THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, May 14, 1995 TAG: 9505140061
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ESTHER DISKIN, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 195 lines
The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by Pat Robertson and based in Virginia Beach, has mounted a legal challenge that seeks to permit religious leaders, churches and religious denominations to endorse candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status.
The ACLJ's action comes on behalf of a 200-member church in New York that raised about $44,500 in tax-deductible donations to buy newspaper advertisements opposing Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential campaign. The Internal Revenue Service revoked the church's tax exemption this year, saying the church's ads violated the prohibition against intervening in political campaigns.
The ACLJ's lawsuit, filed in April, says the IRS has no authority to take away the tax-exempt status of a church that exercises its influence on behalf of candidates and political parties.
The IRS allows religious organizations wide latitude in political speech about social and moral issues. For example, churches can invite candidates for a forum.
But the IRS draws the line when a church endorses or opposes a specific candidate or political party, either through statements or financial contributions.
The ACLJ case tests that line, raising issues about the church's role in national politics. Arguments about the case revolve around three main issues: a church's freedom of speech, the church's role in society and separation of church and state. The ACLJ believes the U.S. Constitution gives churches more freedom from government control than has been allowed by Congress and the IRS.
The thinking behind the challenge: Under the First Amendment, the government has no right to tax a church or restrict its speech. If it did, the government would have the power to control the church.
Churches have a biblical mandate to spread the Gospel and transform the culture, according to the ACLJ and the church's pastor. Fulfilling that duty often requires a church to get involved in choices about the nation's leaders.
ACLJ lawyers say the political process would grow healthier with more direct input from churches. They say it's confusing and ``hypocritical'' to allow religious organizations to talk about issues, without giving them the added clout to talk about specific candidates.
The thinking behind the status quo: A church can say what it wants as long as it pays taxes. Once a church receives tax exemptions, the government has the right to set limits.
Churches can lose their way by getting too heavily involved in politics. This distracts congregations from their mission of spiritual renewal. Moral issues, some leaders say, transcend individual candidates.
The political process would be thrown out of balance if tax-exempt religious congregations were allowed to officially enlist in political campaigns. This would foster the establishment of a religious party.
The ACLJ case, filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, isn't likely to be decided for months, possibly years. The ACLJ's chief counsel, Jay A. Sekulow, believes the case could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. He says it's the first time that the IRS has revoked a church's tax exemption due to political activity and the first direct legal challenge to this part of the tax code.
IRS officials have declined to comment on the case.
As the case winds its way through the court system, it is likely to spur a national debate about the role of religion in politics, Sekulow said.
``It generates public debate - in a civil way, not in extremes - because we can discuss what is the role of religion in public life, and religion in politics,'' he said.
It's a debate that plays out every year in Virginia political campaigns. Three recent examples:
Just days before the Senate election last year, state Republican party chairman Patrick McSweeney complained that black ministers in Richmond benefited from a ``double standard,'' which allowed them to make endorsements without running afoul of the IRS. His comment came after Robb received a black pastor's endorsement during a televised religious service.
When the Rev. George Sweet unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep. Norman Sisisky in November, he rarely mentioned his campaign in Sunday sermons at his 4,000-member Atlantic Shores Baptist Church in Virginia Beach. He did allow his campaign workers to stick leaflets about his political rallies on cars in the church parking lot.
The Rev. Raymond Dean says he had welcomed campaign literature into the Mount Gilead Baptist Church in Norfolk. From the pulpit, he had urged his 2,000-member flock to vote for specific candidates, mainly Democrats.
Last spring, an Internal Revenue Service agent warned Dean, as well as pastors at four other African-American churches in Norfolk, that his style of politicking was threatening the church's tax exemption. Dean, feeling ``intimidated,'' immediately stopped.
But Sekulow says Dean shouldn't have to stop.
``Churches should be able to address the social and cultural issues of the day, and say who is taking positions that oppose the church's teaching or the teaching of the Scriptures,'' he said. ``If we believe in free speech and free discourse in an open society . . . what's the problem?''
The problem, said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of the 330,000-member People for the American Way, is that the ACLJ's lawsuit seeks to grant churches a special, higher privilege allowed to no other tax-exempt organization. The implications threaten politics and the vitality of the church, he said.
