which is generally what clergymen are) of a non-profit organization cannot publicly express his political views....

That I simply cannot agree with.

A lot of very important, very political figures in our countries history were also clergyman. Considering the time of year it is, Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind really quick.

"And yes it would take only two years to wipe out that tremenous number."

You do realize to pay that tax the various churches, and other non-profits, would have to take it from their donors. The American people do not have that cash, nor do most of our religious organizations. While if the property that currently isn't taxed were taxed, the DUE column MIGHT be in the black...but the cash can't just magically appear out of nowhere. And the Catholic church, as big and rich as it is, probably doesn't have it in its coffers.

The government could also decide that it's going to tax all it's people 110% to solve the problem, that doesn't mean they'd actually get the money.

It's like saying we can pay off our national debt by demanding other countries pay up what they owe to us....if the money just isn't there, there's no real way we can collect it.

Anonymous said...

historymike,

"But the point was more about extending tax-exempt status to organizations that perform useful social functions..."

I cannot think of a single religious organization that I've ever participated in that didn't do both, teach people faith, and help society.

The current one I am member of does this on a world-wide scale, as well as locally. They were one of the first on the scene after the Hurricanes. They do local disaster relief. They give people food on a monthly basis, giving some of them ALL the food they need to eat. They help the homeless and the down-trodden in similitude of Christ (with less miracles). I'm mean, at least when it comes to the Christian faith, that's what a church is SUPPOSED to do. That's the point.

"I think the very process of getting people to recycle used clothing and household goods is a socially-desirable goal..."

Good point. It's not that I think Goodwill is bad; I just don't think (with what I know) that it does or should qualify as non-profit, as they seem to be selling things FOR profit.

"But the point was more about extending tax-exempt status to organizations that perform useful social functions..."

An organization that's purpose is to benefit or educate people can be tax-exempt by following certain rules...one of which is not seeking to make a profit for the use of it's "owners". VOID is currently working on getting tax-exempt status.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by "extending." It's already been extended to such organizations. A homeless shelter that isn't tax-exempt is doing something "wrong." Either they haven't pursued the necessary paper work, or they broke a rule.

Anonymous said...

Lisa,

*sigh*

I think I was misunderstood.

I was not commenting on the appropriateness of the actions of the individuals. I wasn't defending anyone. I do not know anything about these people (aside from your rebuke), thus my disclaimer about the local issue. And I wholly agree, that if a rule should be applied to one side of the aisle, then it should be applied to the other side of the aisle. And, if there be a rule, it SHOULD be applied, whether the "locals" dislike it or not.

Therefore, if the issue is these men using their positions as clergymen (either by using their churches as a political arenas or by using their status as a reason to listen to them about a particular candidate) to politize, that's bad. I agree 100%, no questions asked.

However...

Just because they are clergymen doesn't mean they can't be politically active. They have every right that we do to participate in rallies and support candidates ON THEIR OWN TIME WITH ONLY THEIR OWN NAME. If they bring the name of their church or their faith into it, then they are crossing the line, imo. But just because they went to a political rally isn't, again imo, cause to say they are acting inappropriately.

"Support John Kerry if you want to be a good Catholic." ...is as inappropriate as... "Support George Bush if you want to be a good Catholic." It shouldn't matter whether it's Dem or Rep or Indy, a particular faith CANNOT legally retain their non-profit status AND politicize.

"Personally I would take a stronger stance, I would eliminate the tax free status of any church who invited candidates of only one party to speak there."

And see, I would have to ask the question, why are candidates being invited to churches in the first place? I'm assuming this is happening in Toledo. Toledo is a big city. I'm assuming that because Toledo is a big city it has auditoriums. Indoor places that hold a rather large audience. With the availability of such spaces, why in the world would a political rally be held in a church!?! If it's a smaller town, without such expensive amenities, than it's understandable, but a church, imo, should not be a first-choice place to hold ANY political rally, ESPECIALLY if the church is showing favorites.

Unknown said...

You weren't misunderstood Stephanie, I wasn't clear enough on the history aspect of it. So that's a "my bad". The questions you've asked are the same ones that I've asked when it happens.

:-)

Anonymous said...

Is your daughter doing okay?

Unknown said...

Emily the one who had her car stolen and house broken into is doing okay, still no news on her car. Erin, my emergency room visit child, they still don't know what's going on with her but so far all the tests have come back good.

Thankfully the other three seem to be doing well. Thanks for asking Stephanie, it's been a challenging week.

:-)

Cyberseaer said...

Steph,

Damn girl, you can type. And here I thought I explained things to death. I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. You bring up many good points, but because of time restaints, family life, and this night school stuff, I can't get more into this. Many of your points I don't agree with, but that's okay. That's what debate is all about. The worst thing that should happen is that both parties agree to disagree.

Not like the excute boards where if I don't agree with the thread's viewpoint, I am personally attacked and labeled as a dumbass or worst. Lisa knows what I'm talking about.

By the way, did you fingers go numb in the middle of all that? ;)

Lisa,

Go thing you didn't name your youngest daughter Edwina. She may have gotten a cold and then it would be a bad week for the E's in your family. Hope Erin and Emily are better.

Cyberseaer said...

Lisa,

I need a damn spell chech on this site. I meant to say "Excite" boards. Can we call it a week yet?

Cyberseaer said...

I can't spell the check right either. That's it my brain is officially fire and melted. Put a fork in me, I'm done.

Cyberseaer said...

Now my grammer is gone. Stop the world, I'm getting off.

Unknown said...

LMAO...I will see if it is possible to add a spell check but I don't think so, I wish there was a way to edit comments since we both know I mess up as well at times too.

Excite was a whole different situation, one we both don't miss with good reason.

Now I will go look for my fork however I have a feeling you are not done...

hehehe

:-)

Anonymous said...

cyberseaer,

I got my blogging initiation on Watchblog, which, while often civil, isn't always, so I completely understand. I do tend to belabor my points, and for that I apologize.

To put things in perspective...I'm only 26. When I was 5 I thought I knew everything. By the time I was 15, I knew I knew everything. By now I've learned I don't always know much of anything...and yet I still love to debate so I do, even when I'm sticking my foot in my mouth.

Hey, it's progress.

As far as my fingers...not at all!
:-))

Actually, before typing this, which is already turning out long itself, I was typing (fiction writing) for two - three hours. So...my fingers are used to it.

And...as for the grammar and spelling...I doubt you're going to get burned for it here (unlike Watchblog). So, don't worry about it.
;-)

Anonymous said...

Lisa,

I hope both all your children (are they all girls?) are doing well now!
:-)

Have you found out what caused the emergency room visit?