Pulpit Politics

Booth's comments about the upcoming election are commonplace in churches across the nation and they are typically made by those who favor Republican candidates and who favor both war and a pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps philosophy ironically not found in the gospel they preach. This I say as an Episcopal priest related to a brother who is a nondenominational pastor. That this organization is bringing this issue to light is actually helpful to those of us who know it has been going on and who feel it's a flagrant and ironic violation of the separation of church and state principle.

Sent by Brian | 4:05 PM | 9-29-2008

Anyone with basic political literacy should be able to translate advocacy for a certain moral/religious position into an endorsement for a particular candidate. By encouraging religious leaders to actually name candidates they support, aren't we relinquishing our civic responsibility to research the candidates and determine if their policy positions match our own? I believe religious leaders should continue to preach their religious and moral beliefs, but it is our responsibility as American citizens to determine which candidate, on aggregate, represents these beliefs.

Sent by Roger Noelle | 4:15 PM | 9-29-2008

This is the result of allowing one religion to have too much power in the WH. This administration established an OFFICE OF RELIGION! Now we have the next step, allowing endorsements from the pulpit. When are people going to say ENOUGH? The constitution clearly says the government shall not establish a national religion. By allowing any religion to sway their congregation, they are establishing one religion over the others simply because some religions have larger numbers of participants. What about lesser religions? ones that don't have the numbers of the so called 'main stream religions'? If these people want their religious views dictating government policies, then I want them to move to Iran, Iraq, India, any number of countries that allow the 'head of their religion' to tell the citizenry how to vote. Let them experience that for a year; then ask if they'd rather return to this country. If they prefer that existence; they are welcome to stay!

Sent by Lois Waldron | 4:24 PM | 9-29-2008

This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has to do with the tax code. If people want to change the code to allow tax deductible contributions to churches that make political endorsements, then I should be allowed to deduct my contributions to the aclu, moveon, etc.

Sent by Sam | 4:35 PM | 9-29-2008

Dear Talk of the Nation and NRP,

Thank for your provocative discussion regarding the tax-except status of religious organizations.

As a Jewish American Citizen, I am disgusted about the "church", Neo-conservative and Republican platforms commingling Jesus and the Christian Church into the American political theater.

The United States constitution clearly requires separation of Church and State.

For your partisan religious guest to subscribe and communicate their personal beliefs to their flock in the support of John McCain, or any political candidate, because "it's what Jesus would do", is both criminal and anti-American.

Who do these religious fanatics think they are? Jesus? God? My parents?

America consists of over 350 million individuals, unique human beings from all corners of our small planet. Each possesses different beliefs and different gods. Some have none. Neither Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism nor any other religion belongs in the political discussion.

I am repulsed and disgusted by the Christian, holier than thou position on the subject. Such supporters are NOT pro-human individuality, they are outliers and extremist.

Please provide your pro-Christian political fanatics with this clearly written listing of the United States Constitution which America's values, rules and dreams are based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution

I encourage every American read the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights before casting their ballot on November 4th.

Sincerely,

D.A. Schwartz
San Jose, CA

Sent by D.A. Schwartz | 4:46 PM | 9-29-2008

Absotively not. I MUCH PREFER TO THINK FOR MYSELF.
In fact when I was six years my Sunday school teacher asked my Grandmother to not bring me back. Not because Of any misbehaving,(I was a very good child) but rather because I felt that it was stupid for God, as the father of Jesus, to send Jesus to die. For no other purpose but "TO DIE"! Sounded stupid then, sounds stupid now. It's a very insipidly stupid supposition.
Furthermore: If God wanted a church He wouldn't have Built Adam and Eve.
Also, Churches getting involved in politics is a ploy devised by the right wing think tanks in order to frighten the ignorant into voting republican based on only one issue. When all the while the position that "The Religious Right" has so adamantly taken up goes totally against Free will. Free will was Gods greatest gift to mankind and even though our decisions sometimes break His heart If he took away that gift He would be the most worthless lout in our universe.

