Separation of Church and State - Tax Status

I ended my previous post with these words...

A couple of conclusions...
1. religious organizations have special status in the constitution whether we like that or not.
2. that special status leads to a unique relationship between government and religious organizations.
3. while we certainly can change the constitution, there would be consequences for such a move.  To remove the establishment or impediment clause might indeed open the door to an established religion and those who argue for the United States as a "Christian" nation, might just get their way.  At the very least, those who are part of minority traditions (possibly including atheists), could find themselves suffering under official law.

Keep those observations in mind.

In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall of the supreme court noted, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."  While the context of the statement was not a church state decision, the import is the same.  To grant any government agency the power to tax religious organizations is in direct contradiction to the 1st Amendment free exercise clause as it gives the government control over religion.  Again, we cannot escape the fact that the constitution gives a unique status to religious organizations that places them outside of the reach of government.  The implications are both important and far-reaching with the most obvious being that churches do not pay taxes.   Depending upon the location, churches often do pay other fees and assessments levied on property.

Some folk think clergy do not pay taxes.  Not true.  Clergy pay income tax and self-employment tax.  Due to some weird legal thing, clergy are seen as employees for income tax purposes and self-employed for payroll tax purposes.   It is true that if a clergy person lives in church owned housing, he or she does not pay income tax on the rental value of that housing.   They do pay self-employment tax though, on the fair rental value.   As I understand it,  other employees who live on property owned by the employer for the benefit of the employer such as building superintendents, college presidents, college resident assistants, military personnel, etc. receive that housing tax free as long as they meet three tests -

1. The lodging is furnished on the business premises of the employer;
2. The lodging is furnished for the convenience of the employer, and
3. The employee is required to accept such lodging as a condition of employment

From what I can see, folk other than clergy do not pay self-employment tax on their housing nor is a payroll tax deducted.  So... at that point (if I'm correct) these other categories of employees actually get a significantly higher tax benefit than do clergy.  Self employment tax is HIGH.

So, it is relatively easy to justify the value of living in a parsonage as exempt from income taxes for a clergyperson as it can easily be seen to meet those three tests.  There is an additional piece, though, that comes into play for clergy sometimes known as a "housing allowance."  I don't know whether a similar benefit exists for anyone else.  I suspect that if it does, the rules are a lot more stringent than for clergy.  Clergy who own their own homes or live in rental properties can receive part of their salary designated as a "housing allowance" equal to the actual cost of housing or the fair rental value, whichever is lower. The housing allowance is not subject to income tax but is subject to self-employment tax just like the fair rental value of a parsonage. The reasoning behind this goes back to the free exercise clause.  This idea is there to equalize the ability of religious organizations which do not own housing for their leaders to exist relative to those that do own that property.  This benefit is challenged in court regularly and so far has been upheld. 

There are other implications of that unique status held by religious organizations that are also important that I may pick up in other posts at some time... I believe that the Johnson Amendment of 1954 (that is when non-profits were prohibited from making political endorsements) cannot apply to churches as that impedes free exercise.  I believe that laws such as zoning etc. also do not apply to churches.   Historically the court has said that the state must show a "compelling interest" to reach over the wall between church and state.  I would argue that the constitution requires that to be a very high bar.  Finally, I like to remind people that churches do not receive tax exempt status because of the benefit they provide to society.  Churches find their unique relationship to the state enshrined in the First Amendment.  They are not like other non-profits.

the size of government

I'm not going to argue the question regarding the size of the government.  Anyone who has read my blog knows that I am not for small government."  I'm for a government that is large enough and robust enough to do what is necessary to enable this nation to fill full all of its most wonderful promises.  That is another post.

What I want to talk about today i a piece that really has been puzzling me.  With the horrendous violence at the Sandy Hook school, there has been a strong theme among some right wing folk, mostly evangelical Christians, but not exclusively so.  They have argued that we can expect violence in schools because we have legislated God out of the schools.  Their answer is to "bring God back into our schools."

Well... nobody has legislated God out of anywhere - you can't do that or prohibited anything.  Indeed, there is literally no way to stop prayer from taking place in schools even if you wanted to.  Beyond that, religious organizations are specifically allowed in any school that allows any kind of outside organizations.  The concern seems only to be about having the 10 commandments posted, prayers at school events, and the like.