``There would be no reason why the Cardinal of New York couldn't pick a candidate for governor and put the full weight of the church behind it,'' Mincberg said.
Rank-and-file churchgoers should worry about the lawsuit's intent, said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
``They give money with the expectation that it will be used to spread the Gospel, feed the hungry . . . not line the pockets of some politician,'' he said.
The Church at Pierce Creek, which is the focus of the ACLJ's case, used tax deductible contributions to buy newspaper ads opposing Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential bid.
The ads, written by church pastor Dan Little and approved by the church's eight-man board, attacked Clinton's stands on abortion, homosexuality and condom distribution in public schools. The ads accused him of ``promoting policies that are in rebellion to God's laws.'' They ran in USA Today and The Washington Times on Oct. 30, just days before the election.
The church collected $44,500 for the ads through direct mail and publicity on Christian radio shows, Little said. Though the church is small, it has at least one nationally-prominent member in Randall Terry, founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.
Little has been jailed four times for his protests at clinics. He says taking a public stand on the presidential election seems a direct extension of the church's biblical mission.
``It's our responsibility to warn people not to be joined to an immoral purpose,'' he said.
Church members didn't worry about the legal fallout of their actions, he said. ``We did it on principle.''
For some Virginia ministers, Little's dilemma about guiding his church's political speech hits home, even if they don't agree with what he did.
Dean, at Mount Gilead in Norfolk, says pastors should be ``free to say what we want to say in our pulpits.'' Nonetheless, after the IRS warning, he has stopped telling his congregation to vote for certain candidates.
Dean and the Rev. John L. Ashby, pastor at the 705-member First Baptist Church of West Munden in Chesapeake, point out that African-American churches have long been the center of many black communities, and helped lead the struggle of American blacks to gain civil rights.
It isn't always easy for religious leaders to draw a line between speaking about injustice and identifying the people carrying it out, they said.
``It is in the prophetic tradition, the man of God on the front lines saying to those acting in an ungodly fashion or treating people unfairly, saying `it is not right, not in this time, not in this country,' '' Ashby said.
Sweet, pastor at Atlantic Shores Baptist Church and a former candidate himself, says churches should have the legal right to run newspaper ads without losing their tax exemptions. Still, he says, he wouldn't do it. ``To spend money to take out an ad, would be an inappropriate expenditure of church funds,'' he said.
All three pastors said they invite candidates of all parties to visit their churches and be introduced to the congregation. They urge their congregations to exercise their right as citizens to vote. And they talk about the political issues of the day in their sermons.
Donald Dunlap, pastor at Freemason St. Baptist Church, says partisan politics can compromise, even degrade, the church's role.
``If there's a big moral issue, it transcends the individual, the candidate, the party,'' he said. ``I can see the church contributing to a wholesome dialogue in the search for truth, but not allowing itself to become partisan.'' ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
POLITICS AND THE PULPIT:
A New York church bought ads attacking Bill Clinton for his
stands on abortion, homosexuality and sex education during the 1992
presidential campaign. Early this year, the Internal Revenue Service
revoked the church's tax exemption for taking a stand against a
candidate for public office. In April, the Virginia Beach-based
American Center for Law and Justice sued the IRS on the church's
behalf.
Two Views
The IRS is violating the church's right to free speech.
``Churches should be able to address the social and cultural issues
of the day, and say who is taking positions that oppose the church's
teaching or the teaching of the Scriptures,'' - Jay Sekulow, a
lawyer for the ACLJ.
The church stepped over the line. ``Why should churches have some
special privilege to speak that other tax-exempt organizations don't
have?'' - Barry Lynn, who complained to the IRS about the
advertisements.
What do you think about the role of the church in politics?
Some questions to consider:
- In what ways has religion affected your political life?
- Is there a role for politics in a spiritual ministry?
- If the church doesn't have to pay taxes, what obligation does
it owe to the public?
- How would our lives be different if churches were centers of
political action as well as teachers of moral values?
The Virginian-Pilot will conduct a group discussion about
``politics and the pulpit'' at 7 p.m. May 23. You are welcome to
share your ideas and listen to other views. To participate, dial
640-5555 and press 4545 to leave your name and phone number. We'll
call you back with details.
by CNB