Tell you what – I’ll trade you!

Every political cycle, especially Presidential cycles, one will be treated to video upon video by the MainStream Press (MSM) of this, that, and the other candidate ascending into the pulpit of all kinds of churches to "speak" to the congregation.

Although this cycle had more Republicans doing this (think Rev. Huckabee), I generally see more Democrats doing this during their campaigns.  Now, are they "converting" the saved in a political sense, or just an appearance as any other event lends itself?  Dunno – I’ve never been in a church where a political candidate has taken the platform to speak.  I do know, however, that in the churches of which I have been a member, the Pastors / Preachers are generally cognizant of not speaking about a single candidate – just issues concerning Biblical import – because of IRS rules.

Thus, I could never quite square the corners – if the Pastors cannot speak of political things, then why are the politicos allowed to speak?

This article, then, in the Washington Post caught my eye:

Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors Targeted

CHICAGO — Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It’s not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

Yet an opposing collection of Christian and Jewish clergy will petition the IRS today to stop the protest before it starts, calling the ADF’s "Pulpit Initiative" an assault on the rule of law and the separation of church and state.

Backed by three former top IRS officials, the group also wants the IRS to determine whether the nonprofit ADF is risking its own tax-exempt status by organizing an "inappropriate, unethical and illegal" series of political endorsements.

"As religious leaders, we have grave concerns about the ethical implications of soliciting and organizing churches to violate core principles of our society," the clergy wrote in an advance copy of their claim obtained by The Washington Post.

My personal view that the Constitution, as originally written, was done so to keep the fledgling Republic from establishing a true State-sponsored church like the Church of England and the Lutheran Church in Europe.  I do support the view that many of the Founders did acknowledge the idea of Deity, a Supreme Creator at the least )if not an omnipotent God).  After all, our individual rights are given by God (which very much is part of the difference from other constitutions or declarations of human rights (such as the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights – see it’s Article #29 to see where your rights stem from "(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.").

Such endorsements are prohibited by a 1954 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

So, the pols get the amendment written, and then trample it all to bits.  Just like the political types decided to exempt themselves from the Do-Not-Call List.

But there are those that want to settle for the status-quo.  In my mind, these are often the people that wish to keep religion out of the public square entirely! It continues:

In a Sept. 3 letter to two United Church of Christ pastors in Ohio who are organizing the challenge to the ADF, Stanley appealed to them, "as one Christian brother to another," to abandon their criticism. He asserted a "constitutional right to speak freely from the pulpit" and said IRS rules "stifle religious expression."

Former IRS lawyer Marcus S. Owens, however, opposes the ADF’s strategy and its legal reasoning. Working with the Ohio-based clergy, he contends that the Supreme Court would be unlikely to overturn appellate court rulings on the issue or a related precedent of its own.

Owens also criticizes ADF and its lawyers for "actively advising churches and pastors that they should violate the tax law and offering to explain how to do that. The tax system would be shut down if you allowed attorneys to counsel people on how to violate the tax law."

Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, calls "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" a "stunt" that is part of an effort by the religious right to build a church network that will "put their candidates into office. It’s part of the overall game plan."

"This is an extraordinarily reckless scheme that they are promoting," Conn said. "The federal tax law is clear. Churches are charitable institutions that exist to do charitable things. That does not include politics. Political groups do politics."

Bah – laws can be changed!  Unlike the 10 Commandments which were chiseled in stone, laws can be changed at any time by human or political whim.  Which is what the ADF is trying to do.  Again, if politicians want to be able to use the Pastors’ pulpits, then why not the Pastors themselves?  To me, this is a twisted sense of logic all in trying to walk a fine thread similar to that task of counting angels on the head of a pin.

Remember, MORE speech is almost always better than LESS speech!

Especially if that church does not take or use ANY taxpayer monies (grants, contracts, et al) in support of its ministries.  Once it does accept money from Government (like Obama’s Trinity Church which was the recipient of his earmarks), all political speech should stop emanating from the pulpit (yeah, that would be self-serving not to).

The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal consortium that considers itself the antithesis of the American Civil Liberties Union. It spends more than $20 million a year to underwrite legal battles and train lawyers to push the country in socially conservative directions.

[snip]

"We’re not encouraging any congregation to violate the law," Stanley said. "What we’re encouraging them to do is exercise their constitutional right in the face of an unconstitutional law."

So, I’ll trade you – even up.  If Pastors are not allowed to speak in their formal role of the leader of their church during any church function (especially on Sunday morning), then neither should political candidates.  After all, a candidate’s mere presence is "speaking" volumes – by allowing them to speak to their congregations, the Pastors are giving implicit and tacit endorsements to the candidate.  After all, the Pastors control their pulpits and no one is going to be behind them that the Pastor does not want.

Which makes the IRS rules a farce.  Especially if the candidate is brought in as a guest preacher and paid a "pulpit fee" for performing a service.

Thus, if the candidates come in, let the Pastors preach it.  After all, if they say the wrong thing, their congregations will certainly let them know it.  And as a former Deacon, trust me, not all Boards of Deacons (to which, in many Protestant churches, the Pastor reports to [yeah, it can be a bit convoluted at first, as a Pastor is often seen as the head of a given local church] for job evaluation) will remain silent if the Pastor "strays".  Thus, there is a feedback loop that can auto-correct a situation.

Or simply, the congregation votes with its feet (which I have also seen happen).