First, let me share a history lesson.  The idea of separation of church and state did not begin with secular liberals.  It was an idea that came from a few very brave and very inspired religious groups.  Many of the early settlers of the United States came from Europe fleeing religious persecution.  Most, like the pilgrims, arrived here and immediately set about building the same kinds of prohibitions under which they had suffered only attacking everyone who wasn't like them.  Two groups however realized that faith is an issue that is decided between and individual's conscience and God.  The Baptists (yes, the Baptists) and the Quakers argued and institutionalized the idea that government and religion needed to be separated.  The famous phrase of a "wall of separation" that does not appear in the constitution actually came from a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring them that he would work for a complete separation of Church and State, restricting the government from any interference in religious practice.

So, here are my questions... how is it that these folk who argue for "small government" want to insert the government into this most personal and important of issues of conscience?   How is it that these folk who do not trust government to do virtually anything want to give the government the responsibility of religious teaching?  If government was actually given that power, who would decide what it looks like?  Would the school principal write the prayers?  Or the town mayor?  Would they be representative of the divergence of the population of the area or would they just be watered down until everyone could agree (as if that could ever happen)?  Maybe someone from the Westboro Baptist Church could pray for the damnation of all of the children present... or a Santaria priest could sacrifice a chicken.  Maybe an Imam could read in Arabic from the Koran or a gay Episcopalian priest from the Book of Common Prayer.  Maybe a Mennonite could pray for the abolition of the military or a fundamentalist Mormon could prayer for the re-establishment of polygamy.  You get the picture.

As a Baptist pastor, a committed Christian, and a person who takes my faith very, very seriously, I do not want the government teaching my children, grandchildren, or church members issues of faith.  I do not want to give those folk the power to dictate the content of their prayers or of their religious interpretations.  I am not interested in prayers that offend nobody because they mean nothing and I am not interested in prayers that offend me because I do not agree with their meaning.  I am not interested in the 10 commandments published anywhere on government properties because at least half of them have to do with cultic issues and are irrelevant as social policy. 

I do trust the government to build social safety nets.  I do trust the government as the best way to administer health care.  I do trust the government as the best way to provide education, the common defense, and to address many many cultural concerns.  I do not trust the government to handle religion and as a minority religious group (and anyone who takes faith seriously in the US is a member of a minority religious group) the only role government has with regards to faith is to keeps its hands off and to make sure that the broader culture keeps its hands off.  I agree with Jefferson that those words in the first amendment establish a wall of separation and pray that it will never be breached.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday

Religion and politics has become a hot button topic these days.

Roman Catholic Archbishop John Meyers has said that members of his church who are pro gay marriage should not receive the Eucharist.  

For the past five years a group of conservative pastors have observed what they call Pulpit Freedom Sunday.     Each year there is a lot of discussion about the propriety of the day and of churches making political endorsements.  It is scheduled for this Sunday.

First let me come clean.  I believe in absolute freedom of religion.  The State has no right to dictate what a religious group can say or believe or constrain the way that faith lives itself out unless it is a danger to the general public.   I also believe in freedom from religion as a necessary corollary to absolute freedom of religion.  If individuals are not able to escape the influences of faith, they cannot freely choose.  Public policy is therefore never to be based on religious doctrines. Freedom of religion is clearly an important issue in the two situations raised above.

A Roman Catholic archbishop can restrict who receives the Eucharist based on his understanding of Roman Catholic teaching.  If he deems that advocating gay marriage is a sin, and that sin precludes one from the Lord's table, he can do that.  The Roman Catholic church is not a democracy and it is irrelevant whether the majority of members agree or not or even if the teaching has no credible basis in scripture.  He is the bishop and he speaks for the church (I know that is a slight over simplification).  There is a set body of doctrine and practice, set by the church, which members are obligated to hold and observe.  Now, if he is misinterpreting the church's teaching, that is for those above him in the hierarchy to say, not the members, not the US government, and certainly not those outside of the Roman Catholic Church.  If an individual disagrees, he or she can leave that communion.

I also agree with the founders of Pulpit Freedom Sunday that the state has no right to control anything said from the pulpit.   Part of the issue of freedom of religion is precisely that, that the government has no right to dictate what a religious group can or cannot say.  Indeed, for many of the early framers of freedom of religion, a significant part of the equation was the ability of the Church to judge the State.  How could they do that if they were not allowed to speak on political issues?  If you look at the history of political speech in churches, it was not against IRS rules until the time of LBJ.  Before then, pastors often spoke on political issues and no doubt, endorsed candidates at times.

