Polluting Piety With Politics

By Gus Tyler

Published July 02, 2004, issue of July 02, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

An article on the front-page of the June 3 New York Times was scary. It notes that the Bush campaign is reaching out to thousands of churches around the country to involve them in distributing campaign fliers and registering voters on behalf of the president’s November run. The move makes history. It seems that at no time in the nation’s experience has a candidate for president made an open appeal to churches to start acting like political clubs.

In 1928, when New York Governor Alfred Smith, the first serious Roman Catholic candidate, ran for the presidency, he did have the backing of many Catholics. But he did not call upon the Catholic churches to distribute his campaign literature or to get out the vote on his behalf.

There are sound reasons that he — and others — did not. Churches are tax-exempt organizations. Any organization — church or nonchurch — that participates actively in a political campaign automatically loses its tax exemption. What’s more, the cardinal American principle of separation of church and state makes the active recruitment of churches to back a candidate something much less than “separation.”

While Bush seems to be unaware of these problems, many church leaders are not. Some of them, including conservative-minded clerics, already have warned their associates not to pollute piety with politics.

However, the Bush administration has, so far, stuck by its guns. In the New York Times article, Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, explains: “People of faith have as much right to participate in the political as any other community.” He also notes that the use of e-mail to carry the message for this drive is “building the most sophisticated grass-roots presidential campaign in the country’s history.”

While the Bush push is under attack by both liberals and some conservatives, inside and outside the American churches, there is another aspect of the question that makes the Bush move doubly dangerous. As is well known, the Bush administration has been contributing government funds to “faith-based” charities. Does that mean that any church — no matter how tiny, no matter its denomination — would be entitled automatically to federal funding? Obviously not. If they were, then thousands of churches, launched by who knows whom, would crowd the gravy train. Someone in the government has to decide which faith-based organizations are deserving and which are not. Would a church that refuses to back Bush get the same favorable treatment as a church that signs up to back him?

Now let’s put the pieces together. The U.S. Department of the Treasury, under Bush’s prompting, donates money to a church. That church uses the money to campaign for Bush. So, in effect, Bush is using government money to campaign for Bush, and he does so through a church whose job it is to “launder” the dirty money.






Find us on Facebook!
  • The rose petals have settled, and Andi has made her (Jewish?) choice. We look back on the #Bachelorette finale:
  • "Despite the great pain and sadness surrounding a captured soldier, this should not shape the face of this particular conflict – not in making concessions and not in negotiations, not in sobering assessments of this operation’s achievements or the need to either retreat or move forward." Do you agree?
  • Why genocide is always wrong, period. And the fact that some are talking about it shows just how much damage the war in Gaza has already done.
  • Construction workers found a 75-year-old deli sign behind a closing Harlem bodega earlier this month. Should it be preserved?
  • "The painful irony in Israel’s current dilemma is that it has been here before." Read J.J. Goldberg's latest analysis of the conflict:
  • Law professor Dan Markel waited a shocking 19 minutes for an ambulance as he lay dying after being ambushed in his driveway. Read the stunning 911 transcript as neighbor pleaded for help.
  • Happy birthday to the Boy Who Lived! July 31 marks the day that Harry Potter — and his creator, J.K. Rowling — first entered the world. Harry is a loyal Gryffindorian, a matchless wizard, a native Parseltongue speaker, and…a Jew?
  • "Orwell would side with Israel for building a flourishing democracy, rather than Hamas, which imposed a floundering dictatorship. He would applaud the IDF, which warns civilians before bombing them in a justified war, not Hamas terrorists who cower behind their own civilians, target neighboring civilians, and planned to swarm civilian settlements on the Jewish New Year." Read Gil Troy's response to Daniel May's opinion piece:
  • "My dear Penelope, when you accuse Israel of committing 'genocide,' do you actually know what you are talking about?"
  • What's for #Shabbat dinner? Try Molly Yeh's coconut quinoa with dates and nuts. Recipe here:
  • Can animals suffer from PTSD?
  • Is anti-Zionism the new anti-Semitism?
  • "I thought I was the only Jew on a Harley Davidson, but I was wrong." — Gil Paul, member of the Hillel's Angels. http://jd.fo/g4cjH
  • “This is a dangerous region, even for people who don’t live there and say, merely express the mildest of concern about the humanitarian tragedy of civilians who have nothing to do with the warring factions, only to catch a rash of *** (bleeped) from everyone who went to your bar mitzvah! Statute of limitations! Look, a $50 savings bond does not buy you a lifetime of criticism.”
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.