Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Politics in the Pulpit

By

[cross-posted to MyDD]

My Unitarian Univeralist congregation, the Unitarian Society of Northampton and Florence, has lay-led services over the summer since we largely give the minister the summer off.  I’ve been leading one service each summer for several years, and last Sunday I decided to talk about my experience in politics and what the community organizing model in politics might mean for the mission of our congregation.

I thought BMG and/or MyDD readers might find my readings and sermon interesting.  Religious organizations have to walk a fine legal line between political advocacy and tax-exempt free speech — I hope I managed to do that here while making no particular secret of my own preferences.

Here are the text of the sermons and readings.  Comments are welcome!  Anybody else involved in organized religion in this way?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I would not be comfortable being quite so blatant in my own church.  When I preach I get complimented for the “history lecture” since the two subjects I am most comfortable talking about are politics and history, and I won’t touch politics with a ten-foot poll from the pulpit.

    <

    p>At least I can say I belong to the United Church of Christ, which theology closely seems to match the Democratic platform.  Barack Obama was among the key speakers at our General Synod last year in which he made one direct “When I’m President…” reference.  The link is to videos of some of the major speeches.  The IRS opened an investigation into whether the UCC crossed the line, but concluded that it had not.  It’s kind of like issue ads as far as I can tell.  You can pretty much get away with saying anything short of “Vote for candidate X.” or “Vote against candidate Y.”  I must admit the difference between the General Synod and a Democratic National Convention seemed a bit blurry at times.

  2. “what the community organizing model in politics might mean for the mission of our congregation”

    <

    p>This question is what the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization is premised on.

    <

    p>In my congregation what we often find is that GBIO activity both links larger groups of people together across the region, and across faiths and classes and races, by their common interests. It also provides a realist approach to how power works that church groups are often not accustomed to.

    <

    p>It’s not partisan. Instead of advocating for politicians it gets them on record as supporting or not supporting its grassroots-developed positions in regard to pressing basic needs that government has a duty to address.

    <

    p>Interestingly, GBIO is an affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation, which was founded by Saul Alinsky. That’s the same Alinsky that Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis on and in whose Chicago footsteps Barack Obama did his church-organizing in the 80s.  

    • I’m not at all surprised to find some UU congregations among the membership of GBIO, including the First Church in Jamaica Plain where I was a member in the mid-1980’s.  The Rev. Terry Burke there is a great model for all the roles of a UU minister –leading worship, networking with interfaith and other organizations, and inspiring the congregation to do things.

      <

      p>At my congregation in Northampton we have two interfaith social action operations that I know about, both as far as I know originally our initiatives that we brought other congregations into.  We help run a cot shelter in the winter, and we have a “help fund” that can make small gifts to people in need and counsel them about available services.  I’m hoping our new minister will be active in the Interfaith Council in Northampton and even explore whether something parallel to this GBIO operation would make sense here.

      <

      p>Thanks for pointing me to this!

    • for violations of their tax-exempt status due to the speeches from Rev Wright? You all know I am partisan and would support this type of action, but even for just a single unbiased moment, it does seem his words for BO and against Clinton would surely break the rules. If not, then the rules must be pretty loose since he was clearly supporting BO. Right?

      • The most recent actual IRS threat against a church was in 2005 for a pre-election sermon at a liberal Episcopal church in LA.  here is an LA Times story on that.

        <

        p>Faux News speculated on, and actively tried to stir up, a possible IRS complaint against Wright’s church about his endorsement of Obama.  This March 2008 story may have been overtaken by events such as the later Obama/Wright rift.  

        <

        p>As mentioned above, Obama’s 2007 speech at the UCC’s General Synod was officially cleared after the fact by the IRS.  A search on “wright obama IRS” did not yield me any evidence that the complaint about Wright has yet gone anywhere.

        <

        p>Here is a claim from a source I wouldn’t trust about a Florida televangelist getting IRS heat for his sermons about Mormonism.