Sent by RICK DAY | 4:48 PM | 9-29-2008

Exactly what core biblical principles are being expressed by supporting a presidential candidate whose history reveals he's an adulterer flaunting his 'trophy wife', a Keating-5 bribe taking influence peddler who narrowly missed being 'fired' from congress,& stated in televised interviews that he was running not for love of country but for personal ambition; & a veep candidate with sparse academic credentials, next to no foreign relations experience, & favors petro-industry $'s at the expense of environment & endangered species, thinks the global climate crisis is a myth, trumpets sexual abstinence over contraception, yet she eloped 8 months before Track was born, insensitively flaunted her unmarried 17 yr old pregnant daughter & reluctant boyfriend on national TV, her oldest 2 kids are reputed druggie partiers - these are Christian family values? Oh, Please!!!! They talk a good line but their personal lives don't reflect the rhetoric and that's where "the rubber meets the road."

Sent by lynne higgins | 5:08 PM | 9-29-2008

I heard most of the segment today regarding the "Pulpit Initiative" and was horrified. I understand Pastor Booth's points about freedom of speech and the concept that religion is supposed to permeate every aspect of your life. I understand that attempting to separate the two would "invite hypocrisy." However, both of these truths are being grossly exploited. Freedom of speech protects an individual. He, as a person, representing himself and himself only, has the right to say whatever he chooses. But as a pastor, in front of a church, he no longer represents only himself. He represents the head of a church that, by definition, is not about him! The same is true for the second point about hypocrisy. A person's religion is, undoubtedly, a guiding force in their individual life. So it ought to influence and inform their own personal decisions, even their vote. But this is a personal endeavor, not a public one. To claim that one particular candidate or political platform is more Christian than another simply because of an opinion that is yours as an individual is, by far, the single-most disgusting thing I have ever heard.

I am further disgusted by the notion that Christians can only be Republican. Your religious principles can very well lead you to be a Democrat, an Independent, a Republican, or Unaffiliated. Religious and political convictions are, and should be, personal decisions based on personal renderings of the world around us.

I have about a hundred points to make about this topic, including points directly from Scripture. But the bottom line is that anyone who stands in a pulpit telling a congregation how to think and vote is undermining freedom, and patronizing the free-thinking, free-will individuality that God intended us to have. And how dare anyone, claiming to represent God, attempt to steal away my two most personal freedoms-- my religious convictions and my vote.

Sent by Brittany B | 5:13 PM | 9-29-2008

Without getting into a religious debate, lets walk through a reasoned approach at what I see happening here. The gentleman from Minnesota they had on at the beginning of the story today at times seemed to know what he was talking about, but the way I see it, he's dead wrong.

1. The Freedom of Speech is granted in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

2. The government sets up a tax scheme in which everyone must pay in.

3. The government recognizes several entities that it feels are valuable to society and do not exist to make a profit. Churches are one of these entities.

4. The government decides that since these entities are not-for-profit and they are valuable to society, it is best not to tax them.

5. The government decides to exempt these entities from taxes in exchange for the entities refraining from engaging in partisan politics, thereby giving up some of the aforementioned freedom.

6. The entities agree that in exchange for not being taxed, they will not engage in partisan politics and understand they have given up some of the right to free expression as long as retain their tax-exempt status.

It's called an incentive, people. As an incentive for not engaging in partisan politics in church, churches are extended the courtesy of not having to give away a large chunk of the offerings they take in to the government.

The reverend stated a number of times that this was a freedom of speech issue. He would be right if he paid taxes. But he doesn't. If he really supports John McCain and the Republican party, he will uphold his end of the bargain and either retract his statements and end his practice of campaigning in church or withdraw his church's tax-exempt status and start kicking in like the rest of the country. I'm sure the congregation would enjoy paying a membership fee in exchange for placing a McCain-Palin sign on the church lawn.

