Bills that Threaten Religious Liberty

Testimony given on Capitol Hill by The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance

Good afternoon Chairman Houghton and members of the Subcommittee on Oversight. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my concerns about two bills pending before this committee, H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act and H.R. 2931, the Bright-Line Act of 2001.

Mr. Chairman, I consider myself fortunate to have had the pleasure of working with you on issues of mutual concern over your long career of service to this nation. I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge Congressman John Lewis, who has been a good friend to The Interfaith Alliance Foundation through his work of many years on our Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom Award Selection Committee.

For those on the Oversight committee whom I have not met, I am the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, and I serve as the executive director of The Interfaith Alliance. The Interfaith Alliance is a faith-based, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive and healing role of religion in the life of our nation and challenging those who employ religion to promote intolerance. With more than 150,000 members drawn from over 50 faith traditions, local Alliances in 38 states, and a national network of religious leaders, The Interfaith Alliance promotes compassion, civility and mutual respect for human dignity in our increasingly diverse society.

In addition to my role at the Alliance, I also serve as Pastor for Preaching and Worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, The Interfaith Alliance has very serious concerns about H.R. 2357 and H.R. 2931. Indeed, we are fundamentally opposed to both of these bills that are before you today.

Our analysis of H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, is in accord with the Congressional Research Service, which has stated that this bill “would amend IRC Section 501(c)(3) to exempt churches and church auxiliaries from the absolute prohibition on participation or intervention in a political campaign and add language, which would measure churches by the same test that is used for all 501(c)(3) organizations; i.e., no substantial part of their activities would be participating in, or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”1

In other words, despite the unique place that houses of worship hold in our current tax code, this bill seeks to dismantle the absolute ban on partisan politicking and allows houses of worship to engage in the mechanisms of partisan politics while retaining their tax-exempt status and receiving tax-deductible contributions.

H.R. 2931, the Bright-Line Act of 2001, is similar to H.R. 2357 in intent, except that it would “add a new subsection to IRC, section 501, applicable to churches, church auxiliaries and members of an affiliated group of organizations. The proposed subsection would deny tax exemption to a church or church auxiliary if the organization normally spent more than 20% of its gross revenues in a year on activities to influence legislation or, normally spent more than 5% of its gross revenues on political campaign activities.”2

Thus, while H.R. 2357 lifts the ban on absolute prohibition of partisan politicking while leaving the “no substantial part” test up to interpretation, H.R. 2931 lifts the ban but provides a benchmark for “no substantial part” and specifically includes lobbying activities.

Mr. Chairman, profound constitutional issues are at stake in these two bills. As a religious leader with a national constituency and as an active Baptist pastor from Louisiana, I oppose these legislative proposals. Adoption of this legislation would alter the whole legal landscape of church-state relations in this nation. When I speak about the possible consequences of these bills, my passion is deep, and my concern about their negative impact on religion’s prophetic voice in our nation is real.

Even if by some stretch of the imagination one could conceive that the bills before this committee today presented no constitutional problems, I would oppose them. As a pastor who has worked in congregational ministry for more than 40 years as well as the executive director of a national interfaith organization that values the importance of religious congregations, I shudder to think of the devastation that would be visited upon the religious community and its leaders were these bills to become law.

Indeed, I can think of few ways to compromise the integrity of religious congregations and to blunt the vitality of religion in our land more than by the passage of either one of these bills.

• First, neither the House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, nor the Bright-Line Act of 2001 is wanted or needed among most religious people in this land and the clergy who lead them.

Any claim by supporters of these bills that there is a mainstream movement among this nation’s clergy to rewrite the tax code to allow houses of worship to engage in partisan politicking is simply without foundation.

As a matter of fact, it is far more accurate to say that clergy appreciate the firewall that 501(c)(3) status provides between the inner-sanctuaries of houses of worship and what has unfortunately become the “anything goes” culture of a modern-day political campaign.

