I'm a conservative Catholic. Keep politics out of my church, other houses of worship
I support religious liberty and being able to worship without government interference. But that freedom shouldn't allow our sacred places to become overly political. Partisan politics should be kept out of our religious institutions.
But now a new ruling will allow religious leaders to endorse political candidates in churches and other religious houses without the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. I hope that doesn't mean I'll be hearing about candidate X from the pulpit.
The ruling comes after the evangelical group, National Religious Broadcasters and two Texas churches, filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service last August. They were challenging, on First Amendment grounds, a tax code that defines the tax-exempt status for churches and other nonprofit organizations and prohibits their participation in 'any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.'
As a result, the IRS has reversed its previous policy and will now allow religious leaders to endorse political candidates.
I'm not alone in my dismay over the thought of hearing about politics during the time I set aside for worship. Faith leaders in Miami told the Herald that they're concerned this ruling could create rifts in religious communities. Houses of worship shouldn't become cogs in political machines.
There are those who see this as a victory for religious freedom. Dr. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, praised the filing and tweeted, 'Government has NO BUSINESS regulating what is said in pulpits!'
President Donald Trump also applauded the development. During the first White House Faith Office summit on July 14, he said 'God is once again welcomed back into our public square.'
But I see it differently. God has never been absent from the public square — as a Catholic, I bring my values into my civic life every day. The real issue here is whether houses of worship will become extensions of political campaigns.
I recognize the frustration some conservative Christians and others feel. In the past, many evangelicals embraced political engagement with enthusiasm, speaking at campaign rallies for Trump and mobilizing voters through explicit endorsements. This change in the law means they will no longer have to risk their tax-exempt status if they want to engage in partisan endorsements.
The 'Souls to the Polls' movement, which focuses on Black churches, is one way that that faith communities already have influenced voter turnout.
But the Catholic Church is drawing a line when it comes to this latest ruling. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying that the 'Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.'
I've spent enough time in pews and on the campaign trail to know the difference between a sermon and a stump speech. And those lines shouldn't be blurred.
When politics enters the pew, division follows. Houses of worship should be places of refuge, reflection and reconciliation. I may differ politically with my fellow congregants, but on Sundays during Mass, we are united in worship under one God.
The last thing I want to know is who my priest is voting for or their political affiliation.
As a conservative, I believe we should value institutions that transcend politics, not surrender them at the altar of partisanship.
Religious leaders have many responsibilities — to guide us on issues of morality and faith, for example. But let's keep politics out of it.
Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: mmancuso@miamiherald.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Federal lawsuit filed by former convention bureau chief dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
The city of Hammond, its mayor and his podcast are no longer involved in a lawsuit filed by the South Shore Convention and Visitors Authority's former president and CEO after a federal judge dismissed them from it last week. U.S. District Judge Damon Leichty, who took over the case from retired Judge Joe Van Bokkelen earlier this year, wrote in a July 31 order that once Van Bokkelen severed the city, Mayor Tom McDermott Jr. and his 'Left of Center' podcast from the suit Speros Batistatos filed against the SSCVA in February, the federal question no longer applies. As such, 'The court must dismiss an action 'at any time' it determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,' he wrote. 'When the action contains no claims over which the court has federal question jurisdiction, there is nothing to which supplemental jurisdiction can attach,' despite it having been attached to the original case that does have a federal question, Leichty wrote in the five-page order. '(S)upplemental jurisdiction may only be invoked when the district court has a hook of original jurisdiction on which to hang it.' Because the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Batistatos can refile it at the state level, the order reads. As to whether he will, Batistatos deferred comment to his attorney, Sandra Blevins of Indianapolis; Blevins didn't respond to a request for comment by deadline. McDermott, however, on Wednesday encouraged Batistatos to file the suit at the state level because he believes the state court will be more sympathetic to his First Amendment rights. 'All along, we didn't think our part of the suit would go anywhere, but we still filed an anti-SLAPP suit against him,' McDermott said. 'I don't think Speros would be dumb enough to refile, but if he does, the state court is much friendlier to defendants, and we'll simply refile the anti-SLAPP. 'The fact that this took so long is frustrating, but justice does prevail.' Anti-SLAPP laws 'prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights,' according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's website. Batistatos sued the SSCVA in August 2022 – a month after it fired him — alleging it violated the law in the handling of his contract renegotiations due to his age — 58 at the time — as well as misspent federal Payroll Protection Plan funds in violation of the CARES Act, a claim the board disputes, the Post-Tribune previously reported. His suit named the SSCVA as well as CVA Board President Andy Qunell and board members Matt Schuffert, Hard Rock Casino general manager; local restaurateur Brent Brashier; Tom Dabertin; and local real estate agent Matt Maloney. Notices of intent to sue were also sent to McDermott and attorney Kevin Smith for $2.5 million for defamation for their actions around the time Batistatos was relieved of his duties by the board. In the notice sent to McDermott, Batistatos alleged McDermott conspired and made a backdoor deal with the SSCVA board to dismiss a pending lawsuit against the SSCVA if Payroll Protection Plan funds were given out to aid his and other municipalities. He also said McDermott 'stated he would dismiss the lawsuit if Mr. Batistatos were terminated from his position at the SSCVA,' as well as making other 'numerous defamatory statements' against Batistatos on McDermott's podcast with Kevin Smith entitled Left of Center Podcast, according to the document. In August 2023, Van Bokkelen dismissed claims against Smith and Left of Center Media, LLC, which produces McDermott's podcast, as well as axed Batistatos's claim of 'tortious interference' with 'contractual and business relationships' against McDermott and the city of Hammond. But on June 18, Van Bokkelen filed three motions: one denying the dismissal of Batistatos's lawsuit and one removing Thomas McDermott in his official capacity as mayor from it, although McDermott as himself and the city of Hammond would remain on the suit, the Post-Tribune previously reported. The third motion allowed Batistatos to refile his suit against McDermott's Left of Center Media LLC and Left of Center podcast, court documents said.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Latest federal list of ‘sanctuary' jurisdictions includes Chicago, Cook County and Illinois
