Plead the First

Local blogger Joe Guarino recently wrote about City Councilwoman Yvonne Johnson’s announcement of her mayoral candidacy. At the end of his post, Joe had this to say:

The News and Record also reported that Rev. Howard Chubbs offered his endorsement and spoke on her behalf. He is the pastor of Providence Baptist Church, reported to be “one of the most prominent black churches in town”. Once again, our local separationists failed to squeal in outrage that the esteemed wall between church and state had been breached. If a local conservative Christian or Catholic pastor had done something like this, we never would have heard the end of it.

I’m not sure if I qualify as a “local separationist”, but since I’ve written on such topics before, let’s take a look and see if there’s anything to this that’s worthy of squeals of outrage.

The main issue at hand is whether Chubbs’ endorsement breaches the wall of separation between church and state. The main protection that this “wall” provides applies to governmental authorities – acting in an official capacity, government agents may not act to endorse or favor one religion over another. Chubbs is not an agent of the government. In fact, at first glance, this would appear to be the exact opposite situation – a church looking to endorse or influence the government.

That brings up another potential conflict. While it’s obvious that there is no problem here in the sense of the government meddling in religion, there are indeed certain circumstances where churches and other non-profit organizations are prevented from doing exactly what Chubbs did – speaking on behalf of a certain candidate, and attempting to influence voters to vote in a certain partisan direction. IRS regulations state:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

However, this is intended to apply to the church as an organization. It applies directly to pastors or church officials only when they are speaking from the pulpit, or in an official capacity on behalf of the church. From the IRS website:

The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions.

So if Chubbs was speaking from the pulpit, or as a church leader at an official church function, we’d have a problem here. The context of Chubbs’ endorsement is given in the News and Record article that Guarino links to:

On Thursday , there were a few signs — more than a few signs, actually — that City Councilwoman Yvonne Johnson’s mayoral candidacy won’t be your typical starched, buttoned-up affair.

… [S]peakers offered a preview of Johnson’s powerful political support: former council members Claudette Burroughs-White and Robbie Perkins ; attorney and civic leader Henry Isaacson ; arts activist Betty Cone ; and the Rev. Howard Chubbs , the pastor of one of the most prominent black churches in town, Providence Baptist Church .

Chubbs, who isn’t Johnson’s pastor, said she told him weeks ago she was considering a run for mayor.

He asked: “Who better than you and what better time than now?”

In other words, Chubbs’ endorsement was given at Johnson’s press conference to announce her candidacy, at the Phill G. McDonald Governmental Plaza in Greensboro. All indications are that he was speaking in an individual capacity, hence there is no conflict here, and nothing worthy of any squeals.

Had Chubbs been speaking from the pulpit, then I would absolutely agree that there was a conflict. But the First Amendment also guarantees free speech, and as an individual Chubbs is fully entitled to that right. I would say the same thing of any conservative church leader endorsing a politician in an individual capacity.

Just trying to imagine some of the evidence that may be presented in this case. And by “trying to imagine” I just mean, “drawing innocent cartoons about it.” Not that I’m really using my imagination to dwell upon what sort of things may or may not be revealed in such a case. Did I say “revealed”? I should stop now.

School board representatives are in a bit of a tussle trying to determine whether the most recent redistricting of High Point schools will remain in effect, or whether parents can override it and choose where to send their kids.

Time.com had an interesting article this past week that looked at how our troop surge in Iraq has been going. According to the report, with only two-fifths of the total surge in Iraq, we’re actually seeing some progress:

Barbaro told reporters Tuesday that two of the five brigades making up the surge are now in Iraq, and that the third is en route from Kuwait. Two more are preparing to deploy, and all five should be in place in greater Baghdad in June. Twenty-three of the 43 planned security outposts have been established across Baghdad. Barbaro said violence in the city has dropped by about a third since the surge began in mid-February. “Murders and executions against civilians, referred to extrajudicial killings, have decreased significantly, somewhere in the area of about a 50 percent decrease,” he said. “However, high-profile attacks — car bombs, suicide attacks, more typically conducted by Sunni extremist groups against Shi’a targets — continue. However, the effectiveness of these high-profile attacks has dropped.” Hundreds of families are returning to their homes in the capital, Barbaro said.

The fact that people are returning to their homes seems especially encouraging to me. I’ve generally felt that it would be a bad move to pull out of Iraq – we made a mess, we should clean it up – but it also seemed likely that the surge may have been too little, too late. There didn’t seem to be any good course of action. As the Time article says, it’s too early to draw any conclusions, but I do hope that these early signs mean that things are starting to turn around over there.

