Religious Group Claims Dean "Issued an ultimatum"

Fidelis, a Catholic-based advocacy organization, fired off a press release today over a statement they claim Howard made to the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday:

"The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics."

In presenting such a statement totally out of context, Fidelis President Joseph Cella claims:

"Howard Dean's statement makes it clear that he wants to muzzle America's churches and religious groups from professing what they believe on important issues facing our society. When it comes to debates over public policy and issues, Dean should be welcoming the voice of America's churches, not attempting to silence them. Instead Dean has shown utter disregard for people of faith by threatening the historical and treasured role of religious groups and churches in American public life."

"Under Howard Dean's rules, pastors, priests, and rabbis wouldn't have been able to mobilize people of faith to join the civil rights marches in Selma and Montgomery," said Cella.

I'll take a shot at providing the context of Howard's statement: The IRS prohibits churches from campaigning, unless they want to pay taxes as other political groups do. Fidelis sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to participate in politics but hang on to their tax-exempt status. Fidelis describes its mission as to "defend and promote the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and the right to religious liberty by electing pro-life, pro-family and pro-religious liberty candidates, supporting the confirmation of judges, and promoting and defending laws consistent with the Founding principles of the United States."

Mmmmkay. I wonder how Fidelis manages to accomplish that goal consistent with the IRS Guidelines?

I have no problem with religious people like Jim Wallis and Sister Joan Chittister being politically active. In fact, I think it's wonderful because they come to the table without the fire and brimstone that the Religious Right likes to rely on.

Where I have a problem is when churches endorse candidates either directly or through those helpful "voter guides" that don't mention a specific candidate but leave no doubt as to which one they endorse.

Here is where bringing the analogy of the civil rights marches is disingenuously used: The IRS prohibition against churches (and other 501(c)3 organizations) being involved in partisan politics concerns only races for public office, not issues. Churches and religious leaders can speak out on moral and political issues but they are not allowed to:

• Endorse specific candidates for office
• Tell their congregations to vote for or against specific candidates

Neither of these prohibitions would have prevented any cleric from legally participating in the civil rights movement and the marches in Selma and Montgomery.

For more information about activities that are and are not permitted under the IRS code, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a guide.