(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection(h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
According to many, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stepped beyond the bounds established for a tax-exempt organization. These people are calling for revoking the church's tax-exempt standing with the IRS because through inciting its members to donate time and means to support Proposition 8, the church has now made a substantial part of its activities attempting to influence legislation. According to antagonists, the church was able to secure millions of dollars in cash and in-kind campaign contributions to a group that supported Proposition 8.
The church claims it was well within its rights to act as it did in support of this and other like measures across the country. Evidently, there is confusion as to exactly how involved the church was in this campaign. The Family, a Proclamation to the World, is explicit in defining the relationship of the man and woman in marriage as being paramount. Recent discussions about this have not been any more forceful than at any other time. It was this document that provided me with the guidance I needed when making my personal decisions about the role of the government in regards to the nature of marriage. After describing marriage specifically as that relationship between a man and a woman, we are called to promote these measures.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
I was inclined to believe
otherwise. I was inclined to support an environment in which people could make the decisions to live their life, accepting the consequences of those decisions. Of course, many would suggest there are certain aspects of life that aren't decisions at all. Having to live with the consequences of non-decisions is patently unfair.
Consequences of non-decisions. I live with consequences of actions, decisions I make and decisions others make for me. Consequences are always a part of life whether we like them or not. We cannot always control consequences. Controlling consequences is a bit like controlling the weather. However limited our control, anything we do to subvert or change them will generally result simply in a postponement of the ultimate outcome.
So, churches get involved in politics all the time. It is only a very rare circumstance when the LDS church also gets involved. When it does, it is not embraced well even by the membership of the church. We discussed this in our home as well. You see, we're all pretty well versed in what the standard position of the church is as it comes to politics. This is a position that was established early. In fact, it is recorded in Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
The standard statement from the church during every political season seems to follow a common course:
The Church does not:• Endorse, promote or oppose the political parties, candidates or platforms.• Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.• Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.• Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.The Church does:• Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
So, the churches statement of political neutrality coincides with scripture. But does the actions taken in the months leading up to this political season conform to this policy? Some have argued it has not; however, if we return to section 134 we recognize even in 1834 Joseph Smith understood there may be a reason for the church to take some action:
We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upo0n the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor to dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guild, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
Arguments for both support of Proposition 8 and support of standing down from such involvement could be made from just reading this passage.
The church will generally refrain from any sort of political support or denouncement. In the case of Proposition 8, the main trajectory or focus has been to restate those doctrines as described in The Family, a Proclamation to the World. Some calls for members to align themselves with other organizations who were supporting the passage of Proposition 8 have provided grounds for antagonists to suggest the church has been more directly involved in politics than it should.
I was not one of those who jumped into this with both feet. In fact, our family did not provide money or time to the campaign. There was not any point at which I felt compelled to do more. Mobilization of the members in this campaign stemmed primarily from the consciences of the individual members and not from church leadership.
At what point is it appropriate for the church to make strides into the Political arena? If the fundamental doctrines of Family are not strong enough motivators, is there ever a time when the Church should be involved?
11 comments:
No.
Your brevity is remarkable.
Actually, I take that back. I think the church--or any church-- should be able to "make strides into the political arena" if it so chooses, if its members deem it appropriate. However, the statement of neutrality read at the beginning of every political season should, nay, MUST be rescinded if it is to do so.
I'm not one of those who believes a church should lose tax-exempt status for endorsing a political cause. And I'm not saying a church shouldn't encourage its members to look at one particular issue closely, in the light of its own doctrine.
But to claim neutrality and then use church money and church resources to become part of the political process is complete and utter hypocrasy.
I would argue that the church's involvement in Prop 8 violates the first three tenets of its neutrality statement, namely, where it claims the church does not endorse or oppose political platforms.
The church did not provide monetary or other resources to the campaigns outside of encouraging the members to participate in the processes. I'm not sure why people believe they did.
All money that members of the church donated to the cause was their money not the church's. All time donated to the campaign was the individual's time, not the church's. Certainly, this was not the church acting to support the proposition but the members seeing this as a way to protect the church and their beliefs.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage
This is the link to the page on the church's website that shows the letter that was sent to church leaders in California, TO BE READ TO ALL CONGREGATIONS ON JUNE 29, 2008.
Specifically, the letter states, "A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage."
Sounds to me like official church participation, including that of money and resources. While the money and resources is a reasonable inference, I would argue that at the very least, it violates the church's previous position on neutrality.
I keep forgetting to say, though, I LOVE the picture of the streets!!! Hilarious!
The church's participation with the coalition was limited to rallying the members to the cause. There was a stark absence of anything related to the campaign on church property and nothing from church funds. So, in a matter of speaking, your tithing did not go to the funding of this campaign. There was significant care taken to avoid speaking too heavily about the campaign during church. Although one of the members was a "block captain" and another was a "precinct captain", any discussions pertaining to the campaign were limited to a call for volunteers. Anything describing the activities of said volunteers was not covered until a later time either at their homes or over the phone.
All monetary donations were obtained through similar channels. The church itself did not handle any money as it was all private donations made directly to the support organizations directly from members. Discussions of donations were never held at church, on the church property and neither was the church rolls used as a telephone list for soliciting such donations.
Our household was a little uncomfortable with even the little we heard at church about this campaign but it was still limited to vocal support for the organizations that were supporting the proposition and the statement that the "church would participate with the coalition." Others may have felt differently but I never felt undue pressure to participate in any way.
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/11/13/news/doc491cd2dca45b7317746011.txt
I'm sure you can find the story and probably already have seen it, but in case you hadn't, I thought I'd pass it along. At least the church hasn't gone as far as denying the sacrament to people who voted for Obama or against Prop 8.
Incredible. This is too common among conservative faiths. It seems the narrow-mindedness of a single-issue voter has its roots deep within its clergy. Seriously, if we're to consider the whole picture, I don't think either candidate had a moral high-ground on which he can loom over the other.
I'd rather look at a candidate and view his entire platform, everything he stands for, and decide who is the best choice. Just because a man might have the same view on a single issue that I have, this does not absolve him of other problems or areas we may disagree.
If we were to look at each of the candidate's stated religious beliefs, Barack Obama is actually the more "christian" of the two. John McCain embraces evolution and does not attend church regularly. So, Barack Obama's stance on abortion rights makes him worse than a man who hardly believes there is a God?
Reminds me of my "single issue voter" post a couple weeks back!
It does me too. In fact, I was thinking about that as I responded.
Post a Comment