"Safe Harbor" amendment would allow churches to endorse candidates
by Editorial Staff, The Pitt News
June 09, 2004
The first must-read of the summer just hit the stands. No, J. K. Rowling has not blessed us with another "Harry Potter" book. Instead, this must-read is a 396-page brick of a bill just introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives called the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Section 692, "Safe Harbor for Churches," buried on page 378, has nothing to do with jobs or the creation thereof.
"Safe Harbor" is tacked onto this omnibus bill, which also has such riders as "Repeal of excise tax on fishing tackle boxes," and seeks to allow religious organizations three "unintentional" violations of the rules governing the separation of church and state without losing their tax-exempt status. In other words, churches get three strikes to be involved in politics -- read: endorse or denounce candidates -- before having to pay for it.
And all of this during an election year. How convenient for President George Bush, since recent polling has shown that frequent churchgoers say they will vote for Bush over presumed Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Must be his faith-based economics.
The bill also allows churches to endorse/denounce candidates deliberately, with reduced tax penalties, according to yesterday's The New York Times.
Separation of church and state is one of those principles on which the United States was founded. Applying it can get messy, but, in this case, the rules are fairly clear-cut. Church and state are two great tastes that don't taste great together.
If a law is worth having, it's worth upholding. Allowing for violations demeans the law; if the bill's sponsors feel that churches should become political animals, then they should try to alter the laws governing what qualifies as a non-profit and not try to pussyfoot around it.
Beyond that, churches don't need a special safe harbor to be political. For instance, as reported in an article in the May 26 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, several bishops wanted to deny Kerry Communion because he was pro-choice.
Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl objected to this, saying, "Historically, people ... including Catholics, react with great disfavor to an effort of a church body that appears to tell people how to vote." Amen to that.
Hopefully the House will act with great disfavor towards this lousy rider too.
June 09, 2004
The first must-read of the summer just hit the stands. No, J. K. Rowling has not blessed us with another "Harry Potter" book. Instead, this must-read is a 396-page brick of a bill just introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives called the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Section 692, "Safe Harbor for Churches," buried on page 378, has nothing to do with jobs or the creation thereof.
"Safe Harbor" is tacked onto this omnibus bill, which also has such riders as "Repeal of excise tax on fishing tackle boxes," and seeks to allow religious organizations three "unintentional" violations of the rules governing the separation of church and state without losing their tax-exempt status. In other words, churches get three strikes to be involved in politics -- read: endorse or denounce candidates -- before having to pay for it.
And all of this during an election year. How convenient for President George Bush, since recent polling has shown that frequent churchgoers say they will vote for Bush over presumed Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Must be his faith-based economics.
The bill also allows churches to endorse/denounce candidates deliberately, with reduced tax penalties, according to yesterday's The New York Times.
Separation of church and state is one of those principles on which the United States was founded. Applying it can get messy, but, in this case, the rules are fairly clear-cut. Church and state are two great tastes that don't taste great together.
If a law is worth having, it's worth upholding. Allowing for violations demeans the law; if the bill's sponsors feel that churches should become political animals, then they should try to alter the laws governing what qualifies as a non-profit and not try to pussyfoot around it.
Beyond that, churches don't need a special safe harbor to be political. For instance, as reported in an article in the May 26 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, several bishops wanted to deny Kerry Communion because he was pro-choice.
Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl objected to this, saying, "Historically, people ... including Catholics, react with great disfavor to an effort of a church body that appears to tell people how to vote." Amen to that.
Hopefully the House will act with great disfavor towards this lousy rider too.
posted by Rev. Rick Mitchell, PhD at 11:18 PM
1 Comments:
But to be fair, where is the outcry when liberal churches speak out in favor of the Democratic candidate/denounce the Republican candidate? And all with no risk of losing tax exempt status. Just another example of a policy that some support when it favors their party.
It seems to me to be disingenuous to write this kind of newspaper article on "principle" and yet let principle remain silent when the shoe is on the other foot.
Post a Comment
<< Home