This assertion is backed by a recent national Gallup/Interfaith Alliance Foundation poll of religious leaders, which found that 77% of clergy believe that they should not endorse political candidates. Of those participating in the poll, 59% identified themselves as Evangelicals. It is ironic that these polling results show that the very people whom these bills are supposedly intended to empower adamantly resist even the premise on which the bills are based.

I am not suggesting that The Interfaith Alliance believes that clergy and houses of worship do not have an important role to play in the political process. We believe that clergy have an absolute right and further, a moral obligation, to address the crucial issues of the day and to serve the nation as a prophetic voice in times of calm and crisis.

But clergy do not need a change in the current law to be faithful to this important responsibility. The ability of clergy to educate their congregations about important issues of the day is unambiguously legal. The only activities that tax-exempt houses of worship may not engage in are endorsing or opposing candidates, or using their tax-exempt donations to contribute to partisan campaigns.

Since the introduction of these bills last year, supporters of these measures have argued their merit under the guise of assuring freedom for houses of worship. Make no mistake about it; at this very moment houses of worship are free to endorse candidates for political offices and to give money to those candidates’ campaigns. However, such politicking cannot be done with funding that is tax deductible. Every house of worship is free to forfeit the primacy of its identity as a spiritual body and to function as a political entity governed by all of the IRS regulations and state and federal laws that apply to political institutions.

• Second, these bills have the potential to compromise religious leaders’ ministries of compassion and even to silence the prophetic voice of communities of faith in this land.

Throughout the history of our nation, religious leaders have provided a perspective of integrity and independence when they speak about the moral issues. Whether it was the civil rights movement of the 1960’s or the importance of forgiving third world debt in 2000, religious leaders have spoken conscientiously, often in the face of negative influences and political pressure.

Passage of either of these bills would turn pastors, imams, rabbis and other wouldbe prophets into potential political operatives to be lobbied by candidates for public office and used as endorsers of partisan campaigns. To saddle religious leaders with the controversy and skepticism commonly associated with politics would erode the reverence accorded to religious offices and leave congregations devoid of clergy functioning with an authority rooted in spirituality. When pulpits, bimahs, and other sacred desks from which the scriptures and oral traditions of various religions are read and interpreted become stumps on which ministers stand to deliver political speeches and hand out political endorsements, the prophetic voice of the religious leaders community – arguably religion’s most important contribution to the nation – will be silenced.

This view is shared by Deirdre Dessingue, associate general counsel of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops who wrote in a July 2001 article that, “as the church pursues its religious mission, it is guided by its own unique vision of the way our society should be. As a God-given vision, it admits of no compromise. Yet since compromise is the essence of politics, choosing involvement in electoral politics, risks compromise, co-option, and collusion.” She concludes by saying, “a religious message without integrity is no message at all.”3 I could not agree with her more.

Lifting the ban on politicking is also sure to create a rift between the leadership of a house of worship and the congregants. A religious leader in a congregation must be able to serve all of the people in that congregation. More than once, in a single day, I have conducted funerals for people of competing political persuasions and blessed babies born to parents who wanted nothing to do with the political process. In each instance, the families involved sought the ministry of a clergyperson not the assistance of a politician. Taking on the role of a political power broker would jeopardize beyond measure the acceptance and effectiveness of a minister within a congregation.

Knowing well the schismatic passions related to partisan politics, you easily can imagine a congregant, even in a time of need, refusing to turn for help from a minister whose identity has been shaped by the political endorsements that have become a part of his or her leadership in a congregation. Passage of either one of these bills threatens the effectiveness of ministers of compassion in religious congregations.

• Third, current law protects the integrity of houses of worship and prevents government entanglement in the affairs of houses of worship.

Churches, synagogues, temples and mosques should not be used as partisan political rally halls or as venues for partisan political fundraising activities.

With the lifting of the absolute prohibition on political activities comes an invitation to the government to regulate the practices and affairs of a house of worship. Surely there will be different interpretations of what constitutes a “substantial” activity, a “normal year” or even what constitutes an actual partisan activity. Churches should not be in the business of defending their denominational or financial affairs to the government, and indeed, this is precisely the situation the framers of our Constitution sought to avoid.

