Monday, September 27, 2010
Pulpit Freedom Sunday
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/09/pulpit-freedom-sunday.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Rob, I agree with what you say. My colleague, Lloyd Mayer, has a really helpful piece on the RFRA dimensions of IRS supervision of what is said by clergy in the "pulpit." Now, I suspect that, in fact, churches worry more than they really need to about what is said in the "pulpit" about candidates, politics, and so on. But that's another question.
Posted by: Rick Garnett | Sep 27, 2010 3:14:05 PM
The IRS rule should be challenged, if for no other reason, merely because its application has been laughably one-sided. Certain churches, especially those with mostly black congregations, have routinely politicked openly, have had Democratic candidates at the pulpit, etc. Such laws are used to stop the Pat Robertsons, but not the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons, from "mixing" religion and politics.
Posted by: cynic | Sep 27, 2010 5:42:32 PM
Even if the IRS rule were abrogated, I suspect that the Catholic Church would not go into the business of endorsing candidates in any major way. Many Catholics -- including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict -- think that it is not in the Church's interest to involve herself in partisan politics. It is for this reason that Pope John Paul II forbade priests from running for elective office. It would create huge complications with little upside if parish priests and/or bishops endorsed particular candidates in American elections. It would be easy to imagine, for example, conflicting endorsements. Further, given that Catholics are more or less evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, any endorsement would be almost certain to alienate half of the laity.
Posted by: Dan | Sep 27, 2010 11:13:39 PM
Why should there be "sphere sovereignty" for churches, as you call it? Taxation of a religious institution (supposing such taxation is not discriminatory) does not restrict the ability of anyone to freely practice their religion, and tax-exempt status for religious institutions gives state sanction to religious institutions over similar, secular institutions. If churches are to be exempt from taxation, it should be by a standard that applies to all institutions.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Sep 30, 2010 9:59:53 PM
Why should there be "sphere sovereignty" for churches, as you call it? Taxation of a religious institution (supposing such taxation is not discriminatory) does not restrict the ability of anyone to freely practice their religion, and tax-exempt status for religious institutions gives state sanction to religious institutions over similar, secular institutions. If churches are to be exempt from taxation, it should be by a standard that applies to all institutions.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Sep 30, 2010 9:59:53 PM
Why should there be "sphere sovereignty" for churches, as you call it? Taxation of a religious institution (supposing such taxation is not discriminatory) does not restrict the ability of anyone to freely practice their religion, and tax-exempt status for religious institutions gives state sanction to religious institutions over similar, secular institutions. If churches are to be exempt from taxation, it should be by a standard that applies to all institutions.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | Sep 30, 2010 9:59:53 PM