« AM Alert: California Prop. 8 down by nine | Chino Blanco's Blog | Is Jesus pleased? »

Feeling the spirit of political rules


By Derek PriceWith Permission When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently announced it would jump into California politics by supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, many Mormons - including myself - were appalled. Some members were upset that their tithing donations would be used to support a political agenda with which they disagree. Others were disappointed to see the church once again veer from its hollow claim of "political neutrality." And some found it laughable that the LDS church, which was founded by people with famously liberal marriage arrangements, is now taking a "one man, one woman" stance. Isn't that a little ironic? Really, though, this isn't just an issue about Mormons, gays and the California Constitution. Aside from the unpleasant thought of individual religious groups trying to force their doctrine upon all people through the enactment of civil law, there's another reason churches should stay out of politics. It's all about the money.
You see, when churches decide to turn themselves into de facto political committees, they flout America's campaign finance laws that are designed to keep the flow of political money transparent and limited in scope. While politically active churches may comply with the letter of the law, they definitely don't comply with the spirit. That gives them an unfair advantage. If I were to donate to a political action committee or 527 group, for example, there are three major drawbacks compared with giving to a church. One, my donation would not be tax-deductible. Two, my money would be precisely tracked - and made public - because of campaign reporting requirements. And three, the law limits how much money I'm allowed to give. Churches, though, don't have those limitations. When I give to a politically active church, I get a tax break. The money is also collected and spent in complete secrecy without any public tracking or accountability, and there's no limit to how much I can donate. That's a little unfair, don't you think? That's why whenever churches decide to play the political game - which I wish would never happen - they ought to at least abide by the same rules as everyone else. If they don't, they turn themselves into a money-laundering operation whereby contributions are made completely anonymously, then spent in unknown ways to influence public policy. No matter where you stand on the issue of marriage freedom, it's wrong for any organization to flout America's already lax campaign finance rules by operating in darkness. Let's hope the Mormon church sees the light. The church should either abide by the same restrictions as all political groups or - gasp! - let its members make up their own minds about which political issues to support. --- * DEREK PRICE is a newspaper editor and lifelong Mormon living in Alabama.

10 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Is it still Sunday? How about some LDS scripture?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
user-pic

Derek: 'people can post this wherever they want'

As such, might this be a useful Letter to the Editor to your local newspaper?

user-pic
user-pic

How soon after the Prop 8 battle do Evangelicals go back to picketing Mormon temples?

Just wondering.

I mean, considering that it's only July, and the ProtectMarriage.com folks are already characterizing their fellow travellers, Campaign for California Families, as a bunch of extremists, I'd guess we could expect to start seeing those pickets again some time around, say, November 5th.

user-pic

Like Derek, what bothers me is the money.

In this regard, I find it frustrating that I can pop over to the UK and find more LDS financial disclosure than I can in the USA (where there's effectively none, zip, nada).

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=242451

So much for accountability. I though Utah voted for Mr. Accountability twice, didn't they?

Chino,

I do not know how the tithing process works - if you were to withhold your contributions in protest, would the church kick you out or in some way penalize you?

Thanks!
IIOOII

user-pic

You don't get kicked out for not paying tithing, but you lose privileges (like Temple access and consideration for leadership). Although, if you stopped paying and made a public protest of the fact, I think you'd be called in and possibly excommunicated. I don't know that the lines have been drawn all that clearly, but framing any action as a "protest" is generally a no-no. That said, some prominent Mormons are now quite vocal in their opposition to Prop 8 and nothing's happened yet that I've heard. We'll see.

I do know there's some folks over at PostMormon.org planning a mass resignation to protest Prop 8. Not sure how that's shaping up, but it's apparently being planned.

user-pic

Wow, this is another great letter ...

http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_9952502

Is Jesus pleased?

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I support same-sex marriages.

Even though I don't understand homosexuals, I support their rights as human beings. God created them, just as he did everyone else, but he endowed them with different feelings of attraction and intimacy.

All humans, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation, deserve the same protection and rights under the law.

Married heterosexual couples are protected in issues of joint ownership, government or workplace benefits, and making life and death decisions for a spouse, and it is discriminatory to judge a person unworthy of these same rights simply because of who they are.

Being different should never be the core issue when determining if someone is worthy of being treated as an equal child of God. Jesus taught us to love one another, to bear one another's burdens, to visit the sick, the poor and the fatherless. Never has he charged us to reject anyone.

When we tell someone they are unworthy of the same human rights and protections we enjoy simply because they live and act differently than we do, I wonder if Jesus is pleased with how we are handling this issue.

Carlyle Potter
St. George
07/21/2008

user-pic

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/06/mormons/

"A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan," [televangelist Bill] Keller declared in his daily e-mail devotional last May. His reasoning went like this: Romney's election would serve as a giant advertisement for a competing religion, Mormonism, which Keller and others believe has falsely portrayed itself as another form of Christianity in an effort to find converts. "He would influence people to seek out the Mormon faith," Keller predicted of a Romney presidency. "They would get sucked into those lies and they would eventually die and go to hell."

Though Keller's rhetoric is extreme and his predictions are controversial, his biblical reasoning is mainstream for many of the nation's Christian evangelicals, who make up about 40 percent of the Republican Party. Large denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention have long considered Mormonism to be a cult, not a true path to salvation. National polling paints a stark picture of the problem. According to a recent Pew Center poll, 25 percent of Republicans say they are reluctant to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. Among white evangelicals who attend church weekly, 41 percent are reluctant to vote for a Mormon.

The Romney campaign, which has aggressively courted religious voters, is well aware of the problem. Romney has found himself, by dint of his personal faith, in the middle of a long-running competition between two rival evangelical faiths, each claiming the true word of God in the fight for converts. "It's Pepsi vs. Coke," said one Romney campaign aide, describing the differences between evangelical Protestants and Mormons. "But sometimes Pepsi and Coke have to team up to stop Starbucks from taking over the market." Starbucks, of course, represents secular America, which favors gay marriage, legal abortion and the minimization of religion in public life.

Is this all that Mormons and Evangelicals have to bring the country in 2008?

Keller the Evangelical: All Mormons die and go to Hell.

Mitt the Mormon: It's Pepsi vs Coke.

Yeah, I know, Starbucks is on the rocks, but I don't actually take that as a metaphor for how I expect the 2008 election to turn out.

Are folks who talk like this not certifiably insane?

Or is it that they assume we are?

Leave a comment

Chino Blanco

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 3

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address