Churches, politics, and taxes
Advertisement
Many parishioners go to church to be nourished in their faith and seek a heavenly destination. These are good reasons. Nevertheless, while politics brought into church can make our celebrations an extension of the upsetting news we are all confronted with every day, that confrontation is necessary when the news screams of hatred, cruelty, fear, racism, hellish political decisions, and evil, inhuman behavior, such as 'Alligator Alcatraz.'
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
David Pierce
Sandwich
IRS's pivot ushers in a new set of concerns
The simple but irksome question 'Do we really want churches to become more political?' hastened me to express an angst-ridden response: No — never.
Eugene Scott raised the question in the context of the recent decision by the IRS to relax the constraints of the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which prohibited churches and other tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates.
Advertisement
My disposition changed when I got to Scott's reference to Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who recently voiced his opinion regarding the revised interpretation of the Johnson Amendment. Newsom said, 'I don't know if it's healthy — I don't even know if it's legal, but it's not surprising. I just find it politically convenient.' He added, 'It's called gaming the system — in every way.' His terse but judicious statement brought a smile back to my face.
With keen insight, Scott notes that 'this pivot' by the IRS 'is not as sharp of a turn as some proponents of the separation of church and state may believe, because, for better or worse, pastors have used their pulpits to make political stances for decades. This is in part because politicians often make decisions that can positively impact churches — allowing them to receive federal dollars.'
As a Catholic octogenarian who goes to church frequently, I have never had a priest speak from the pulpit other than on the Gospel without any reference whatsoever to any other cause. However, I believe Scott makes a valid point.
Francis J. Hickey II
Lexington
Online debate: From 'pastors walk a fine line' to who is 'we'?
Following is an edited sampling of comments
posted on Eugene Scott's op-ed:
Churches are splitting apart as congregants, many of whom have known each other for decades, feel their pastors aren't political enough or are too political. Pastors walk a fine line, always in the shadow of either getting fired or losing members. We get so caught up in what is seen, which is temporary, that we forget to pay attention to what is unseen, which is eternal. Yes, the Gospel does provide a moral architecture that guides us in this temporal world, but telling people how to vote on gender identity, or equating Christianity with 'patriotism,' or concluding that a person's believing Christian evangelical theology means they must be MAGA —intolerance cuts both ways — is not Gospel. (EW Piper)
Advertisement
First question: Who is 'we' in the headline 'Do we really want churches to become more political?' (TerwilligerBuntsOne)
Churches can become political when they pay taxes like you and me. (tipinnh)
There are three religious truths:
1) Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
2) Protestants do not recognize the pope as the leader of the Christian faith.
3) Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.
— Author Unknown (pgerlings)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Time Magazine
Republicans to Roll Out ‘America First' Test For Teachers Arriving From Blue States
Oklahoma's education department has announced plans to introduce an 'America First' certification test to ensure that teachers moving from liberal states align with its values. "One of the things that we wanted to do is, first of all, make sure that they're great teachers, right? And No. 2, make sure we're not getting these woke, indoctrinating social justice warriors in the classroom," the state's Superintendent Ryan Walters said in an interview with Fox Digital. Walters said that every teacher moving to work in Oklahoma must pass the test in order to begin teaching, and that Conservative think-tank PragerU will assist in the development of the test. 'We put the Bible back in our history standards," Walters said, adding that the 'America First' test would include questions based on American history and 'common sense.' Walters said the teaching of gender identity in other states was one motivation for the test, which will roll out in time for the upcoming school year. 'We started seeing states like California, New York, Maine as well, that are putting out directives… saying 'In this state you've got to teach your 27 genders',' he said. California state law requires students to be taught about 'gender, gender expression, gender identity, and explore the harm of negative gender stereotypes… schools must teach about all sexual orientations and what being LGBTQ means,' the state's Department of Education says. None of the Education Departments in California, New York, and Maine make reference to teaching students about 27 genders. Maine has pushed back against President Donald Trump's directive to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls' sports. At the start of his second term in office, Trump issued an executive order saying that there are only two recognized genders. 'We love President Trump in Oklahoma,' Walters said, adding that the MAGA agenda is 'saving education.' Walter also claimed teachers coming into Oklahoma were "fleeing the teachers unions, the grip that they've had on them in these blue states.' In 2023, Walters announced a maximum $50,000 bonus for teachers moving to the state with more than 5 years of experience, and for those in the top ten percentile in the United States. Smaller bonuses were offered depending on length of experience and what districts teachers had previously worked in. A spokesperson for PragerU said: 'We fully understand why superintendents of education, like Ryan Walters, feel compelled to protect their students from the extreme left-wing ideologies being promoted in schools through teachers who often do not even realize the damage caused.'
