Senator Barack Obama’s scrutiny over Reverend Wright’s fiery comments has received notable media attention in recent weeks. The issue brings America through a number of questions – most notably the question of the ever-thinning line that separates church and state.
While the association between the senator and the minister has been dismissed by some in Obama’s camp as unique to the African American experience (the issue, in fact, having pushed Obama to make a dedicated speech on race), the inappropriate nature of the reverend’s presidential endorsements of the senator serves up a more pressing concern.
Is the Obama/Wright relationship a crossing of church/state lines – and does Obama’s uneasy association with the reverend stand as an example of misbehavior between politicians and houses of worship?
In a July 2006 editorial in USA Today, Barack Obama shaped his views on politics and religion. “For some time now, there has been talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country falls sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest gap in party affiliation among white America today is not between men and women, between red states and blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.”
Given this landscape, it is unrealistic to expect that politicians should not reach out to religious leaders. According to a 2003 Harris Interactive poll, 79% of Americans believe there is a God – but only 36% attended a religious service once or more per month. While these figures vary greatly depending on the source, it is safe to say that the majority of American voters believe in God – and it is therefore unwise for politicians to alienate these populations.
But is it legal for religious leaders to share their political thoughts or to explicitly endorse a given candidate?
I spoke with Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and while he agreed that political figures have a national demographic need to continue to cozy up to the religious community, the expectation of outright endorsement by influencers in religious circles is entirely inappropriate.
“We’re seeing pastors writing letters in support of candidates,” said Mr. Boston. “We’re also seeing church newsletters endorsing candidates. These issues are coming up again and again – and pastors have to know what the law is. The IRS is keeping closer track of this, since houses of worship are unable to endorse a candidate and retain their non-profit status.”
Jurisdiction on the church/state line resides with the IRS, as these violations are cases of federal tax law – and the Americans United organization routinely asks the IRS to investigate the political endorsements of church groups around the country. In early March 2008, Americans United asked the IRS to investigate a church in Houston. The pastor in the Americans United inquiry had issued a letter of endorsement for a congressional candidate.
“Clergy may endorse candidates as private citizens,” Rev. Barry W. Lynn stated in an Americans United press release. “That’s not what happened here. Riggle’s endorsement letter twice identifies him as pastor of Grace Community Church, conveying the clear message that the church supports Gibbs’ campaign.”
While the lines between church and state are blurred across numerous touch points in the infrastructure of American society – American currency boasting “In God We Trust” across all paper and coin varieties, for example – there has to be an objective standard from which both sides can operate. Barack Obama’s troubles with Reverend Wright bring a new and certain visibility to this issue. It may be that Thomas Jefferson’s assertion to be “against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another” is under a modern-day threat.
Leave Your Comments