1 of 42

Write now Article Tools

Page 4 of 5

viewpoint of those who lead by their religious conscience to take an active role in the politics of the culture they are called to serve, by that same religious conscience. Stephen Carter, quoted by Stefan Johnson, states, "If the state is able to manipulate the content of religious doctrine through its power to extend or deny the favored tax treatment, the religions are already well down the road to compromising their autonomy." The government is allowing the abuse of the First Amendment, which prohibits the exercising of freedom of religion, by silencing the expression of the church leadership's freedom of speech. Sermons are edited of religious convictions because they may endorse one candidate that supports those convictions and oppose another that doesn't.

By affecting the "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" discussion of public issues, the government is prohibiting the church leadership in guiding their congregations to hold visible and publicly powerful political officials to accountability on moral convictions shared by the faith reflected within the walls of the church. Leadership in the church must be content-neutral while trying to convey biblical or religious views that aren't. The churches of today represent varying religious ideals that range from democratic to republican, conservative to liberal, and even pro-life or pro-choice. To say that such a "political opposite" viewpoints would be homogeneous and thus affect the political process is foolish and insulting to the people who the process was designed to accomodate.

To say that the view that such restrictions of the churches' political activism help to ensure that nondeductable contributions aren't funneled so that they become deductable is a valid concern,but inappropiately applied in this situation. A minister's endorsement of a candidate by speaking of the moral or biblical qualifications of such political officials oppose no threat to governmental oversight of such abuses. There is a clear line between endorsing a candidate due to common religious beliefs and endorsing a candidate because of unfair and unethical campaign contributions.

Congress has effectively silenced through threats the ethical and religious exercise of free speech in churches that bear responsibility to remark on the moral character and responsibility of those in politics who are dependent on the voting public who subscribe to that religious faith. It would cause more alarm, and be more consistent in the understanding

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Role of faith in politics?
We want to hear your view. Write now!