No politics in the pulpit — IRS rule change will ruin reverence
The root of the ban extends back to 1954. Then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson of Texas was running for re-election and faced a primary challenge from a wealthy rancher and oilman.
A nonprofit conservative group published materials that recommended voters support Johnson's challenger. In what many believed to be retribution, Johnson introduced an amendment to Section 501 (c)(3) of the IRS code, prohibiting organizations that are tax-exempt from trying to influence political campaigns.
Many took this as an attempt to muzzle preachers. But the measure was rarely, if ever, enforced.
Many liberal preachers, both black and white, invited mostly Democratic candidates to their services close to elections, giving them tacit, if not outright, endorsements.
Their tax-exempt status was never canceled, whether they preached against the Vietnam War or in favor of civil rights.
On one level, this is a freedom-of-speech issue, but not all freedoms are necessarily worth exercising.
The larger question is: who benefits the most and least from the IRS ruling?
Some politicians will benefit, but churches that see this as an opportunity to jump into political waters will be harmed as they will dilute their primary mission.
Besides, many churches have members who hold different political views.
For the pastor to engage in partisan politics runs the risk of having some of them leave. I would.
There has always been a presumption among those advocating for more political involvement by churches that members are ignorant about politics and can't form their own opinions without instructions from their preacher.
Organizations — liberal, but mostly conservative — have raised a lot of money promoting a fusion between church and state.
I don't attend church services to hear about politics.
Neither do I wish to hear theological pronouncements from politicians, many of whom misquote Scripture or take it out of context to fit their political agendas.
The mostly defunct Shakey's pizza restaurants used to have a sign on the wall that read: 'Shakey's has made a deal with the bank. The bank doesn't make pizzas and Shakey's doesn't cash checks.'
That's how I feel about politics in the pulpit: Politicians and preachers should mostly stay in their own lanes.
Where Scripture speaks clearly to a contemporary issue, including marriage, gender, abortion, and the wisdom found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, I'm ready to listen.
But don't let me hear who the pastor prefers in the next election.
I am not without information, and neither is anyone else if they take the time to do research.
Religious people have an absolute right — indeed, the country needs them — to express their views in the public square.
Many of our Founders exercised that right, and the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and other documents reflected their worldview.
And yes, colonial preachers frequently based their sermons on politics, praising or denouncing politicians.
But that exception shouldn't create a rule.
One of the reasons cited for the decline in church attendance in America is that many, especially young people, believe churches are already too political and identified with the Republican Party.
For those who disagree, I quote the ultimate church-state moment. When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, He said: 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36).
That ought to be good enough for everyone to put their priorities in the right order.
Cal Thomas is a veteran political commentator, columnist and author.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
23 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Steve Weinshel: Cutting parking requirements while upzoning Broadway will create a crisis
One of the key aspects of Mayor Brandon Johnson's continued push for more housing development in Chicago is eliminating the city's parking mandates for new multifamily housing construction. It is a major component in Johnson's 'Cut the Tape' initiative intended to boost more affordable housing. While many of us might hope for a utopian future in which the average Chicagoan no longer owns a car, that is distinctly not the current situation. To pretend otherwise invites chaos throughout Chicago. The Johnson administration is attempting to rush through the City Council an ill-conceived and massive upzoning of Broadway from Montrose to Devon avenues in Chicago's Uptown and Edgewater neighborhoods. This change would allow for an additional 10,000 units to be built along this stretch of Broadway in addition to the thousands of units that current zoning already allows. A cornerstone of this plan is to radically reduce the number of parking spaces required in new large-scale housing developments. All of Broadway lies within a transit-oriented development zone due to its proximity to the Red Line and several bus lines. As such, developers are required to provide only one parking space per two housing units. But this is only the city's opening hand for reduced parking requirements. Under the city's Connected Communities ordinance, developers may reduce that one parking space per two-unit requirement even further, even down to no off-street parking at all. For example, several projects currently in development or recently completed in Edgewater provide as little as one parking space per 10 units or less. As a 35-year resident of one of Chicago's densest neighborhoods, I am no stranger to high-density urban living. I live in the Kenmore-Winthrop area of Edgewater, which together with Sheridan Road immediately to the east, is home to roughly 20,000 housing units, making it among the densest census tracts not only in Chicago but also the nation. To contemplate adding 10,000 housing units along Edgewater's adjacent stretch of Broadway with minimal off-street parking requirements constitutes urban planning malpractice. Such lunacy will plague