The Department of Justice placed Chicago, Cook County, and the state of Illinois on its latest 'sanctuary jurisdiction list,' with Attorney General Pam Bondi promising to 'continue bringing litigation' against places the department says stand in the way of federal immigration enforcement. Bondi said in a statement Tuesday that she would 'work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country,' but did not threaten any specific actions beyond what the federal government is already doing. Illinois is among a dozen states, Cook is one of four counties, and Chicago is one of 18 cities on the list. It's the latest federal target on the area following months of local ICE raids, the feds' failed lawsuit challenging local sanctuary policies, and President Donald Trump's continuing criticism of Mayor Brandon Johnson and Gov. JB Pritzker. Both Johnson and Pritzker have also defended the policies in hourslong testimony before Congress earlier this year. The mayor's office and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle's office both said they had not received any additional communication from the DOJ about the city's and county's placement on the list. 'Chicago's Welcoming City policies were first put in place more than 40 years ago by our city's first Black mayor, Harold Washington,' Johnson spokesperson Cassio Mendoza said in an emailed statement. 'We will continue to fight for the dignity of our immigrant, migrant, and refugee communities and stand up for the rights of all Chicagoans against any federal overreach. Our city is safer when police officers can focus on driving down crime and violence and holding offenders accountable, rather than civil immigration enforcement.' Andres Correa, a spokesman for Pritzker, said in an email the DOJ's latest actions were simply a pressure tactic. 'Illinois' bipartisan TRUST Act is, and always has been, fully compliant with federal law, a fact that was affirmed in federal court just last month,' Correa said in a statement. 'Our laws ensure that law enforcement focuses on fighting crime, not enforcing the Trump administration's unlawful policies or politically motivated tactics.' A federal judge in Chicago late last month blocked the Trump administration's challenge of local sanctuary policies, such as the Trust Act, the city's sanctuary ordinance and the county statute banning ICE agents from the Cook County Jail unless they had a criminal warrant unrelated to immigration. Local jurisdictions' choice to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law is protected by the 10th Amendment, U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins wrote. Granting an end-run around that amendment 'would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity — the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.' The DOJ's list is the second one of its kind to be published. The first, released two months ago on DHS' website, contained hundreds of jurisdictions and was riddled with typos. It spurred pushback from officials who said it was not clear why they were included. The errors included jurisdictions that overwhelmingly voted for Trump and at least one that had declared itself a 'non-sanctuary city.' The issues were never fully explained, and, within days, the list was replaced with a 'Page Not Found' error message. The DOJ noted Louisville had been removed from the list soon after it agreed to honor DHS requests to hold inmates on immigration detainers for up to 48 hours. Given the potential loss of federal funding or increased ICE raids, the 'stakes are too high,' Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg said of the move to drop its 2017 policy against such detainers, according to the Louisville Courier Journal. Bondi celebrated the change and urged other jurisdictions to do the same. .
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that's led to chilling of free speech
Stanford University's student newspaper on Wednesday sued the Trump administration over two provisions in federal immigration law that they say the officials have wielded against those with pro-Palestinian views. The Stanford Daily, in addition to two former college students, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, accusing the administration of using the provisions to threaten deportation and the revocation of visas. They say it's led to censorship and violations of free speech rights. The paper's staff members who are on visas have self-censored and declined assignments related to the war in Gaza, fearful that their reporting could jeopardize their lawful immigration status, the lawsuit said. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a group that is helping to represent the plaintiffs, in a statement. 'Free speech isn't a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.' A senior State Department official declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, but directed NBC News to comments Rubio previously made about visa holders and complying with U.S. law. In April, Rubio wrote in an opinion piece published on Fox News that he would be taking a 'zero-tolerance approach to foreign nationals who abet terrorist organizations.' 'The Supreme Court has made clear for decades that visa holders or other aliens cannot use the First Amendment to shield otherwise impermissible actions taken to support designated foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizballah, or the Houthis, or violate other U.S. laws,' Rubio said. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, described the lawsuit as 'baseless.' 'There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,' McLaughlin said in a statement. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs take aim at the Deportation Provision and Revocation Provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The first provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary 'personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' The second gives the secretary the power to revoke a visa or documentation at their discretion. As the lawsuit points out, the Trump administration has cited the Deportation Provision as the basis for attempting to deport Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested and detained for more than three months. Similarly, the administration used the Revocation Provision to detain Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, who's also since been released. Due to the administration's use of the statutes, the lawsuit said, the Stanford Daily has received a number of requests from lawfully present noncitizens to have their names, quotes or photos removed from articles. Many international students have stopped speaking to the paper's journalists, and current and former writers have asked for their opinion editorials to be taken down, the lawsuit said. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' the lawsuit said. 'And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails.' One of the unnamed plaintiffs appeared on the Canary Mission, the suit said. The website, run by an anonymous group, has published a detailed database of students, professors and others who it says have shared anti-Israel and antisemitic viewpoints. It's been accused of doxxing and harassment, in addition to launching personal attacks that depict pro-Palestinian activists as being in 'support of terrorism,' the Middle East Studies Association of North America said. The plaintiff has stopped publishing and 'voicing her true opinions' on Palestine and Israel, the suit said. Canary Mission previously told NBC News that it documents people and groups who 'promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews' across the political spectrum, but it did not respond to criticisms of its work. The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that block the officials from using the provisions against them based on engaging in what they consider protected speech. 'There's real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,' said Greta Reich, editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily, in a statement. 'The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.'