Many folk misunderstand the way the tax code impacts separation of church and state.  They often believe that religious organizations receive their tax exemption because they are like other charities that receive special tax status because they provide some community good.  While I would argue that religious groups do a tremendous amount of good in our society, that is not why they receive tax exempt status.  They receive tax exempt status solely because they are religious groups.  The Supreme Court said in 1819 that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the State has no grounds for any type of control over any religious group... therefore no taxation.

Some see the tax exempt status as a government subsidy to religion.   The argument goes that because religious organizations do not pay taxes but do receive the benefits of government services, that equals a subsidy. The argument itself is not all that strong, but even if accurate, it does not matter.  The Constitution precludes the establishment of religion and as was said above, the ability to tax is the ability to destroy... thereby interfering with religious freedom.

Now, I would not dare endorse a candidate from my pulpit (even though anyone who knows me could make a pretty accurate guess who I'll be voting for).  I believe that God calls each of us to weigh the questions and make a decision.  I believe there are some views that are clearly mo but that reflects my theology, not everyones'.   Some religious groups have very well defined beliefs and extremely narrow options for disagreement.  Freedom of religion requires that they be allowed to speak their religious beliefs from their pulpits.

Two other issues that have been raised a lot lately are not so clear - payment for contraception by medical insurance paid for by Roman Catholic institutions and the issue of abortion and public funds.  The Catholic institutions in question are involved in matters not quite so clearly religious in nature such as hospitals, hire individuals who are not Roman Catholic, and serve in ways that are not quite clearly religious.  I think the solution given by the Obama administration is an inelegant but workable solution.

As for abortions, public funds are not eligible to be used to pay for elective abortions anyway so the question is moot.  It does raise a sticky point for me.  What about taxes that are used to pay for things clearly in violation of a group's religious principles?  If public funds were used to pay for elective abortions, should Roman Catholics or members of some evangelical groups be allowed to withhold a portion of their taxes because the funds are being used in ways that conflict with their faith?  How about tax dollars that fund the military or capital punishment, both of which have been forbidden in Anabaptist doctrine for centuries?  Should Anabaptists be allowed to withhold the percentage of their taxes that go to fund the military?

Government Power vs. Religious Beliefs

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I am a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.  I believe the wall should be so high for government intrusion into issues of faith as to be almost impossible to even see over.  I believe Native American religions that use peyote in a sacramental way should be allowed.  Ditto for Rastafarians (I have to admit I know next to zilch about Rastafarianism so I could be off base here) with regards to marijuana.  I get really uncomfortable even at government interference that requires a Christian Science family to provide medical care for their children.  That is how I feel about these issues.  That is not the way things work.

Today I read an article in The American Thinker by Tom Trinko in which he attacks liberals like Sandra Fluke for wanting the government to intrude on religious beliefs.    Here's an important quote from the article...

What greater crime can one commit against a person than using the force of government to coerce him to become an apostate to the faith he believes in?

Now, I'm not going to argue the issue at hand, even though I believe the Obama administration's solution was perfect and that the real issue for most conservatives has nothing at all to do with using the power of government to offend religious believers.  At it's core, I agree with the statement and would bet that I believe it a lot more strongly than Tom Trinko, although I can't be sure of that.  Here's why the argument doesn't work.  The government does that all of the time and these folk raise no concerns.  The government prohibitions against Native American use of peyote and Rastafarian use of marijuana are simple examples.  

 

Let me give two personal examples.  I am a pacifist.  I believe that the history of Christianity, the scriptures, and the person of Jesus allow for no other interpretation.  Still, I am required to pay taxes that go to supporting military interventions all over the world.  Indeed, we spend more on the military than basically everyone else combined and depending on how one reads the numbers, as much as 50% of our federal budget is related to "defense."  I am not given a religious option to abstain.  Now, you might say that the difference is personal beliefs vs. institutional beliefs.  The entire Roman Catholic Church stands against contraception.  That argument doesn't fly, though, as there are a number of denominations in the Anabaptist movement, known as "historic Peace Churches" that are officially pacifist.  The force of government is used to coerce us to be apostate to the faith we believe in.  A second example - I do not believe as a follower of Jesus that there ever is a time when capital punishment is appropriate.  Ditto again for the historic Peace Churches.  And again, I/we cannot opt out of paying for such barbarity and are so forced to act in denial of our expressed beliefs.

I would agree that there are times when the government can stop certain religious practices.  I don't care what you believe, the government has the power to curtail human sacrifice.  Bottom line though, that is not what this issue is about.  It has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything about culture wars and the oppression of women.  And then, there is the fact that Sandra Fluke was speaking on behalf of a lesbian friend with no worry about pregnancy but who uses birth control pills as a means of halting the growth of ovarian cysts... but why confuse a good argument with facts.