        • I am a member of 3 Non Profit Organizations (NPOs) (like the churches). We go to “extreme” lengths to not endorse any candidate, any causes or anything that might smell of a bias. We won’t even mention candidates names in our meetings, our web site or our literature. Whenever I see things like these churches, it makes me question what the rules are. Are these churches in violation or are we as an NPO allowed to support a candidate openly (as Rev Wright did with BO) and/or critique a candidate (as Rev Wright did about H. Clinton)? I’m sure there are churches supporting John McCain who may be just as guilty.

          <

          p>Are there any legal scholars (or tax people) out there to render a verdict on this?

          • What seems to be clear is that endorsing candidates is over the line, though the IRS under Bush has never shown any interest in checking up on endorsements of Republican candidates — this is what made the LA case such obvious hypocrisy.

            <

            p>On the other hand, non-profit institutions can take stands on matters of public policy, including referenda that don’t involve candidates.  I don’t think there is any major legal challenge to, for example, a Catholic priest saying to his congregation before election day that abortion is totally unacceptable and that they should consider candidates’ positions on abortion when they vote.

            <

            p>The Christian Coalition used to make up “candidate information guides” giving each candidate’s recorded position on issues of importance to them, just as many other organizations do.  They would out-and-out say “In this race, the Republican candidate supported us on 10 out of ten issues while the Democrat opposed us on 9 out of 10,” and this didn’t appear to be construed as an endorsement of a candidate.

            <

            p>But I agree, it would be nice to have some more informed opinion.

            <

            p>It may be that your organizations have reasons to stay political beyond any potential threat to their tax-exempt status.  Lots of single-issue organizations want to be able to attract people and talk to politicians who have a variety of views on issues other than their own.  If I were running an adult literacy program , for example, I would make sure that my organization took no position on abortion because I would not particularly care whether my literacy volunteers were pro-life or pro-choice.

            • I have asked my own NPOs the same question… what can we say and what is off limits nobody we don’t have a firm answer. I know an NPO can support a cause and I have heard they can talk about candidates, as long as they are simply professing their positions and they present both candidates positions. But there are clearly some NPOs who outright support candidates.

          • preachers are usually us citizens.  as such, they have the same right you and i do to endorse or criticize political candidates, as individuals.  endorsements and criticisms only become a problem for clergy if they are made in the person’s capacity as the minister of the church.  you’ll remember that early on, v. gene robinson endorsed obama.  it was no problem, because he made it clear that this was his personal endorsement, not his endorsement as the bishop of church x.

              • so much of what he said was political.  he was running for the top office, don’t forget.  the romans and rabbis certainly didn’t.

              • last i heard, jesus never tried qualifying for a 501(c)3, so really what he did or didn’t talk about is irrelevant here.

          • First, I’m not your lawyer unless you pay me money.

            <

            p>Second to answer your own question, you first must understand the nature of your organization’s exempt status:  i.e. 501(c)(1)(2)(3)…(28) because several have specific prohibitions/allowances with respect to political activity.  

            <

            p>You’ll find the exemption on your organization’s determination letter received from IRS.  If your organization is a church, it may not have a determination and is likely a 501(c)(3).

            <

            p>Your organization’s permitted ‘lobbying’ activities of a 501(c)(3) may be found at IRC 501(h). You’ll find that public charities are permitted to lobby, which in and of itself may resemble candidate support, but usually skirts the law and does not endanger the exemption.  

            <

            p>For example, it’s entirely permissible for a Church to rail against Roe v. Wade or it’s entirely permissible for another Church to sanctify Moon-Bats, each without risking loss of exemption.

            <

            p>That is, and assuming the three (3) other not-for-profit entities, are 501(c)(3) organizations (i.e. “like the churches”) then each CAN influence Legislation, but CANNOT directly or indirectly intervene in a political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to a political candidate.

            <

            p>For example, inviting Mr. Obama to speak while refusing to invite Mr. McCain seems to go too far.

            <

            p>For example, a sermon proclaiming that we need a black president, goes too far.

            <

            p>For example, a sermon proclaiming that a woman’s right to choose is a sin and a President who disagrees is a sinner, probably, DOESN’T go too far. IMHO.