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
I didn't want to need free groceries
So I share Kidder's lament that feeding the hungry is on track to be a growth industry in Donald Trump's America. The Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Experience first. Before 2009, as the son of a judge and the privileged middle class, I'd never been unemployed and in need of charity in three decades of working. I loved what I did, even though freelance writing is a constant scramble for income. I've always read a book before bed; as a freelancer, I chose only books for which I was earning a reviewer's paycheck. Advertisement When the recession and its double-digit unemployment hit, the 'subprime mortgages,' 'mortgage-backed securities,' and unregulated 'shadow banks' that underlay them — and that many Americans had never heard of — unleashed work-killing forces too devastating for individual initiative to counter. Even wealthy Harvard scrapped a lucrative project (by my bank account's standards) that I'd done for four straight summers. My then-wife's part-time job invaluably backstopped the family income. But after a year of little work and with no idea how long I'd be idle, I despaired of ever being employed again. Free groceries to stretch our household resources seemed the only responsible path, especially with a child to feed. Advertisement The other folks in St. Paul's basement made for an interesting cross-section of people. Some were fellow baby boomers. The age and dress of others suggested they were students, presumably not destitute but nevertheless on a budget as they contended with Greater Boston's formidable living costs. No one dressed in rags. (Neither did the recipients Kidder observed, which he attributes to their efforts 'to ward off disgrace' from having to seek charity.) My anxious heart beat fast during my first time at the pantry. Normally a chatterbox, I made little small talk with others. It took a number of weeks before the habitual visits and the saintly volunteers' freedom from judgment thawed some of my embarrassment. I also found psychic balm in the relief of free food for my household's budget. Not everyone adjusted as easily. At least one person at the pantry teared up at having to seek aid in public. I never saw her return. Advertisement The volunteers who set out and distributed food never questioned who we were or why we were there. Hard hearts will call that poor quality control. Those who know better, who relied on the kindness of these strangers, recognize it as mindfulness of recipients' dignity. Today, those who do such work can't fully backfill the Beautiful Bill's shrinkage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Kidder notes that the national food bank network Feeding America says SNAP supplied nine times as much food as its own agency's food banks do. That the bill's backers had not just food support but the broader safety net in their sights is clear from the legislation's attaching work requirements to Medicaid. Two years ago, perhaps anticipating this dark American moment, Republican Representative Steve Scalise Yet do work. Work requirements Perhaps if our leaders saw who goes to food pantries and why — perhaps if they spent a week or two living as pantry patrons — the mythic myopia would lift from their eyes. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Advertisement
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
‘Who speaks for the Jews?' The ADL, some say. Wrong, say others.
In a time of escalating global crises, including Israel's devastating siege of Gaza, which the UN has called Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Phillips argues that disproportionate criticism of Israel reveals latent antisemitism. But this ignores both the extraordinary scale of suffering in Gaza and the billions in US military aid that make this war possible. Holding a US-funded ally to account is not bigotry — it's our moral responsibility. Advertisement Today, perhaps more than ever, we need principled, not punitive, leadership from the ADL. Sandy Light Cambridge Caroline Light Belmont Miriam Cubstead Watertown Caroline Light is a senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in women, gender, and sexuality studies at Harvard University. The views expressed here are her own and do not represent the university. Advertisement 'The Anti-Defamation League really is a bulwark' against hate My compliments to Colette A.M. Phillips for writing 'In defense of the Anti-Defamation League.' She is spot-on: Whatever the targeted group, violence can materialize from lack of education, prejudicial upbringing, or visceral hate, as shown, in the case of Jews, in Pittsburgh (mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue, Oct. 27, 2018); Boulder, Colo. (fire attack June 1 of this year on a group marching in solidarity with the hostages taken from Israel on Oct. 7, 2023); and Marietta, Ga. (the conviction in 1913, and subsequent lynching in 1915, of Leo Frank). The Anti-Defamation League really is a bulwark against people who have hate issues. It tries to raise awareness that there are better ways to bring respect and understanding for all people when there is division in society. Edward Sloan North Andover 'I have never felt represented or protected by the ADL' As a Jewish person who believes that all lives are sacred, including those of Palestinians, I have never felt represented or protected by the Anti-Defamation League. While in principle the ADL allows that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the organization has not afforded the same benefit of the doubt to pro-Palestinian protesters as it has done, for example, to Elon Musk for giving what appeared to be Colette A.M. Phillips argues that, since Israel's actions in Gaza have generated more protest than other atrocities around the globe, this protest must be a 'fig leaf' for antisemitism. This argument ignores both the scale of devastation — Gaza has been cited as Advertisement But for me, the reason to protest goes deeper. Growing up Jewish, I was told not only that Israel is the sacred ancestral home of our people but also that we have a special responsibility to ensure that what happened to us in the Holocaust does not happen to any people. When I see mass atrocities being committed by the country that is said to be my home, how can I remain silent? Ben Allen Boston 'The ADL is now a partisan organization' I am a Jewish American and found Colette A.M. Phillips's op-ed very disturbing. Despite claiming that 'criticizing a government is fair game,' she then says much political criticism of Israel is not fair game. Instead, she establishes an impossible test for permissible criticism: that the speaker must prove their criticism is not 'selective.' People have countless reasons for caring about some issues more than others. It has never been right to censor speech for its selectivity nor the imputed motives behind selectivity. Yet Phillips wants us to believe that in the case of Israel, we should reduce all special concern to hidden antisemitism. This is trying to win an argument without making it. Phillips falls back on the exhausted argument that 'we have learned to listen' to the oppressed. They decide what counts as bigoted. Even if true in principle, Advertisement Alex Gourevitch Cambridge The writer is an associate professor of political science at Brown University. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the university. 'All of us are capable of monstrous acts' I was raised with awareness of antisemitism — my grandparents fled the anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine, and many family friends were German, Polish, or Austrian survivors of the Holocaust. In 1980, my junior high school in Arlington was one of the first cohorts to use the Facing History and Ourselves curriculum. We studied the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the war in Cambodia. It was painful to hear specifics of the slaughter of Jews and of the passivity of bystanders who knew but did not act in opposition. However, in studying the Holocaust in the context of these other atrocities, it was always clear that this particular history was part of a much larger pattern of cruelty and resistance. As Jews, our suffering was not something that made us 'special'; rather, it was a dramatic example of recurring human barbarism. The ADL's defense of fascist acts is a bitter irony. Those who claim Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza are willfully ignoring mass starvation and heartless slaughter. It feels excruciating, but we must be honest that Americans, Israelis, Jews, indeed all of us are capable of monstrous acts, and we must put aside our pride and act with determination to stop the horror. Julia Halperin Jamaica Plain