Church & State... never simple

Justice is a central pillar of my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus.  I believe in civil rights for women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, religious minorities and, especially, any minorities I missed.  I believe in the role of the law in enforcing anti-discrimination laws.  Indeed, if anything, I believe they should be stronger than they now are... except...

I have to say I cringe even as I write this, except when we're talking about religious institutions.  Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear a case involving a Lutheran school in Michigan who fired a woman.  She says it was because of a disability.  They say that the government has no say in hiring and firing of people who transmit the values and teachings of a religious institution and that her behavior showed that she was not fit to do just that.  That principal is broadly accepted when it comes to clergy.  It makes sense there.  If a religion believes that one must be Jewish to be a Rabbi, it is understandable that they will discriminate against non-Jews.  Ditto for a group that believes women cannot be priests not being held legally culpable for not hiring women priests.  It makes sense that the leader of a religious organization can be required to fit with all of the tenants of that faith, whatever they might be. What happens, though, in a situation where the person under consideration is not clergy and may even have a majority of responsibilities that could rightly be described as "secular?"  In this case, the woman was a teacher who taught primarily "secular" subjects although she did lead prayers and perform other religious duties.  

The case has brought together the strangest bedfellows ever with everyone from the Southern Baptists to The National Council of Churches, Yoruba, and Hare Krishna's supporting the Lutherans.  The Baptist Joint Committee , has filed a brief in support of the school, arguing that 

Indeed, questions that might seem facially nonreligious take on a religious coloration in a dispute between a religious organization and one of its ministers. ...
This case exemplifies how theological or religious issues are almost impossible to avoid in cases involving employees with spiritual duties...  

Ultimately, the church congregation terminated Perich‘s commission because, given her behavior surrounding the request to return, it had lost confidence in her ability to represent the school‘s purposes to children... [I]t is up to the Church, not a jury or judge, to decide whether she could be effective.

It is true that allowing for such a broad interpretation of the current law regarding "ministerial exemptions" may open the door for serious abuse by religious organizations.  Still, a more narrow interpretation impinges on their ability to live out their faith.  The government has no right to do that.

National Day of Prayer

Today is designated the National Day of Prayer - an event that has been held since 1952. As violations of the separation of church and state go, it is pretty minor, but the symbolism is important and it is a bad idea. I am against it both on constitutional grounds and on religious grounds. Here's why...

To whom are we praying? Even among Christians, one could argue that the God we pray to is not all the same. The folk at Westboro Baptist are a clear example of this when they say that the God they worship does not love everyone... my God does. Clearly we are not worshiping the same God. I once had a discussion with an orthodox Presbyterian who told me that God had created her brother gay so that God could send him to suffer eternally in hell. That woman and I do not worship the same God. She actually came to that conclusion before me and raised it to me. And that doesn't begin to add all of the variety of religious understandings in our country. So, to whom are we praying? Should we sacrifice a chicken? Bow towards Mecca? Sit in silence? Chant a Sanskrit chant? Recite the Lord's Prayer (which version)? Pray in the name of Jesus? Burn incense? Pray in Hebrew or Coptic or Greek?

And what when the deepest prayers of our hearts conflict? I pray for the end not only of specific wars but of war in general and of the military complex... and I believe it should begin with the immediate dismantling of the American Empire. How do I find common ground with those who would pray for the literal destruction of America's "enemies?" What of those who pray for the assassination of the current president vs. those who pray for his re-election? We can't even ask forgiveness together when different groups would see America as guilty of very different sins.

Some would say to go ahead and pray specifically. They would say to go ahead and pray in the name of Jesus while likely feeling much less comfortable with a prayer to Allah or some god whose name they had never even heard before. In any case, this would marginalize many people some of whom might even feel that praying to whatever other god in whatever other way constitutes sin.

Some would answer that we should pray generic prayers that can apply to any religion... but if we do that, why bother? If the prayers are so generic, so non-specific as to not offend anyone, they have no real meaning.

Another answer is that individuals can each pray privately as they see fit... but people who pray already do that, so again, why bother?

The early Baptists knew that when the state imposes religion, above all else, it damages religion. At the very best, imposed religion weakens faith both by causing it to move to the lowest common denominator and by identifying it with the "earthly institution" of the state. At the worst, it is used as a means of rendering the actions of the state as being above judgment as they are identified with whatever god is being implored.

