EthicsDaily.com:
The religious liberty watchdog organization Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) filed a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service on Aug. 14 charging that the Rev. Wiley Drake improperly used church letterhead to endorse a presidential candidate.
Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, Calif., and recent second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote a press release on church letterhead endorsing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for president.
I don't agree with Drake's actions, but because I believe it's bad church policy, not because it should be illegal for religious people to say whatever they want from the pulpit.
“Federal tax law is clear,” stated the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, AU [Americans United for the Separation of Church and State] executive director. “Churches and other non-profits may not endorse candidates, if they want to keep their tax exemption. I am confident that the vast majority of Americans do not want to see their houses of worship politicized.”
I agree that all should be treated equally under the law, but I don't imagine, for a moment, that Barry W. Lynn actually cares about that -- nor actually cares about keeping churches from endorsing candidates.
Why would I say such a terrible thing?
Not because I want to think badly of "AU", but rather because they seem to be very concerned about some violations, and completely unconcerned about others -- like Obama's recent campaign speech at the UCC synod meeting, or churches that allowed Kerry to campaign from their pulpit on Sunday mornings during the last election.
We saw no AU complaints in those cases.
What always irks me is this idea that "seperating Church and State" means that the State can somehow punish the Church for its actions. This, to me, shows the real leftist agenda of placing the State above the Church. A true believer is seperation of Church and State would say that the the Pastor can print whatever he wants on Church letterhead, the State has no business telling him what should and shouldn't be Church policy, and that tax exemption is not something that can be arbitrarily given and taken away by the State, the State does in fact have no authority to tax the Church no matter the Church's actions.
Yet you never see this from any group who advocates this "wall of seperation". Their real agenda is a leftist utopia where what religion is tolerated is completely under the control of the State.
What always irks me is this idea that "seperating Church and State" means that the State can somehow punish the Church for its actions. This, to me, shows the real leftist agenda of placing the State above the Church. A true believer is seperation of Church and State would say that the the Pastor can print whatever he wants on Church letterhead, the State has no business telling him what should and shouldn't be Church policy, and that tax exemption is not something that can be arbitrarily given and taken away by the State, the State does in fact have no authority to tax the Church no matter the Church's actions.
Yet you never see this from any group who advocates this "wall of seperation". Their real agenda is a leftist utopia where what religion is tolerated is completely under the control of the State.
Posted by: on August 19, 2007 02:59 PM