Edgewater for generations to come. Anyone familiar with the east side of Edgewater knows that street parking is already virtually nonexistent. There is also a major shortage of off-street parking for current households. Many of the buildings in the area were built long before car ownership was common and have little or even no off-street parking of their own. Residents, even in higher-end condominiums, are forced to seek off-street parking elsewhere, such as in the neighborhood's many four-plus-one apartment buildings. Historically, residents could find such spaces within a block of where they lived. But in recent years, as parking pressures have continued to increase, residents now often have to venture several blocks or more from home to find a rentable space. As a result, countless drivers now repeatedly circulate throughout the area looking to win the parking space lottery, posing great risk to pedestrian safety and compromising air quality. The Chicago Department of Planning and Development's proposed framework for Broadway is predicated on the wishful thinking that people living near mass transit are substantially less likely to own cars. But that is simply not borne out by the facts. Car ownership rate for homeowners in Edgewater is 1.3 cars per owner-occupied household, according to Ownership rates for renters in the community are somewhat lower but are still 0.9 vehicles per household. Those figures are similar for the Uptown and Rogers Park communities adjacent to Edgewater. Even data provided by the city as part of its case for the Broadway upzoning framework demonstrates the point that it's creating a parking nightmare. That means more cars will be coming to Edgewater if its 'visions' are realized. Where these vehicles will go is anyone's guess, but city bureaucrats and their housing density mouthpieces try to deny this reality. Many new residents will likely aggravate current practices of illegally parking in front of fire hydrants, in handicapped zones, blocking alley entrances and corner tow zones that are essential for the passage of school buses and emergency vehicles. As a major artery for traffic coming off of DuSable Lake Shore Drive, Broadway is already a busy, relatively narrow corridor. It currently has metered parking and numerous business loading zones, but these may soon be disappearing with increasingly dense residential development. Intensified residential development will inevitably bring even more double parking for ride-share and delivery vehicles, which have already exploded in recent years. Before the city moves forward with any additional housing in Edgewater or Uptown, it needs to carefully study the car ownership rates for residents and limit additional housing accordingly. It could also help its own housing cause by requiring developers to proactively address parking problems by establishing car-sharing programs in new properties. Most neighborhoods abutting the CTA's Red, Brown and Blue lines on the North Side are already quite dense. Substantial new housing development has already been coming to all of these neighborhoods, especially along major commercial streets such as Broadway, Clark, Ashland, Western, Milwaukee, Irving Park, Montrose and Lawrence, even under old zoning standards. But does this mean these neighborhoods have endless capacity for further densification? There is a tipping point, and too much development in these communities threatens to greatly diminish the quality of life for future residents as well as the many thousands of current residents who have worked hard for decades to eradicate urban blight in Edgewater. If the Department of Planning and Development is serious about enhancing Chicago's north lakefront neighborhoods, perhaps it ought to actually do some planning.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's where Democrats stand in polls at Trump's six-month mark
Recent polling is painting a mixed picture for Democrats as they look to chart a path forward in the wake of their loss to President Trump in November. Trump's approval rating remains comfortably underwater as he reaches the six-month mark back in office on Sunday. But while Democrats have scored some notable victories in high-profile elections since then, they've been unable to pull away from the GOP as the party hopes to regroup for the midterms next year. Data experts said Democrats' position has improved since Trump started his second term, but they still have a lot of work to do to win back trust from the American people and be poised to take back control of the House. 'You can't just be on the attack. You can't beat something with nothing,' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. 'We have to show and tell what we would do, but I think that we're on the precipice of a big opportunity, and I hope we take advantage of it.' Months after Democrats suffered a major blow with Trump sweeping all seven battleground states and the GOP winning control of both houses of Congress, the party is still seeking to put the pieces back together. Halfway through the first year of Trump's term, many data points on where the party stands don't appear bright. Views of the Democratic Party have been at historic lows for a couple months. The percentage of registered voters who view the party favorably reached some of its lowest levels since at least the start of Trump's first term in office in YouGov's average, more than 20 points underwater as of late May. A CNN poll released Thursday found only 28 percent of Americans view the party favorably, a record low in the history of the outlet's polling dating back to 1992. Views of the Republican Party also aren't strong but haven't been quite as poor. A poll conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country found recently that voters perceive the party as 'out of touch,' 'woke' and 'weak.' An AP-NORC poll found just over a third of Democrats are optimistic about the party's future, compared to 57 percent last July. Surveys have also shown widespread frustration with Democratic leaders and a feeling that Democrats aren't fighting hard enough against the Trump administration and for their voters. This has been particularly pointed against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose favorability rating has been stuck in the mid-to-upper 20s throughout Trump's second term, according to the Decision Desk HQ polling average, though his net favorability has improved somewhat more recently. Scott Tranter, the director of data science for DDHQ, said Democrats are still trying to form a coherent message but don't have a clear 'rallying cry,' though some of them have received attention as they've been arrested during faceoffs with Trump administration officials or visited detention centers like 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida. 