Finally, the state cannot grant me the right to pray as I see fit nor can it stop me from praying as I see fit. Those actions are simply beyond the power of any state. Some nations have tried to curtail faith and many more nations have persecuted people of a wide variety of religious understandings... but those who believe cannot be stopped from believing as they choose and they cannot be compelled to believe that which they do not.

None of what has been said applies to the population of Americans who do not pray at all, who have no faith in any god. Are we asking them to act against their consciences? their deeply held convictions? Or worse yet, are we reminding them that they are not really "us" and trying to dissociate them from the mainstream of our culture? Again, we are marginalizing folk.

I'm against a national day of prayer. It does nothing to deepen faith. It does nothing to bring our nation to a better place. It does serve to harm real faith and to cause divisions between people. And it clearly is unconstitutional.

That said, I have prayed today. I would have prayed anyway. Indeed, I had forgotten that today is the National Day of Prayer. There is nothing any state can do to make me pray nor to make me stop, short of killing me. So, pray if it is something that is part of your life. It is a good thing to give thanks for the positives of the USA, to ask forgiveness for our cultural shortcomings, and to pray that the negatives will change. And do it again tomorrow and every day. And work to make things better. If you don't pray, then, do something positive today that makes the world a little better. And do it tomorrow as well.

Un-American

I'm a Baptist. One of the core commitments of all true Baptists is separation of church and state. Religion must be freely chosen and the government has no role in either curtailing or supporting religious practice. Essentially, religion must be invisible to government.

Today, Rep. King, a Republican from NY state is holding hearings to look into the "The Extent of Radicalization of Muslim Americans." While there is no doubt that there are radical Muslims in America and it might even be possible that the number is growing, to paint with such a broad brush is clearly a swipe against freedom of religion, a core principle upon which this nation was founded. When one faith group is singled out for attack, all are threatened.

Representative King, this is as un-american as it gets. You should be ashamed.

Church & State... again

Yesterday I was lurking on a conservative Christian forum and read something that took shocked me... one of the participants said that he and his wife had "agreed to pray against Barack Obama... to pray for his utter failure." I wondered about the implications. If a presidency "utterly fails," what does that mean for the people? What about those who would lose their jobs or their lives if that prayer were answered? What does such a prayer tell us about an individual's understanding both of God and of their role in society? And how does it jive with Biblical injunctions to ray for those in power or even to love our enemies? How does praying for something that would invariably cause the suffering of so many people remotely resemble anything that Jesus would do?

Then today, I saw a link to a report on Ethics Daily, a centrist to left leaning Baptist publication, that tells about a meeting of about 40 conservative Christian leaders who met in Dallas to strategize about what they could do to defeat Obama in 2012.

I have posted before that I believe freedom of religion ensures that people of faith, any faith no matter how repugnant, can bring their religious belief to their political decisions. So at a technical level, I have no issue with what the poster said on the forum or what the "Christian leaders" did. On a faith level, I think they have all missed the boat and are reflecting anything but a Christian understanding of the issues before us. Whenever I read these kinds of things I am always taken back to my seminary days at Eastern Baptist Seminary where one of my professors declared, "It is not possible to be a Christian and a conservative." I think there may have been a bit of hyperbole going on, but as a general statement, I think the prof was accurate.

On a political level and a pastoral level, I mourn such closed minds. How can they speak to a culture which has embraced at least openness to discussion if not pluralism? What happens to church members who are not quite so sure about specific political stances? What happens to anyone who is able to see merit even in some opposing opinions? And what about those who need healthcare, unemployment insurance, Social Security, etc.? What does it say from a pastoral standpoint when you're unemployed and your pastor stands in the pulpit and argues that we should suspend unemployment benefits while at the same time extending tax cuts for the richest in our society? And not only should we do these things, they are the things that God requires of us? (guess they haven't read any of the prophets).

And finally, I read a quote from St. Augustine the other day that seems appropriate here... when St. Augustine was asked for the three great principles of Christianity, he replied: "First, humility. Second, humility. Third, humility." If I try to think of any characteristics, good or bad, that might define those people... humility ain't it.

Tax Exempt Status & Separation of Church & State

Over the past few years there has been a good deal of discussion regarding the tax exempt status of churches. The question came to the forefront when a number of conservative churches decided to challenge current law and publicly endorse candidates in both the '08 and '10 elections. They are framing the argument as a constitutional one. They are correct and they should win the argument.