• Fourth, when people of faith give money to their congregations as an act of devotion to God, they should not have to worry about a portion of that money going to politicians.

The fact is that members of religious congregations will not make financial contributions to a congregational budget knowing that a part of their financial support for the ministries of that house of worship will end up in the campaign war chest of a political candidate seeking help in winning an election. To turn offerings given in the name of God as acts of worship into political contributions devoted to the support of partisan politicians is a sacrilege.

People of faith are not monolithic in their political ideology. Passage of this legislation will divide religious communities dramatically and literally reconfigure congregational life in this nation. Religious people will realign themselves in congregations that reflect their respective political positions. What conscientious religious person would want to be a faithful member of a congregation that supports a candidate for office that the person opposes on the basis of conscience?

We do not want to see houses of worship identified more by the political parties that they support than by the theology or the moral values that they proclaim.

In the 2000 election, specifically in South Carolina, Michigan, and Washington, we saw the sad spectacle of candidates for public office highlighting theological differences between congregations in an attempt to divide congregations for the purpose of dividing the electorate and propelling voters to the polls. In Washington, Senator John McCain’s campaign took responsibility for sending the following statement to primary voters by telephone:

“This is a Catholic Voter Alert. Gov. George Bush, Jr. has campaigned against Sen. John McCain by seeking the support of Southern Fundamentalists who have expressed anti-Catholic views. Several weeks ago Gov. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in South Carolina. That’s the same Bob Jones who said the Pope was “the antichrist” and called the Church ‘a satanic cult.’ Sen. John McCain has strongly criticized this anti-Catholic bigotry, while Gov. Bush stayed silent while gaining the support of Bob Jones University. For this reason, many Washington Catholics now support John McCain for President. Please vote for John McCain. Thank you.”

Not to be outdone, then Christian Coalition President Pat Robertson sponsored automated phone calls to voters prior to the Michigan Republican primary in support of then Governor Bush criticizing Senator McCain’s record on abortion, and calling his campaign chairman, Senator Warren Rudman, a “bigot” for criticizing Christian conservatives. In this scenario, religion was used as a political football, and it truly was unfortunate.

• Finally, passage of this bill would open yet another breach in the campaign finance laws just passed by Congress. H.R. 2357 achieves this by adding yet another category of organizations, tax-exempt houses of worship, to the current cast of characters such as special interest organizations, outside political pressure groups and partisan party committees who are allowed under law to influence the outcome of elections with record amounts of cash and expressed advocacy campaigns.

With the removal of the ban on absolute politicking, houses of worship would now be in the business of administering and raising church funds for political action committees (PACs) and be required to meet Federal Election Commission standards for disclosure and accountability. In addition to the obvious danger of church-state entanglement through FEC and IRS audits, churches and congregants would have to take careful measures to avoid the co-mingling of tax-deductible gifts intended to support a house of worship and non-tax-deductible funds dedicated to supporting or opposing political candidates. Churches will also inevitably open themselves up to unnecessary scrutiny from the candidates themselves.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I must be honest with you. When I first heard of legislative proposals that would blatantly politicize houses of worship, I couldn’t believe my ears and thought someone was playing a practical joke on me. 114 co-sponsors later, I now know better. Each of these proposed pieces of legislation represents as serious a threat to the integrity and vitality of religion in this nation as it does to the continuation of religious liberty as guaranteed by the constitution. The bills are no joke. And I am not laughing. I come here today to plead with members of this committee to not allow these bills to go any further.

Footnotes

1 Marie B. Morris, “Bills to Permit Churches to Engage in Campaign Activities,” Congressional Research Service, 15 Nov. 2001.

2 Ibid.

3 Dessingue, Deirdre, Prohibition in Search of a Rationale: What the Tax Code Prohibits; Why; to What End?, 42 B.C.L. Rev 903 (2001).

4 “Religion Rules as Primaries Approach,” Associated Press 3 March 2000.

June 2002