'It's pretty clear that Schumer is not the guy, just based on his approval rating,' Tranter said. 'And one can make the argument that [former House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was underwater as well, but… Schumer doesn't seem to have that kind of gravitas that she did.' One other common trend in polling over these months is a lack of agreement over who the leader of the Democratic Party is after 2024. A CNN poll found in March that 30 percent of Democrats didn't give a name to respond to a question about which leader best reflects the party's core values. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) had the most support but with only 10 percent, while former Vice President Harris had 9 percent and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had 8 percent. An Emerson College Poll found Democrats widely split among the field of potential 2028 presidential contenders, with the leading candidate only with 16 percent. Tranter said this dynamic is somewhat to be expected following a party's loss in the presidential election, pointing to the first months of 2005 for Democrats after John Kerry's loss and of 2013 for Republicans after Mitt Romney's loss. 'Coming out of Kerry, the Democrats were also in the wilderness,' he said. 'And so I think that the takeaway is that every time something like this happens, each party goes through its transformation. I think we're still pretty early on it.' But the data does show some reasons to be optimistic for Democrats. Trump's approval rating and favorability have consistently been underwater, not abnormal for him even as he won the November election, but still presenting Democrats with an opportunity. Democrats have mostly kept a lead in DDHQ's average of the generic congressional ballot since early March, albeit a small one of a couple points at most. They led on that question by 1 point as of Monday. The same CNN poll showing disapproval of the Democratic Party found Democrats are more motivated to vote in next year's midterms. A poll from Republican pollster Fabrizio Ward found Republicans trailing the generic ballot in 28 battleground House districts. Democrats also expressed hope that the passage of Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' extending Trump's tax cuts and increasing border security funding but also cutting Medicaid spending, could give them the opportunity they've been looking for. Multiple polls have shown at least a plurality of registered voters or adults oppose it, though many also say they don't know enough. 'Trump and the Republicans are certainly focused on incredibly unpopular policies that are likely to benefit the Democrats that they deserve leading into the midterms,' said Ryan O'Donnell, the interim executive director of the progressive polling firm Data for Progress. 'But Democrats also have to show that they're hearing people's concerns and actively offering solutions to those concerns to make their lives better and more affordable.' Lake said the lack of a clear leader has a positive side, as the 2028 Democratic field will likely feature many showing what the Democratic alternative is to Trump. But she said the process of a leader or a few leaders emerging has been slower than in the past, and she expects that is unlikely to be 'fixed' before the 2026 midterms. That will require having a unified message if no unified leader, she said. 'They need to have a unified voice and a unified plan, and that plan has to include a proactive, populist economic message about what we're going to do and who we're going to fight for,' Lake said. Lake's polling firm and the Democratic donor network Way to Win partnered to conduct a poll released Thursday evaluating those who voted for President Biden in 2020 but didn't vote in 2024. The poll, conducted from late April to early June, found many of those voters didn't like either candidate and didn't feel that Harris had a strong enough economic message to convince them she would lower costs. Pollsters also found most of those voters lean toward voting for a Democrat if the midterms were held today. Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the co-founder and vice president of Way to Win, said the feelings of regret that respondents indicated they felt about not voting, particularly as relates to the Medicaid cuts and the cost of living not dropping, give the party an opening. She said the poll, showing the most anguish about cuts to programs that help children and Medicaid, was taken before the law's passage, but those concerns are coming to fruition now. 'I think you can use that, right? You could leverage that to say, 'The thing you care about the most is the thing that is actually happening. And so you need to come and be a part of [the] opposition to this,'' Fernandez Ancona said. And the firm's poll, along with other polling, has shown Democrats want their party to go on offense. 'The table has been set,' she said. 'So the question is, will we be able to take advantage of it? Will we really lean in? Will we not shy away from actually going on offense about this bill? It's all about, can we seize the opportunity?'