I've heard many people argue that tax exemption is a benefit given by the government and the price for that benefit is the inability to make official endorsement of candidates or to lobby in a substantive way. Jim Evans in Ethics Daily goes on to argue that the genesis of tax exempt status of churches goes back to the days when churches were part of the state and it made sense that a municipality would not tax its own property. He sees this as an argument that the benefit is just that and that in order to enjoy the exemption, churches must "play by the rules." That this argument is irrelevant seems obvious to me. However the practice began, we have not had state sponsored or owned churches since the founding of the country. So what happened? At the adoption of the Bill of Rights, they forgot to tax the newly emancipated properties? Sorry, there must be some other justification that the tax exempt status was retained.

Then, there is the prohibition itself. Churches were allowed to endorse candidates until 1954. In that year, then senator Lyndon Johnson introduced a law prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing political candidates. At the height of the McCarthy era, he was trying to silence some of his critics as he ran for office. It was only by coincidence that churches were silenced as they fell under the same IRS code as his nonprofit enemies.

While it is accurate that churches receive their tax exempt status under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code, I would argue that churches are not the same as other nonprofit organizations and in the end cannot be treated the same way. Other non-profits receive tax benefits because they provide needed services to the community. The issue is clearly seen as one of public benefit. It is a quid pro quo... the nonprofit provides services so the state helps it by removing the burden of taxes and provides that contributions are deductible on the giver's taxes. Nonprofits do not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, religious institutions fall under the First Amendment and the relationship between the state and religion is clearly and uniquely defined. The government does not give benefits to a religious group. There would be no constitutional justification for an act like that. They are tax exempt because they are religious organizations. period. The first amendment provides that the government will neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion.

Here is where the question of taxes comes in. The power to tax is the power to control. If the government can levy taxes on religious institutions and decide what those taxes will be, they can decide which institutions will be viable. Frankly, if the little church I serve had to pay property taxes, we would likely close. How can that not be prohibiting free exercise? And isn't telling a congregation that it cannot speak on any issue defining its ministry for it, again prohibiting free exercise? To allow that a church can say whatever it wants so long as it is willing to give up its tax exempt status establishes a multi-tiered system for religious institutions with some being able to speak and others not, this time based on their financial ability to pay taxes. Again, we are seeing free exercise attacked.

We must not forget that taxes and tax benefits have often been used as tools of influence by the state. How often does a municipality give tax benefits to entice a company to re-locate? To use this part of the IRS code to silence religious organizations from speaking on issues that they clearly see as part of their call is an example of the state using the tax code to prohibit free exercise of religion. What would stop a community from using taxes, if it were allowed to tax religious organizations, to keep a mosque from being constructed? Or a religious building of any sort that was seen as offensive to the powers that be?

There is no argument for taxing religious institutions or for prohibiting them from speaking on any issue in any way they believe their faith calls them to speak that does not conflict with the First Amendment. The government has no right to tax churches and therefor tax exemption is not a benefit the government can bestow or withdraw. That some religious organization will speak out in ways that you or I don't appreciate on political issues is part of the price we pay for religious freedom.

National Day of Prayer

I have to say that I have ambiguous feelings about a national day of prayer. I believe in prayer. I do it regularly even if without the degree of discipline I'd like. I pray for our government, our leaders, and the world. I think it is good when other people pray as well. Here's the problem for me, pray to whom and how?

As a Christian, I pray in the name of Jesus. I don't feel a particular need to force my theology on other people but if I am praying authentically, that is how I pray. So what do I do in an interfaith gathering? I know of some gatherings where each group prays as authentically as they can, where a Muslim might pray in Arabic, a Jew might recite a Hebrew prayer, etc. But if we go that way, eventually we get to a point that somebody can't cross. A Jew might be offended by a Christian's prayer, a Christian might see a sacrifice done by a Santeria priest as going too far... you get the point. More often then, the prayers are watered down and made generic so as to avoid offending anyone. I find that offensive.

In a recent talk to the Baptist Joint Committee, Martin Marty began with a quote from Montesquieu, who observed that the way "to attack a religion is by favor, not by what drives away, but by what makes men lukewarm." Watering down anybody's prayers makes them lukewarm and ineffectual. If I really feel that my government needs prayer, I want to do it with passion and commitment, not some watered down version meant not to offend anyone. Indeed, if I am praying what I truly believe, I'm going to offend someone.

