Ruthie Kelly’s Portfolio

If you’ve read my columns before, you may be surprised that I’m actually on the churches’ side on this one. I am an admitted atheist and oppose organized religion, in that I think religion is responsible for a great deal of our nation’s problems and that one of the most adult and liberating decisions a person can make is to reject all religion.

So why, given that, do I think churches should be allowed to endorse candidates and remain tax free organizations?

It’s mostly because I believe in being fair, regardless of my personal prejudices against religion. I came from an intensely religious Presbyterian family, so my parents and two younger sisters are still firm believers, as is my significant other. Restricting churches’ political speech negatively impacts people I love, in a way they don’t deserve, simply based on religious leanings. Being a religious person, even a religious authority figure, does not mean your speech should be more inhibited. And what this law boils down to is restricting religious people’s freedom of speech.

The argument that churches who wish to endorse specific candidates can choose not to be tax-exempt is just a way to restrict them indirectly. If churches cannot be tax free, many of them would not be able to exist. Which in theory, I’m all for; but I want people to boycott church because they choose not to and think it’s wrong, not because no one can afford to start a church.

My argument is that churches should be treated no differently than other tax-exempt organizations. Church is nothing special. It should be handled the same as the Red Cross or Planned Parenthood; held to the same standards, but also not additionally restricted. And many non-profits do encourage supporters to vote for specific candidates for the sake of the organization or cause, even if it’s indirect, such as saying “Sen. Obama supports a woman’s right to choose,” or “Sen. McCain values veterans,” instead of saying, “Vote for Candidate X.”

Here’s the thing: Political free speech is less restricted than regular speech, in that it’s allowed to be false. The Supreme Court has ruled candidates are actually allowed to lie about each other and themselves, and not suffer any legal consequences. We can point out the candidate’s lie, censure them and not vote for them, but there is no fine, no jail time, nothing mandated by the government. It is completely ridiculous that candidates can stand up and flat-out lie about themselves or their opponents with no legal consequences whatsoever, but priests can’t speak their mind in front of their congregations. If political free speech is really free, let it stay that way.

It’s not like these churches are being formed and funded on the taxpayers’ dime anymore than non-profit organizations are. They don’t get grants; they’re not using public money. Tax law should be reformed to reflect the size and scope of churches’ congregations, donations and charity work, but going to church is in itself an act of free speech.

Separation of church and state is about two things: not embedding religious tenets in the government and not embedding government interests in religion. The concept slices both ways.

If we want to keep the church out of our government, we need to give churches the same respect they demand of the public and keep the government out of their pulpits. Unless they’re promoting hate speech or violent acts, there is no justifiable reason to restrict anything they have to say, much less something as mild as “You should vote for Candidate X.” It shows a fundamental disrespect for people who think and believe differently than us, something liberal advocates should know better than to do.

Barriers to forming interest- and cause-based organizations should be as minimal as possible, whether they be religious or otherwise. Public participation should be encouraged whenever possible, and restricting the political speech of any organization discourages public participation of the organizations and the people in them.

So let pastors and priests tell their church members who to vote for. Let Planned Parenthood and the Red Cross do the same. In the end, it’s up to the voters themselves, and if they want to sublimate their will to that of their church, that’s their choice.

I have faith, however, in human beings who are given the freedom to make their own choices. Churchgoers will vote the way they think is right, whether that means voting in accordance with their church or against it. Either way, voting for what’s right is the only thing we can ask of citizens of democracy.

Read the original column online here.