I am sure there are those of you who will be able to excuse this kind of nonsense:
The minister of a Haywood County Baptist church is telling members of his congregation that if they’re Democrats, they either need to find another place of worship or support President Bush.
Already, the Reverend Chan Chandler has ex-communicated nine members of East Waynesville Baptist Church. Another 40 members have left in protest.
During last Sunday’s sermon, he acknowledged that church members were upset because he named people, and he says he’ll do it again because he has to according to the word of God.
Chandler could not be reached for comment today, but says his actions weren’t politically motivated.
One former church member says Chandler told some of the members that if they didn’t support George Bush, they needed to resign their positions and get out of the church, or go to the altar, repent and agree to vote for Bush.
A former church treasurer says she’s at church to worship God and not the preacher.
More here:
It’s not clear whether the church’s tax-exempt status could be jeopardized if the claims about Chandler are true.
The Internal Revenue Service exempts certain organizations from taxation, including those organized and operated for religious purposes, provided that they do not engage in certain activities, including involvement in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
Valerie Thornton, a spokeswoman for the Internal Revenue Service, said she could not comment on the East Waynesville situation specifically, but noted that “in general if a church engages in partisan politics it could put their tax-exempt status in jeopardy.
Stormy70
This guy sounds like a moron, and should be removed from his position. God is not concerned with one’s political affiliation.
However, I think churches should be able to participate in politics, whether tax exempt or not. Every organization has a 1st Amendment right to air their grievances with the government. Most churches are run by donations given by members, who have already been taxed on that money, so the tax exempt argument should not apply.
Kimmitt
Most churches are run by donations given by members, who have already been taxed on that money, so the tax exempt argument should not apply.
Um, most political campaigns are run on donations given by members, who have already been taxed on that money. The point is to differentiate between nonpolitical charities (for which the tax exemption was written) and political organizations.
I mean, most businesses are run on purchases given by consumers, who have already been taxed on their money . . . at some point you gotta accept that the government taxes transactions and move on.
Paul
I’m a musician and am hired to play in bands at black churches in the Oakland, CA area from time to time. I’ve heard plenty of anti-Bush, anti-Republican diatribes from the pulpit as well as pastors directing the members of the congregation to vote for Democrats. Out here the churches, including those with white congregations, are largely left leaning and advocating. I don’t see anyone making a fuss about it.
bg
Well, if that’s true Paul, I’d say there’s still a difference. The churches Mr. Cole cited are naming names and levying excommunications if congregants voted for Kerry. That’s a whole new ballgame.
timekeeper
That particular church should lose its tax-exempt status immediately, and if it is affiliated with a particular denomination, that congregation should lose its status if they do not sever ties with the church in question. This is not religion, it’s political indoctrination.
Paul
bg:
There are no Bush voters in the churches I’ve played in to excommunicate, I’m sure of it. If I was to let on that I support the President I don’t imagine I’d be playing in any of them again, which would suck because the music is really something special.
TJ Jackson
Sounds like this man is about as over the line as when the Dems put on their brimstone rallies at black churches. If this man is to be investigated by the IRS would you feel Jessie Jackson’s actvities need a looking at too?
Jeff
Paul hit the nail on the head.
Granted, except for wedding and funerals, I haven’t been to church in five years, but I live in Philly and with the possible exception of union members and dead people, the black clergy and black churches is/are the most powerful political bloc in the city. Hell, every time there’s a campaign going on, the local news goes there and shows whatever Democratic candidate who happens to be there up in the pulpit. But, I’m sure they’d never talk about politics while they’re there.
But, I’ll make this deal with anyone that wants to take it: You can strip all churches and religious denominations of their tax exempt status, if you feel that they’re not “non-partisan”, just as soon as you do the same to the NAACP.
I’ll now eagerly await all the idiot explanations for why that’s not the same thing and how the NAACP really isn’t partisan.
The DC
Jeff: I’ve always thought it would be fitting if we as Philadelphians deposed the city government and installed the staff of Jim’s Steaks as our municipal overlords. At least then our intelligence would be insulted to our face.
In any case, as of last October the IRS was reviewing the NAACP’s tax-exempt status due to its political comments. I don’t recall anything similar ever being done to churches, including the incredibly political RCC.
Justin Faulkner
There’s always a fine line to walk between active campaigning and simply expressing an institution’s religious views. Do some African-American churches cross the line and overtly endorse candidates? Probably so. Does that excuse what’s going on in this particular instance? Not at all.
At least with other cases you can make an argument that there is no overt endorsement, however it doesn’t get much more clear than “get on board with Bush or get out!”
I love how every times Republicans are faced with a new scandal–whether it be political purges in a church, abuse of power, corruption, whatever–the default answer is “Democrats have done this in the past, too!” What a childish argument. I’d like to see the same logic applied to a murder trial: “But other people have killed, too!”
Libertine
Justin really nails a great point. I see the fine folks, who inhabit the political left like me, railing against conservative religious leaders who support Bush from the pulpit but they ignore the same thing that happening on the left. I can’t tell you how upset I was to see Kerry (and Clinton in the past) go into the African-American churches to rally support. Coming from somebody on the left the religious politicking needs to cease on the left and right.
bryan
I’ll say what I said at OTB about the tax-exempt status. The IRS investigation of any church’s political views is an egregious violation of the separation of church and state. Period. Left or right.
Here’s the way the tax-exempt status should work: either 1) Churches and religious organizations are tax-exempt and may practice their religion however they see fit. If that means they want to advocate for or against a particular candidate, that’s part of the deal. Y’know, first amendment and all that. 2) churches and religious organizations have no tax-exempt status and they can practice their religion however they see fit.
It’s freedom of association, something the Boy Scouts have been embroiled in for a number of years.
I think this pastor’s actions are stupid, mean-spirited and unChristian, but that doesn’t mean I think the church shouldn’t have the right to be as stupid, mean-spirited and un-Christian as they want to be.
(and thanks for the link)
B. Patterson
John, follow up on this one. I really want to see how principled this wingnut is. Anyone want to bet that if his church’s tax status comes into question, “God’s will” as he sees it, will take a back seat? Odds anyone?