Dan and Angi run a weblog that I visit from time to time. Recently Dan wrote short article called "Double-plus ungood badthink", an appropriate reference to the Orwellian vision for 1984 where independent thought was not merely controlled by paring the vocabulary down to a bare, inoffensive minimum.

The article was topically relevant as it addressed the Thought Police in our own day and age. The catalyst for their comments was published in the Omaha World Herald:

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP) - A recent Sunday found Tina Kolm changing her morning routine. Instead of attending a Unitarian Universalist service, she was at the Lenexa Christian Center, paying close attention to a conservative minister's sermon about the importance of amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Kolm is one of about 100 volunteers for the Mainstream Coalition, a group monitoring the political activities of local pastors and churches.

The coalition, based in suburban Kansas City, Kan., says it wants to make sure clergy adhere to federal tax guidelines restricting political activity by nonprofit groups, and it's taking such efforts to a new level.

The 47-year-old Kolm, from Prairie Village, Kan., said keeping church and state separate is important to her. She doesn't want a few religious denominations defining marriage - or setting other social policy - for everyone.

"What it's all about to me is denying some people's rights," she said.

When I read this, I was offended. Don't get me wrong - I do believe in a Separation of Church and State, though even today we argue over what our Founding Fathers intended.

No, I do not regularly attend church myself.

Yes, I do seem to gravitate towards the Christian ideals / virtues.

No matter what I do or don't believe I am still aware that one of the reasons this country was founded was to pursue religious freedom. Despite my not participating in organized religion I still recognize that most organized religions espouse family, tolerance and compassion... something this country can use a lot more of.

It made me think of President Bush's "Faith Based Initiative", one of the programs he espoused during his initial campaign several years ago. I wondered about the possible conflict between the President's program and the modern interpretation of the Separation of Church and State... and turned to Google for clarification. I found one answer at About.Com.

Fending off criticism that the new White House office violated separation of church and state as provided for in the "establishment clause" of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the Bush Administration assured that use of federal funds for religious purposes will not be allowed.

"It can fund the soup, it can fund the shelter. It shouldn't fund the Bibles, and I think if we maintain that division, we'll be in the right place," stated former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith. President Bush has selected Goldsmith to oversee the AmeriCorps volunteer program and to assume a leadership role in assisting faith-based organizations.

This sounds reasonable to me. I am comfortable with that. Let's look a little more deeply into the Mainstream Coalition.

On their website they state their views quite plainly. Regarding Faith Based Initiatives:

The MAINstream Coalition believes that religious groups have played a key role in helping the poor and needy through voluntary contributions to social service programs.

We oppose government funding of social service programs, regardless of their effectiveness, that are supported by religious institutions.

We oppose government policies that encourage direct transfers of taxpayer money to "persuasively sectarian" institutions.

That was quite clear. They are against the government giving monies to any church to support social programs, "regardless of their effectiveness".

It looks like their main line of attack will be to find Churches that are in violation of tax laws that deal with non-profit organizations.

But is this a new issue? How many sides are there? Watching the liberal Thought Police attend sermons gave me the chills, for sure, but does that make them right or wrong? A little Tammy Bruce angel appears on my shoulder and begins to lecture me on the dangers of Moral Relativism, but I plod forward with my investigation, anyway.

On christianitytoday.com I found a 1998 article that addresses the subject quite nicely. "The IRS and Pulpit Politics : Campaigning can endanger your tax-exempt status"

Written by John R. Throop, a pastor of Christ Church (Episcopal), Peoria, Illinois, it seems to support the concepts proffered by the Mainstream Coalition if not the methods.

In the United States, churches receive the privilege of tax-exempt status at the cost of outright political involvement. Churches must be salt and light in their communities, but they must act wisely if they wish to retain their tax-exempt status.

It cites an example where a church crossed the line and had its tax-exempt status removed.

One church challenged the IRS ban on political involvement by taking it to court. On November 3, 1992, the Church at Pierce Creek, Binghamton, New York, took out a full-page ad in USA Today. Lambasting presidential candidate Bill Clinton, the advertisement concluded, "The Bible warns us not to follow another man in his sin nor help him promote sin lest God chastens us. How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?"

In 1995, the IRS revoked the Church at Pierce Creek's tax-exempt status, citing its partisan political activity. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, sued the IRS to restore the church's tax exemption. The case remains in the federal courts, and the outcome could change how the IRS views the activity of churches in the public square.

Since this was written in 1998 and refers to the 1995 revocation of tax exempt status, how did it turn out?

A quick search on Google reveals that the Church at Pierce Creek lost the case, but at the same time the Federal Appeals Court defined how churches can participate in the political process without losing their tax-exempt status.

Churches now have an alternate means to engage in campaign speech. For the first time, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that churches have a method of engaging in campaign speech activity. The Court ruled that churches could form separate 501(c)(4) organizations "for the promotion of social welfare" and those organizations in turn could form a Political Action Committee (PAC) that would be free to participate in political campaigns.

It appears that this is good news for the politically active parish. Still, the ACLJ is not satisfied with the IRS's handling of the case.

The American Center for Law and Justice is suing the IRS on behalf of the Christian Coalition alleging that the tax agency's rejection of the Coalition's tax-exempt status was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, VA in February 2000.

I can see the point here as well. With watchdog groups like the Mainstream Coalition using the IRS as a weapon, it certainly does appear as if the punishment will be meted out unfairly.

I am reminded of the Reverend Al Sharpton and his speech at the Democratic National Convention. Should the good Reverend ever endorse a candidate at the pulpit, do you think the Mainstream Coalition will take exception to his partisan support? Or will he get a free pass because his candidate is likely theirs?

Posted by Michael at August 1, 2004 07:01 PM