Sent by Rob Hodge | 5:42 PM | 9-29-2008

The solution is simple. Take ALL tax exemptions away from the churches, then they can say what they want.

Sent by John | 6:47 PM | 9-29-2008

I'm not so into the bible, but isn't there something in there about women playing a subservient role to men? Therefore, how does a "true" Christian, one who believes all parts of their lives should be lived by the bible support John McCain with a women on the ticket?

Sent by Margaret | 7:09 PM | 9-29-2008

The IRS probably doesn't like to give out tax exempt status to anyone and I can imagine that the second they get wind of someone violating the conditions they come down hard. I expect a little stronger moral fiber in men of the cloth who are trying to "guide their flock." Blatantly defying US law is not setting a good example. You might as well tell your congregation to model their behavior after the typical celebrity behaving badly like all these young starlets and their DUI arrests, or Anna Nicole and her absurd lawsuit to gain a piece of the Marshall fortune (which in true karmic fashion even though she achieved a bogus ruling from a bankruptcy court her estate has still seen none of that money and never will since her claim is totally deficient) The priests should have also just been practical about this, what were the odds that the IRS was just going to let this go? Does the IRS have a reputation for giving warnings or granting leniency? Not that I'm aware of!

Sent by belicoso | 7:36 PM | 9-29-2008

I have linked to your article from:
http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/controversy/pulpit.html
"Pulpit Endorsements: The Sky Will Not Fall"

Sent by Wayne | 8:12 PM | 9-29-2008

Love the comment by Rick Day. Free will is the key and too many of our fundamentalist friends don't realize that.

Sent by Ed Sullivan | 8:40 PM | 9-29-2008

I agree with the pastors who want to speak out on politics. Politics is intimately bound up with morality, and that's what religious institutions are all about.

My solution: Remove all tax-exempt status from all religious institutions. Treat them just like any other non-profit organization. Why should a religious group get a special tax break?

Sent by fdr_democrat | 9:25 PM | 9-29-2008

This effort on Sunday has the stench of Karl Rove all over it. I can just picture the McCain campaign saying, "Karl, do what you did for W. It worked." And the best Rove could come up with was to repeat his bullying of conservative preachers to brainwash their congregants once again. The tragedy is, it could work again. Fear plus religion do not further the democracy the founders had in mind. They just divide and weaken this country. We believe in separation of church and state, as the founders did.

Sent by Joan Shapiro | 10:30 PM | 9-29-2008

Dear Talk of the Nation Host:

Church leaders are compelled to speak out on moral issues that are of a political nature. Our history illustrates that the Christian churches led the abolitionists movement against slavery and other societal evils. Black churches are bastions of regular Democrat party speech,campaigns and political propoganda. I've never seen the media lead the charge for the abolition of this party's tax exempt status. That said,it is enough for churches to speak out on issues. The choices of candidates should be left to the congregants.

Sent by patricia gauthier | 10:43 PM | 9-29-2008

The whole discussion of these fundamentalist ministers giving their parishioners political advice struck me as surreal. Why stop there? Maybe they could offer medical advice or remove a tumor. How about personal finance? Maybe they could provide legal advice. Why pay an attorney? Surely these ministers have taken time out from their Biblical studies to spend years studying foreign affairs, public administration, law, finance or economics. You would think that the fact that these clerics have been largely responsible for the advent of the Bush administration with its disastrous blend of incompetence, arrogance, venality and public piety would have engendered a modicum of humility but apparently not. Moral lives require hard thinking not a hard and fast rule here and there. No diligent thinker takes the facile moralism of the fundamentalist monotheism seriously. They forbid a 12-year-old rape victim to take the morning after pill, but are largely are largely disengaged when it comes to many, many of the other moral dilemmas of our age. I would pay as little attention to the political opinions of these ministers as I would to those of my dentist, but I would only trust the latter with crowning a molar.

Sent by Ron Greer | 1:39 AM | 9-30-2008