Bottom line... I'm going to pray. And I'm going to pray for my government, but not because a President has asked me to. I'll be praying because he needs my prayers and because as a nation we have not filled full the promise of the vision of our founders. Part of that vision is a nation where faith is neither curtailed nor supported by the powers of government because government has no role in matters of faith.

I Don't Want to Live in a Christian Nation

There is a lot of chatter these days among those on the far right that we live in a Christian nation... or that we used to live in a Christian nation until the Democrats began to push us away from our Christian moorings.

Well, that is at best revisionist history and at worst a complete misunderstanding of the genius that is the United States... but that is another post. Regardless of whether that interpretation is incorrect, I don't want to live in a "Christian" nation. If we were one (which again, is a misread of history), then good riddance. If we were not (now you've got it right), then let's keep it that way.

First, let me address the idea of separation of Church and State. It was not an idea that came from secularists. The deepest roots of those ideas came from the Baptists, the Quakers, and the Unitarians. Indeed, the phrase, "wall of separation" came from the founder of the first Baptist church on English soil, Thomas Helwys. While many religious groups had experienced persecution under the state churches in Europe, those three groups had in common a belief that at its core, the soul must be free. They believed that an individual's relationship to God is between them and God and no outside body, including the state, has the right to dictate what that relationship must look like. At the simplest level, they knew that any time there was a state church, somebody would be unable to seek God as their hearts led them and somebody would be persecuted for not towing the line. Groups like the Puritans, for example, had experienced persecution for their faith but rather than seeing the Americas as an opportunity for freedom, they saw it as a place where they could impose their faith on others and often the persecuted become the persecutors.

The basic problem of living in a "Christian" state is whose version of Christianity are we talking about? Are we Roman Catholic? Or fundamentalist evangelical? Or staunch Calvinist? Or liberal mainline protestant? The early Baptists knew what it meant to be on the wrong end of those questions. Then, what force of the state will be used to enforce that particular understanding of faith? Prison? Using zoning or tax regulations to destroy organizations? The list could go on.

And finally, what happens if one is not a Christian at all? Do we use the power of the state to convert? To "train" children, taking away the freedom and responsibility of their parents?

I don't want to live in a country where any particular version of Christianity is imposed, even my own. I want even less to live in a country where the official state religion is some watered down, civil version of Christianity that has no teeth at all. I also don't want to live in a Muslim country, a Jewish nation, or a place with any other official religion you can name. Instead, I want to live in a place where the government has no say in matters of faith at all, where the government neither supports nor undermines religion. I want to live in a place where I am free to practice my faith or lack thereof as my conscience dictates and where you can do the same. It is only there that truth faith can flourish.

AIG, taxes, and religious bodies

Hey I'm a Baptist. I believe in absolute freedom of religion. No government has any right sticking its nose in any matter having to do with religion. A few weeks ago I wrote a post about a movement of folk trying to get the LDS church in trouble for supporting prop 8 and that their tax exemption should be reneged.

I said "no" to this in spite of being staunchly opposed to their stand on the presenting issue.

I also made a statement in that post that puzzled a few people... Common wisdom is that non-profits don't pay taxes because of the benefit they provide to the community and the argument follows that when a non-profit breaks its covenant with the community, its tax exempt status is a benefit that can be removed. I said, "Religious groups are not taxed because the government has no say over them. The power to tax is the power to control and the state has no power when it comes to religion."

This power was demonstrated in the AIG mess when congress proposed a new tax law to tax the bonuses received by AIG workers at 90%. The power to tax was clearly the power to control. And that is why religious bodies are not taxed. If they could be taxed, then the government can control what they do and say. Indeed, that is precisely what those who wanted to remove the tax exempt status from the LDS were/are trying to do, control the actions of a religious organization through the power of the government.

separation of church and state

I came across a group on Facebook today that is working to get the LDS Church stripped of its tax exempt status because of its support of Prop 8. The rumor is that over 50% of the money supporting Prop 8 came from the Mormons and letters were read in all of the churches in California encouraging members to work, volunteer, and give in support of the proposition.

I'm not fond of the idea that the Mormons may have pushed that terrible law onto the books in CA but I'm even less happy about the possibility of outside groups dictating the message or practice of any religious organization.

There are a number of arguments that should be addressed. Some say that tax exempt status is a privilege, gift, or benefit given to churches because they provide some benefit to the broader community and it comes with strings, including not being involved in politics in a substantial way. While that argument may fly for other 501 c3's, it doesn't fly for religious organizations. Religious groups are not taxed because the government has no say over them. The power to tax is the power to control and the state has no power when it comes to religion.

