Shutting down free speech in Big Sky country
Barry Lynn (see below) isn't the only one in the business of threatening churches who take positions on public issues he doesn't like. This time it's a gay rights group in, of all places, Montana:
Gay rights advocates filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Political Practices against the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church Wednesday, saying the church inappropriately held an event to support a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Montanans for Families and Fairness, a coalition that includes InterMountain Planned Parenthood, PRIDE and the Montana Human Rights Network, said in the complaint that the church failed to report to the state commissioner it used its "in-kind" resources to support the proposed constitutional ban.
Petitions supporting the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in Montana were circulated at a church event Sunday night. The initiative will be placed on the November ballot if 41,000 voters sign a petition in favor of the measure.
"They made an expense on behalf of this thing," said Rob Hill, campaign director for the coalition that filed the complaint. "We believe they have to file with the commissioner's office. They haven't done that."
Montanans for Families and Fairness said the church should have reported its contributions to the ballot initiative to the state by Wednesday. Citing state law, Hill said the church became an incidental ballot committee when it authorized expenditures for the event and needed to file disclosure reports with the state no later than five days after the church authorized those expenses.
"This church used its resources to plan the event, gather the audience, provide a multimedia event and then petition its congregation, all in support of the discrimination amendment," said Karl Olson, chairman of the coalition.
Olson said churches that "engage in this type of activity" must file the appropriate paperwork with the state.
In addition to incurring fines, the church could be in danger of losing its nonprofit status with the IRS if it engages in political advocacy, he said.
Political Practices Commissioner Linda Vaughey said Wednesday that she has five days in which to determine if a violation occurred.
Someone should tell Olson that if "political advocacy" were against the tax code for churches, every mainline denomination in America would be shovelling cash into the US Treasury.
Athanasius on 05.29.04 @ 05:24 PM EST [link]
It's late, but here we go on The Passion again
Catholic author Mary Gordon demonstrates the hazards of the Rip van Winkle effect in a piece for the June 2004 issue of the liberal American Prospect:
If Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is a problem, what is the problem, and whose problem is it, anyway? There are in fact two problems, and their relationship is both oblique and shadowy.
The most important is the film's anti-Semitism. Gibson and his screenwriter, Benedict Fitzgerald, say they didn't intend to make an anti-Semitic film, and we must, I suppose, take them at their word. But even taking them at their word addresses only the conscious intentions; if one examines the imagery and associations in the film, the power of the unconscious rears its head–and in this case it is an ugly and a dangerous one. In a world in which acts of violence against Jews and their sacred places are on the rise, any work capable of fanning these always fannable flames is morally dicey. The possibility that Gibson's film, whether intentionally or not, will contribute to growing anti-Semitism–not only in this country but in the world at large–is a problem for all people of goodwill, not only for Jews.
I appreciate Ms. Gordon worrying about anti-Semitism. I really do. I just wish she'd turn her concern to something that might actually spread it. Polls done in the wake of The Passion indicated that if it had any impact at all, it was to reduce the presence of anti-Semitic attitudes in viewers. But if you've been asleep for the last four months, you wouldn't know that, would you? As Mark Shea keeps pointing out, The Passion body count is still 0, and is likely to stay that way, despite Ms. Gordon's oddly timed expression of concern.
She objects to the lack of concern by many of her fellow Catholics, especially liberal Catholics, but reserves special wrath for one:
Most offensive to me by a long chalk, however, was an article in Commonweal by John A. Coleman, which begins by asserting that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic because it divides the blame evenly between Jews and Romans. Never mind that this is patently untrue, that Pontius Pilate is portrayed as sensitive, thoughtful, and agonized and Caiaphas as a bloodthirsty rabble-rouser.
It's a pity that Ms. Gordon is so easily offended, because her interpretation of the film is hardly the only one possible. Pilate, in one plausible reading, is portrayed as weak, vacillating, unprincipled, and concerned almost entirely about how the Jesus affair will effect him. It's Romans who carry out the scourging and execution, and a jolly time they have of it, too. Her description of Caiaphas is not far off, but even he is offset a bit by the presence of Jewish leaders (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) who are portrayed positively.
She concludes by citing the president of the Anti-Defamation League, who most definitely didn't distinguish himself throughout the whole controversy:
The us-them divisions that these events have engendered underscore the poignancy of Abraham Foxman's questions: "Why are we the only ones raising our voice? Where are you?"
I don't know when he said this (Gordon doesn't say), but I guess the National Council of Churches, the leadership of the largest mainline denominations, and many Christian voices in academia and the media don't count for much. I guess even Mary Gordon doesn't count for much.
Athanasius on 05.29.04 @ 05:05 PM EST [link]
Misusing the law
I don't agree with the Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs, but Barry Lynn scores a new high on the selective-outrage meter with this:
A watchdog group asked the IRS on Thursday to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Roman Catholic diocese in Colorado Springs over the bishop's threat to withhold communion from those who disagree with the church.
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said the church should lose its tax-exempt status because it used church resources for political purposes.
Bishop Michael Sheridan wrote in a Catholic newspaper this month that Catholics should not receive communion if they vote for politicians who disagree with the church by backing abortion rights and other topics.
"I believe that Bishop Sheridan, by issuing this document in a church publication in his official capacity as head of a religious organization, may have violated federal tax law and jeopardized the tax-exempt status of the Diocese of Colorado Springs," Lynn said in a letter to the IRS.
Here's a portion of what Bishop Sheridan wrote:
There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance....
I think this goes too far from the perspective of Catholic discipline. There are many reasons why voters vote the way they do, and the bishop is seeking to take those complex reasons and distill them down into just one. Imagine the dilemma if a given politician were against abortion but for embryonic stem-cell research. Nevertheless, this is a question for Sheridan's superiors in the Church to deal with, not the IRS.
The Church never directs citizens to vote for any specific candidate. The Church does, however, have the right and the obligation to teach clearly and fully the objective truth about the dignity and rights of the human person. These teachings, in turn, must inform the consciences of voters. "By its intervention in this area, the Church's Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends–as is its proper function–to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good."
Here's a question for Rev. Lynn: when was the last time you wrote to the IRS about a liberal church having a political rally for a Democratic politician in its sanctuary, or a liberal church pastor talking up specific candidates from their pulpits, or a liberal denomination or ecumenical organization trying to influence voters?
Athanasius on 05.29.04 @ 03:53 PM EST [link]
