UU's and Politics

[Cricket]

Hi there.

I have a quick question for all the UU's here...

I attended my local UU church not that long ago and was a little surprised to find political campaign signs, not only on the front lawn, but in the window, endorsing one particular party. I provided them my email at the service for their email newsletter, and received an email from them today (Our election was held on Monday--Canada) lamenting the results of said election, and posting two articles from the website of the party they had been endorsing commenting on their expected outcome of the new parliament.

I understand activism, but do you believe that a congregation endorsing a particular political party is correct? Does this happen at every congregation, or does it vary?

Thanks!

Cricket

 

[bicker]

I can't speak for Canadian standards, but in the United States it is inappropriate to allow a sign endorsing one specific political party and not the other. UU is about principles, not politics, and there are enough UU principles that each political party regularly violate to preclude UU churches from endorsing whole parties, as you contended, rather than just individual people.

Having said that, UU is about standing on the side of love, and (again, in the United States) one political party very regularly exceeds the other in that regard. That is a reflection of the respective political parties' stances and actions, not a reflection of UU principles. Given how consistently one party is morally offensive and the other party so much less so, vis a vis UU principles, it is understandable that there would be a tendency toward favoring one party over the other, among the congregants. That's not an excuse for a congregation taking that tack, but rather an explanation.

It should be noted that, again, here in the United States, some religious institutions - mostly Christian religious institutions - regularly put out "voting guides" which clearly and specifically advise (or in the case of some Christian denominations, essentially direct) their congregants to vote for certain candidates. The UUA (again, talking about the United States, here) does not do that, in anywhere near the same way.

 

[Cricket]

I can see what you're saying. Here, we have a wider range of parties, in the context of a parliamentary system, so I definitely felt that they were alienating a certain percentage of people, even if the overall politics tend to lean a certain direction on the spectrum.

It was off putting, and the kicker is that I was in agreement with them, but it offended my sensibilities a little to see a church endorsing a particular party, and then continuing to stump for them post-election.

Thanks for your answer!

 

[bicker]

I can see what you're saying. Here, we have a wider range of parties, in the context of a parliamentary system, so I definitely felt that they were alienating a certain percentage of people, even if the overall politics tend to lean a certain direction on the spectrum.

I think "alienation", though, is too vague. We often have signs hanging outside our church advocating various aspects of the social action activities of our church: Marriage equality, economic justice, environmental justice, gender equality, etc. Any number of these things may alienate any number of people, but they are reflections of the fundamental principles of our religious faith, and so it would be inappropriate for our church not to promote and affirm our beliefs in that manner.

Rather, I believe this is that, at least here in the United States, there is a rule precluding churches from crossing the line between social action and trying to exert undue influence over the political process. As I alluded to, many churches disrespect that rule wantonly, but UU churches in the United States generally comply with it.

 

[applewuud]

...

Rather, I believe this is that, at least here in the United States, there is a rule precluding churches from crossing the line between social action and trying to exert undue influence over the political process. As I alluded to, many churches disrespect that rule wantonly, but UU churches in the United States generally comply with it.

It is part of the Internal Revenue Service code that churches who want to keep their tax-exempt status must not endorse specific candidates or parties, although they can campaign on behalf of policies, propositions, or laws. This extends even to speech from the pulpit; the minister can't endorse a specific candidate. This is rarely enforced, although the priest at the Episcopal church in Pasadena, California was notified several years ago that a sermon about George Bush "crossed the line" by someone at the IRS.

I think the UUA web site has a page of guidelines about what churches can and can't do somewhere.

 

[3Cheers4Lilith]

It is part of the Internal Revenue Service code that churches who want to keep their tax-exempt status must not endorse specific candidates or parties, although they can campaign on behalf of policies, propositions, or laws. This extends even to speech from the pulpit; the minister can't endorse a specific candidate. This is rarely enforced, although the priest at the Episcopal church in Pasadena, California was notified several years ago that a sermon about George Bush "crossed the line" by someone at the IRS.

I think the UUA web site has a page of guidelines about what churches can and can't do somewhere.

I was going to add that about tax-exempt status.

Even so, I know that the majority of people at my fellowship are Dems, the church itself does not support one party or candidate over the other. I completely agree with you feeling put off by that. I would feel the same way, and if I had come to my fellowship the first time and had seen that, I wouldn't have gone in.

 

[seeker57]

I was going to add that about tax-exempt status.

Even so, I know that the majority of people at my fellowship are Dems, the church itself does not support one party or candidate over the other. I completely agree with you feeling put off by that. I would feel the same way, and if I had come to my fellowship the first time and had seen that, I wouldn't have gone in.

I believe most are dems at my congregation, but I remember quite pointedly when I made a rather broad political statement and was reminded, politely but firmly, that not everyone in the congregation was a democrat.

I also would be put off by campaign signs at the congregation.

 

[Antiochian]

It is part of the Internal Revenue Service code that churches who want to keep their tax-exempt status must not endorse specific candidates or parties, although they can campaign on behalf of policies, propositions, or laws. This extends even to speech from the pulpit; the minister can't endorse a specific candidate. This is rarely enforced, although the priest at the Episcopal church in Pasadena, California was notified several years ago that a sermon about George Bush "crossed the line" by someone at the IRS.

I think the UUA web site has a page of guidelines about what churches can and can't do somewhere.

So in other words, the churches that actively promoted Prop 8 and continue to promote similar legislation aren't crossing the lines, so long as they don't openly favor specific candidates in an election?

I guess I just find it a little bit ironic that an Episcopal priest would be warned about mentioning GWB in a sermon, while certain churches have donated huge sums of money to influence campaigns against marriage equality with no consequences...

 

[AmyLeona]

I would like to mention Standing on the Side of Love.
It's based on our principles and the name comes from a UU teaching.

So in other words, the churches that actively promoted Prop 8 and continue to promote similar legislation aren't crossing the lines, so long as they don't openly favor specific candidates in an election?

I guess I just find it a little bit ironic that an Episcopal priest would be warned about mentioning GWB in a sermon, while certain churches have donated huge sums of money to influence campaigns against marriage equality with no consequences...

From my understanding, US places of worship (e.g. churches, temples) are allowed to be involved in state elections, but not federal.

 

[applewuud]

So in other words, the churches that actively promoted Prop 8 and continue to promote similar legislation aren't crossing the lines, so long as they don't openly favor specific candidates in an election?

I guess I just find it a little bit ironic that an Episcopal priest would be warned about mentioning GWB in a sermon, while certain churches have donated huge sums of money to influence campaigns against marriage equality with no consequences...

No, they're not crossing the line. The Latter Day Saints gave millions to the pro-Prop 8 campaign, for one. And, as AmyLeona points out, the UUA campaigned against it with "Standing on the Side of Love".

It is ironic, but understandable...the role of churches is to provide moral guidance, so silencing them on any matter that would affect public policy would mute them almost completely, and impinge on the freedom of church from state.

But, using tax-exempt power to campaign for individual candidates violates the freedom of state from church. A church CAN put a "Vote for Smith" sign on its lawn and the minister can give a speech endorsing Smith, but by doing so it becomes a political group and subject to tax.

The ban on churches endorsing candidates is true for all elections, federal, state and local. That doesn't mean a lot of "hint, hint" sub-rosa endorsement doesn't go on. And people are free to put up a table at coffee hour for politics, as long as opposition candidates are free to do the same.

There is a school of thought that says churches shouldn't be tax-exempt. If that were to happen, they could do anything they want. The conservatives could afford the tax from their mega-churches, a lot of liberal churches would have to lay off their minister to pay it. So, watch out