Letting Churches Endorse Politicians

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/letting-churches-endorse-politicians.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “President Pledges to Let Politics Return to Pulpits” (front page, Feb. 3):

The repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates, would be a devastating blow to American religion, which flourishes because state governments ended colonial norms of religious establishment.

Religious freedom is hurt, not helped, by more direct entanglement of religious leaders in the political process. America is much more religious than Europe because political and religious power was fused there for so long. When people tired of monarchs, and demanded new governments, they tired of religious leaders, and lost faith.

The desire for repeal comes from white evangelicals who after Roe v. Wade shifted from avoiding politics because it was corrupt to building themselves into a powerful political force. They now want their religious organizations to conduct political advocacy. This freedom already exists. They just need to revoke their religiously based tax-exempt status so society doesn’t subsidize this advocacy through tax breaks.

Like most things, this is about power and money, not principle. President Trump is perhaps the least religious president in American history. He doesn’t understand how greed will destroy religious vitality, the very thing his supporters hold dear.

LUKE PERRY

Utica, N.Y.

The writer is chairman of the department of government and politics and an associate professor at Utica College.

To the Editor:

President Trump’s argument for repealing the Johnson Amendment, ostensibly constitutionally grounded, is nonetheless specious. Of course the First Amendment protects the right of America’s religious leaders to preach according to their faith. But the effort to encourage clergy — and the target is evangelical pastors — to stump and thump for candidates, marrying religious fundamentalism to political power, is bad for politics, bad for civil liberties and bad for religion.

God-on-our-side triumphalism brooks no contest with competing moral claims, the very debate a healthy democracy requires. It encourages the legislation of sectarian doctrine on matters as private as women’s reproductive health, gender identification, gay marriage and the rights of the dying.

And when politicians co-opt the pulpit, they pervert Scripture’s prophetic message, delimiting faith’s concerns to the narrowness of their partisan political agenda.

JOSHUA M. DAVIDSON

New York

The writer is senior rabbi at Temple Emanu-El.

To the Editor:

Re “How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit” (Op-Ed, nytimes.com, Feb. 2):

As a Presbyterian minister who has served four churches, I agree with Steven Waldman that allowing churches to endorse specific candidates would be bad both for the political process and for the churches. While some congregations may be homogeneous in their political views and beliefs about societal issues, many faith communities are much more diverse. It is not hard to imagine church governing boards being torn apart trying to reach consensus around this or that candidate.

As a preacher, I do not see it as my right to use my position of authority to tell congregants how to vote. Rather, a preacher must call upon the people to consider their beliefs, listen to the candidates and decide by their conscience for whom to vote. It is the role of the church to call the people to action, but not to tell them what lever to pull.

(Rev.) ANNE-MARIE HISLOP

Chicago