Brenda - thanks for your comment. I’m not exactly sure how the Pulpit forum is organized, or how it operates, so I don’t know precisely where in the gray area it lies. Again, even ministers are entitled to express their opinions on political matters, but if they are indeed doing it while in their official ministerial capacity, then its wrong. Being such a prominent group, the line gets blurred a little further, much as it is when (to use Laura’s example) Falwell and other prominent Christian leaders speak on the news.

There are people who want to just do away with the prohibition on partisan political speech from the pulpit, but my get reaction is that the prohibition is generally a good thing, even though it can create ambiguous situations. Of course another solution would be just to get rid of tax-exempt statuses for churches, but I expect there would be a lot of people against that.

If a minister endorses and encourages his following to do so….the law has been broken.

If a minister simply says I endorse…then he speaks as an individual.

Question— If a minister stands in the pulpit of his church and says… “I am not advocating, advising or requesting that you support my choice of candidate but I CHOOSE or believe “so and so” to be the best choice”
Has any law been broken?

Great Post.

In my opinion, it amounted to a “potshot” against the general idea of separationism. There may indeed be some validity to your criticism, but I would venture a guess that its appropriate target is a pretty small (though possibly vocal) subset of separationists.

I do agree that this would make an interesting test case - I think Chubbs is probably in the clear, but you do raise some good points, and there definitely seem to be many shades of gray in this area.

Laura,

Thanks for your comments. There definitely have been plenty of cases where clergy on the conservative side have crossed the line (gray as the line may be). Regarding your last paragraph - I do agree that Joe’s post was an attempt to “knock” separationism, but I don’t think he was trying to knock anyone personally. I also don’t think he’s “anti-American”.

Other joe,

I’m sure God will look kindly on the way you’ve pompously elevated yourself to his level and presumed to know who’s going to hell based on comments that didn’t remotely address any actual religious tenets.

What does Mr. Guarano mean, “if?” They do, in fact, do this, and more.

But worse, they do so much more brazenly and illegally, including telling their congregations from the pulpit who to vote for, and distributing voter guides at church that endorse specific candidates. It is practices such as these that we who defend separation of church and state take issue with — not Jerry Falwell appearing on Fox News every night, however much we might disagree with him.

Remember, this nation was founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state — NOT on Christianity, and not on the Bible, despite how loudly and repeatedly conservatives try to mislead us into thinking so — both from the pulpit and on the airwaves. Religious freedom and separation of church and state are central to our system and have served us well for more than 250 years.

Those of us who defend these core American values and principals emphatically do not object to priests and preachers exercising their rights as citizens to speak up about politics or candidates — as long as they do so within the law.

Mr. Guarano is mischaracterizing us just so that he can knock us. Conservatives have done enough damage to our freedoms and our civil liberties. It is time for liberty-loving Americans to start standing up to them and invalidating their anti-American authoritarian agenda.

We need to remember that Chubbs’ standing in the community is by virtue of his leadership of that church, and in the political arena, by virtue of his influence over his congregation. He would not have been asked to issue a public endorsement at the announcement of Johnson’s candidacy if he were a welder or a day laborer.

It would be an interesting test case if someone were to file a complaint with the IRS, and we would see what the outcome is. But I know that if conservative Christian churches were to consider doing this type of thing, they worry about losing their tax exemption– and all the tithes and offerings to the church are no longer deductible. That is a big deal.

In fact, you are likely aware of the Christian Coalition. At one point in the past, it (and perhaps the churches that used its materials) got into trouble because its voter guides were distributed in churches. My understanding is that the guides merely rated candidates on certain issues, or recorded their positions or votes. But that was enough to create problems with the IRS, and there was no explicit endorsement!– if I remember correctly.

But generally, Anthony, the stuff you write is not filled with vitriol or repeated subtle shots taken against faithful Catholics and conservative Christians for the political views they may hold– with implicit or explicit concerns raised over separationism.