Street Prophets

Alliance Defense Fund: We Must Destroy First Amendment In Order To Save It

Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:04:17 AM PDT

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the ADF is double-dog daring churches to step over the line of Separation:

A conservative legal-advocacy group is enlisting ministers to use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September, defying a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., nonprofit, is hoping at least one sermon will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to investigate, sparking a court battle that could get the tax provision declared unconstitutional. Alliance lawyers represent churches in disputes with the IRS over alleged partisan activity.

The action marks the latest attempt by a conservative organization to help clergy harness their congregations to sway elections. The protest is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 28, a little more than a month before the general election, in a year when religious concerns and preachers have been a regular part of the political debate.

...

Alliance fund staff hopes 40 or 50 houses of worship will take part in the action, including clerics from liberal-leaning congregations. About 80 ministers have expressed interest, including one Catholic priest, says Erik Stanley, the Alliance's senior legal counsel.

Translation: we're hoping to partisanize conservative congregations, since who knows how many Justice Sundays did squat for us before. The law is quite settled here, and IRS complaints take a long time to settle, much less litigate. So the legal effect for 2006 is basically nil, meaning this is a political maneuver.

Oh yeah, and this is crap:

The section of the tax code barring nonprofits from intervening in political campaigns has long frustrated clergy. Many ministers consider the provision an inappropriate government intrusion, blocking the duty of clergy to advise congregants.

I have yet to meet a pastor who feels this way. Responsible ministers understand that the First Amendment does as much or more to protect their congregations than it does to muffle their voice. More important, they understand that the mission of the church is to be the church, not an adjunct to a political movement.

C. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance had a statement on the ADF's move that seems on-the-money:

Houses of worship belong to divine authority – they are not the property of either political party.  The Alliance Defense Fund’s call for pastors to break the law represents the height of irresponsibility.  They are putting churches across the country unnecessarily at risk to costly and time-consuming investigations that could result in harsh financial penalties.  Putting churches in legal and financial jeopardy seems a bizarre way of defending religious freedom, which the ADF claims to defend.

But there is an even greater issue at stake in this campaign than violating the law.  When religious leaders endorse candidates from the pulpit, they weaken both the sanctity of religion and the integrity of democracy.  The IRS allows – and the Interfaith Alliance encourages – religious leaders to speak out on the important political issues of the day, but when clergy endorse specific candidates or parties in their official capacity, they abuse their pastoral authority.

Damn skippy.

  • ::


Tags: Alliance Defense Fund, First Amendment, Interfaith Alliance, Church (all tags)

Permalink | 5 comments

  • thanks for the "heads up" (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Thirst

    the ADF proposal

    weaken both the sanctity of religion and the integrity of democracy

    AMEN!  Religious beliefs are to be applied by all through reason.  Thanks for the warning.

  • Legally.... (0 / 0)

    ....I see it as unconstitutional for the goverment to keep churches and pastors from endorsing canidates and parties.If a pastor believes that canidate A or Party B matches up best with their spiritual POV the first ammendment gives them the right to say so without having the IRS take away their tax exempt status.

    The constitution does not keep the church out of the states buissness only the state out of the churches buiissness.

    Sprituality,just because I think that pastors and/or churches endorsing canidates/parties should be legal and in no way penalized by the goverment does not mean I think it is right spiri.Once you start down the road of partisan politics it is way too easy to put the churches true mission on the back burner in favor of being  operatives for a secular political group.That is wrong.So while I disagree with you and think the ADF is right as regards to their legal POV,I agree that churches should NEVER get involved in endorsing specific parties/canidates as a moral,spiritual matter.

    • Ron, that's simply incorrect. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Thirst

      It's a two-way street, that's been settled for some time now.

      • That is the way you see it. (0 / 0)

        You may consider it settled,as may many experts,I do not consider it settled.The state cannot tell the people how to worship and the state cannot tell the people that they cannot vote or serve if they are not of a certain faith.The constitution does not say that the church(which is a collective expression of the people) cannot use the state to advance their agenda up to the point that they are using the state to force others to worship(or not) in a certain way.I cannot see a pastor saying the GOP _or the democrats) is the party most in line with God's will as a threat to democracy in and of itself.I do not see it as a threat to the church.

Permalink | 5 comments