Welcome back!
When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence?
Any consideration of the relationship between religion and politics in the United States must take into account that most churches, religious organizations, and ministers are tax exempt.
Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business. (“Churches and Religious Organizations: Benefits And Responsibilities Under The Federal Tax Law” )
Now we come to another fine line. What is the difference between legal and illegal actions by religious organizations with tax-exempt status? This an important question, especially in an election year.
Political Campaign ActivityUnder the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious 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. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Individual Activity by Religious Leaders
The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious 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 IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of church functions and publications, religious leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization. IRS “Tax Guide For Churches And Religious Organizations”
My intention at this point is to post this IRS material on the blog for future reference as we go farther into the political campaign.
For now, I will include two references to cases when Roman Catholic priests denied communion to church members.
Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied communion.
His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec’s support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.
Kmiec was denied communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, yet it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year’s presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights? (“Denied the Rite“)
In Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has ordered Ms. Sebelius [Governor of Kansas] also an Obama supporter, not to receive Communion after she vetoed abortion legislation riddled with constitutional red flags. The bill in question made it easier for prosecutors to search private medical records, allowed family members to seek court orders to stop abortions and failed to include exceptions to save the life of the mother. Along with many public officials, Ms. Sebelius recognizes the profound moral gravity of abortion. She has supported prudent public policies that have reduced abortions in Kansas by investing in adoption services, prenatal health care and social safety nets for families. But in his diocesan newspaper, the archbishop blasted the governor over her “spiritually lethal” message and her obligation to recognize the “legitimate authority within the Church.” (“Don’t Play Politics With Communion”)
In recent posts, I have been raising questions about the relationships between religion, politics, and the Bible by offering a series of specific, current examples of the collisions between political and religious beliefs.
Behind the specifics of any particular incident, lawsuit, political campaign, or religious organization, the basic challenge is this: the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that we must respect the rights of others whose religious beliefs and practices are different from our own.
It is also important to recognize that any belief about religion comes under the category of religious belief. Atheism is as much a religious belief as belief in God. (For a perceptive commentary on this point, see the comment by John Thomas.)
As our society continues to become more and more religiously, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse, this means that clashes between religion and politics will grow more and more frequent. The question then becomes a matter of authority. Which authority is the ultimate authority on such matters? Does religious belief trump federal law? Or does Federal law trump religious belief?
I remember the 1960 presidential election when John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith was a major political issue, based on the question of authority: Would John Kennedy abide by federal law or be obedient to the authority of the Pope?
The basic question of authority has not changed, and applies to Roman Catholics who must decide if they are going to follow church teachings or federal, state, and local laws at the risk of being denied sacred rites.
The same question applies to evangelical Christians who treat the Bible as their highest authority. When there is a conflict, do they obey the Bible or the law?
What happens when churches provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants against federal law, based on a claim that they are following a higher authority?
Under Martin Luther King, Jr, the civil rights movement was fundamentally a proclamation that a biblical vision of justice carried higher authority than Jim Crow laws requiring segregation by race.
And since the question of Barack Obama’s faith continue to be the stuff of internet urban legends, with endless claims that he is really a Muslim and would take the oath of office on the Koran, what happens when a non-Christian is elected to political office?
And if we are going to teach the Bible in public schools, are we willing to provide money to teach the Koran in public schools? Will we spend tax dollars to educate Muslims in private Muslim schools?
We might even add to the list, is it really possible for someone in the United States to run for President who claims to be an agnostic or atheist?
I don’t pretend to know the answers to such questions. I know only that religious and political beliefs can never be treated as if they inhabit separate realms. Like it or not, every religious question is also political and every political question is also religious. And in each case, the real question comes down to authority.
When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence? This is the most impolite and the most difficult of the Impolite Topics.
Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson
Recent Comments