During yesterday’s Senate hearing, Senator Inhofe asked Al Gore to sign an “energy ethics pledge” which read:

As a believer:

• that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
• that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
• that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
• that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.�

Many folks are now expressing their moral outrage and righteous indignation at Gore for not saying “yes” to the pledge. Gore may or may not be a hypocrite (it’s hard to tell, since Inhofe was talking over him rather than allowing him to respond), but if he is, it’s not because he refused to sign the pledge – the pledge is obviously a farce.

Here’s a pledge that I’d like to put forth to any conservatives out there who are trembling with joy at Gore’s supposed hypocrisy:

As a believer:

• that terrorism is one of the greatest threats facing our nation, and it is our moral and patriotic duty to fight against it;
• that Middle Eastern regimes are key supporters and enablers of terrorism;
• that our consumption of oil provides money and support to those Middle Eastern regimes; and
• that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household, reduce my air and car travel to emergency use only, and to take public transportation whenever possible by March 21, 2008.

Any takers on this pledge? Give me a “yes” or “no” in the comments. Remember, anything other than a simple “yes” means that you are either not serious about fighting terrorism, or that you’re a hypocrite.

Update, October 2014: I’m removing this cartoon. After witnessing the mess in Ferguson this summer, and the discussions surrounding it, I don’t feel I can stand behind it any longer. The intentions behind it were good, but that doesn’t mean that I was right. There’s a lot more to issues around race than I had considered at the time. Looking back on it now, it feels too much like “punching down” rather than “punching up”, which is what a good political cartoon should strive for.

Sort of a followup to my previous cartoon, this one focusing on the hair-trigger racial sensibilities of the Pulpit Forum.

Friend and co-worker Gedeon Maheux reviews Penn Station Subs, a local sub shop in High Point and Greensboro.

I just finished watching some of today’s meeting of the Guilford County Commissioners. In the midst of discussing the formation of a new jail committee, the discussion suddenly ground to a halt.

Commissioner Alston pointed out that on the previous jail committee, participants who were not county commissioners had been allowed to vote as part of the committee. Chairman Gibson seemed taken aback by this – he was of the opinion that only actual commissioners should be taking part in any votes, and outside participants were only there to give advice and input.

Unfortunately, either there is no set procedure for this, or if there is, none of the commissioners are aware of it. The best case scenario would seem to be that their committees are conducting business by the seat of their pants, without established guidelines for who has a direct say in forming committee recommendations. The worst case scenario would be that they are conducting business improperly, giving outside participants votes when they shouldn’t. As Gibson pointed out in the meeting, many times some of these outside consultants may stand to benefit from the recommendations at which the committee arrives.

There are possibly circumstances under which non-commissioners could serve on a committee and have a legitimate vote, but the confusion present at tonight’s meeting doesn’t give me much confidence that anyone knows whether this has been the case up to this point.

Ed Cone links to a recent NYT article in which Hillary Clinton details some of her plans for Iraq, in the event she is elected President:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission� in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

As I said in the comments at Ed’s, this sounds insane. If our previous troop levels weren’t getting the job done in Iraq, how on earth are reduced troop levels going to do us any good? Does Clinton really think that we can “fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military” without setting foot on Baghdad streets or addressing sectarian violence?

If she thinks we should be out of there, then she should get us out of there. If she thinks we have an interest in staying there, then she should be willing to commit enough troops to do what needs to be done. Her “plan” is half-assery or worse.

Then there’s this:

She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.

And if the military officers say we need more troops, rather than fewer troops? It seems likely, considering that that’s been the thinking among some in the military all along. What will Clinton do then?

As Kirk points out in the comments at Ed’s this is a prime example of her trying to have it both ways. Unfortunately, that just won’t fly in real life. I was ambivalent about Hillary before, but after reading this, I think she would be bad news as President, perhaps even dangerous. It will be a shame if she gets the Democratic nomination.

Yesterday, I went with a friend to see 300, the movie based on the Frank Miller comic book about the Spartan battle of Thermopylae in Greece. It was very well done – stylized, engaging, and a lot of fun. It turns out that quite a few parts were pulled from historical accounts of the battle. My friend Ged has written up his take on it over at his blog, along with some interesting links about the making of the movie and background on the actual battle.