Others frame the tax exempt status as a subsidy to religious groups. While it is true that many religious organizations could not survive, at least in their current forms, if they had to pay taxes, again, this implies some gift that the government has the power to give or withhold from religious groups. It has no such power to give or to withhold.

A serious fallacy that is common in the US is the idea that religion is not supposed to be political. How can it not be if it is worth anything at all? If faith impacts an individual's values, is that not political? Doesn't that inform who we vote for and what ideas we support? If it impacts how they live their daily lives, is that not political? If religion speaks to what is important in life, is that not political? When we look at Jesus, the central metaphor for his ministry was a political one - the Kingdom of God. The history of social movements in the US is a history of religious groups acting politically whether it be the idea of religious freedom which found its strongest proponents in the Baptists and the Quakers, the elimination of slavery, women's rights, worker's rights, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement... none of those political movements would have existed without people of faith acting politically from a standpoint of their religion.

Now one might argue that it is OK for people of faith to act poltically as individuals but not as groups. That betrays a misunderstanding of the diversity of faith groups. That certainly fits in the free church tradition, in many threads in Judaism, and in a number of other faith traditions which emphasize the role of the individual in shaping their own faith. In other groups, such as Catholicism and the LDS on a global level and even some fundamentalist churches on a more local level, the shape of faith is dictated by a hierarchy that literally defines what is and is not orthodox and who is in or out of the flock. In those settings, a political directive makes sense. A bishop might reasonably tell all of the members of his diocese that to vote for a certain pro-choice candidate is to risk excommunication. Likewise an LDS leader might tell all of the faithful that support for prop 8 is required to be a Mormon in good standing (I don't know how the encouragement was framed so this is just an example). Or a fundamentalist pastor may tell his congregation that they must believe a certain way which must be reflected in a vote for or against a certain candidate. Such prescriptions are built into the religion.

As a pastor, I think it is stupid to try to tell people how they should vote or what political stances they should take. In this age of baptistification (google the term, used by Martin Marty in the 80's), I think even the connectional churches risk serious problems when they try to dictate the beliefs of their constituents. Still, it solidly fits in their traditions and for the government or the people to try to curtail that practice seems clearly to be in violation of the 1st Amendment in that it impedes the free exercise of that religion.

no on 8, #2

Today, I made calls to encourage people to vote no on prop 8. I had a number of discussions with people who said something to the effect of "The Bible says..." and then told me that they were voting for the proposition. It wasn't helpful to argue with them but it did get me thinking about the way this proposition relates to faith.

I have reasons to vote "no" on prop 8 that are squarely based in my faith and in my understanding of the Bible. I am sure that there are folk out there who have reasons to vote "yes" that are based on their faith. Neither is relevant to the discussion of a constitutional amendment denying the right to marry to gay or lesbian couples. We live in a secular country. It is irrelevant what the Bible says or doesn't say about marriage from a legal standpoint. Religious definitions of what is right and wrong cannot be the basis of public policy. For an idea to become law or public policy it must be able to stand on its own without the backing of any particular faith tradition. Our laws must have justification within themselves.

Yes, the general foundation of our ethics is based in a roughly Judaeo-Christian heritage and many of our laws reflect that tradition but it is never enough. The founders of our nation wisely realized that in a religiously diverse nation there must be more to our laws than religious dictates. They knew that there are scores of religious rules that do not stand up to investigation outside of a specific religious tradition. While those rules may be very good for an individual to shape his or her life, they are not adequate for forming public policy. If I believe that eating a cheeseburger is an affront to God, then I must not eat a cheeseburger. If you on the other hand, do not believe in the same god or any god at all, I have no right to impose a religious dictate on you. We do not need to appeal to the 10 commandments to outlaw murder. It makes sense for community life. At the same time we do not enshrine celebration of the Sabbath even though it is in the 10 commandments and even though it is a very good idea.

As a Baptist, I realize that as soon as we allow the state to impose religious ideas on the population, the question becomes, "Whose religious ideas?" There are a lot of religious folk out there whose ideas I find repugnant. I'm sure there are at least as many who find mine so. That is why we leave religious issues to individuals and faith communities and base our laws and our public policy somewhere else.

So... while I would disagree with those who argue that the Bible requires us to stand against gay marriage, in the end, it doesn't matter what the Bible says or doesn't say. We cannot and must not base public policy solely on religious faith.

Vote No on Prop 8