            <

            p>A 501(c)(3) that “goes too far” becomes an “action” organization and will lose its 501(c)(3) status but may be eligible for 501(c)(4) (social welfare) status, so long as no part of their receipts are for the benefit of a private person. Barring qualification as a 501(c)(4), it’s profits will potentially be taxed under IRC 527 and contributions by individuals won’t be deductible.

            <

            p>I recall that there was a rumor that Obama’s Church was under investigation, but the IRS typically isn’t going to release that information, and the public won’t know unless the church’s exempt status is pulled.

            <

            p>

            • You need an actual church doctrine and core set of beliefs other then everyone is right.

              • As a UU (though a member of one of the most Christian UU churches in the world- we even have a cross), I have a good sense of humor regarding the jokes about our “faith”- that we’re just a bunch of atheists who want our kids to go to church, etc. (agnostic in my case).  

                <

                p>But I will point out that you are wrong; Universalists generally believe that the worlds’ major religions have common universal principles (e.g. the golden rule), not that they are all right.  Logic demands that Universalists believe that those aspects of each religion that do not share any commonality are, in fact, wrong.

                <

                p>In sum: bite me 😉

              • You have some sort of intellectual right, like Humpty Dumpty, to define the word “religion” to mean whatever you want it to mean.  But you should be aware that you’re offending people when you go classifying religions as “real” or not based on your very limited understanding of what they do or believe.  

                <

                p>For example, a “Universalist” has traditionally meant a Christian who believes in an afterlife where we are judged, with the additional proviso that a truly benevolent god would damn no one.  Modern Unitarian Universalists include many Christians, as well as Jews, pagans, Buddhists, humanists  — the common denominator is their desire to associate with each other to promote such principles as the inherent worth and dignity of every person and the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

                <

                p>In that loving spirit, you may bite me as well.

              • Borisevicius617 you are a deep thinker.  It would be great to speak with you someday.

                <

                p>Great minds think alike!  I think?

                <

                p>

            • This sounds right (yes, I’m a lawyer).  The IRS tends to tread lightly around Churches, given the significant First Amendment issues raised by enforcement actions against religious organizations.  Investigations will be much more frequent than revocations.  

      • I’m all for separation of Church and State, but if you go down this route, and hold all churches to an equal standard, you are going to end up with lot on non-tax exempt churches. And they ain’t going to be just the liberal-leaning ones, buddy.

        <

        p>  

    • You’ll notice that the governing organization is “Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations”.  

      <

      p>Saying Uniterrorist Universalist Church seems to… is meaningless; there is no singular Church.

      <

      p>Thanks for introducing me to yet another… interesting corner of the internet.  Speaking of hate…

      <

      p>  

  4. I agree that church is the place that moral issues should be addressed. I think the churches of Massachusetts should be taking a more active stand to support the undocumented immigrants who live and work among us. The anti-immigrant bias and hate that has taken hold in the last few years, led by talk radio and the same hate groups that used to target Catholics, Jews, blacks, and homosexuals, needs to be countered by the moral authority and compassion of the churches.How can we mobilize church leaders and clergy to stand up on this issue?  

    • it’s up to church members to sit down and talk each other and then to their clergy.  and it’s up to clergy who are on board to have conversations with their peers.

  5. In particular, for the legal non-advice from gary and the several people who said that their own churches or non-profits have a strict non-political policy.  The latter reminded me of two points I should have made in my sermon but didn’t.  First, committing a large and diverse organization to a political position should be difficult, if the organization allows it at all, so that there is some assurance that the position represents a broad and well-considered view across the membership.  Secondly, the higher an individual ranks in such an organization, the less freedom they have to state their mind because of the possibility of confusing their personal position with that of the organization.  As a trustee of my congregation, I was careful when I spoke in my sermon about its internal politics to say nothing that disagreed with a considered opinion of the board.

    <

    p>With a sermon, we have a principle of “the freedom of the pulpit”, a bit like academic tenure, to protect a minister’s job security against attacks based simply on disagreement with what they say.  But that principle has to work in the context of  the tax laws and the idea that only the congregation can speak for the congregation.

Archives