How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit By STEVEN W

Quote:

---

How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit

By STEVEN WALDMAN FEB. 2, 2017

President Trump just reiterated his campaign promise to “get rid of and totally destroy” the law prohibiting churches and other nonprofit tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.

This change would be horrible for politics — and even worse for religion.

The law, known as the Johnson Amendment, was written by Lyndon B. Johnson, then a senator from Texas, in 1954. It prohibits tax-exempt churches from endorsing political candidates. Mr. Trump on Thursday said repealing the rule would “allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution,” adding, “Freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is under serious threat.”

Let’s start by clearing up two misunderstandings. The rule does not prevent churches — or other charities — from speaking freely. Religious leaders and churches have been weighing in on political issues for as long as there have been pulpits.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jeremiah Wright and thousands of clergymen on any given weekend have been energetic advocates of political or social causes.

The rule does not even prohibit clergymen from endorsing a candidate. Rather, it says that if a religious leader endorses a candidate, then his church cannot receive the significant benefit of tax exemption, and that people cannot, therefore, make a tax-deductible contribution to that church.

Eliminating the endorsement rule would mean that your tax dollars would now indirectly subsidize a church’s support for a particular political candidate. For instance, conservative taxpayers would indirectly support the Rev. Al Sharpton if he decided to endorse a candidate — or the local mosque that wanted to endorse a candidate. And progressives would indirectly support churches that endorse candidates who are opposed to same-sex marriage.

The conservatives clamoring for this change should think hard: They don’t like their tax dollars going to support groups that perform abortions. Do they really want to pay for churches that push pro-choice candidates? They fear and distrust Islam. Do they really want their hard-earned money to back the preferred political candidates of the local Islamic center?

And those, kiddies, wannabe theocrats and free range authoritarians, are known as unintended consequences.

We're all getting a crash course in them due to an inability of the Trumpmeister and his advisors to simply ask the question, 'and then what?'.

In addition, this would likely create a huge new loophole in the campaign finance system. The donations we make to political candidates are not now tax-deductible. But if this provision is repealed, you could make a tax-deductible contribution to a church (or other charity) that is campaigning for a political candidate.

Houses of worship and other charities could become unregulated vessels for campaign contributions, which taxpayers would then have to partly underwrite because they were deductible. It would be a disaster for our political system, already reeking of corruption.

It also would be a disaster for religion.

Political fixers will try to funnel money through houses of worship. The temptations for clergy members would be intense. Yes, let’s fix the day care center in the basement! All we have to do is endorse that well-meaning candidate and organize a volunteer brigade for him on Election Day.

It may be that the Internal Revenue Service could clarify its current rules to make it easier for churches to navigate, but the harm of a repeal would far outweigh the benefits.

When churches move from being independent vehicles for political causes and become arms of political parties, they lose their prophetic voice.

Worse, they lose their spiritual credibility. As a state legislator in Virginia, James Madison made the case that subsidizing religious organizations undermines religion.

Arguing against a plan to provide subsidies to churches in Virginia, Madison said efforts to help religion would backfire, as faith that is purely pursued was more powerful. Taxpayer-subsidized religion would become corrupt, lazy and unpersuasive — and worse, he said, “an offense against God, not against man.”

Amen to that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/ho...n&_r=0

---