What does it say about this Sugarcreek area church when a large sign in its front yard says, “This Church Votes Pro-Life”? It sounds, to me, like the church is promulgating an official church political position.  It sounds, to me, without a doubt, like this church is advocating the election of pro life candidates.   When its big sign (the other side) says, “We Vote For Traditional Values,” I bet THEY have some very specific “traditional value” candidates in mind who THEY are advocating.

I’m thinking that it is likely that in the vestibule of this church there is helpful political literature / voter cards that clearly identifies exactly which candidates are “pro life,” which candidates promote “traditional values.”

But even if that is not the case, I’m wondering if the IRS would approve of a political sign this bold in front of a tax exempt organization?  The IRS has rules.  I wonder if this church is going over the line?

In my googling effort to educate myself about IRS rules, I found an AP report about an organized effort, just several weeks ago, by 32 pastors who agreed on a given Sunday to defy IRS rules and from their pulpits endorse specific candidates for political office.   This group of pastors was organized by a group called The Alliance Defense Fund and their deliberate strategy is to provoke the IRS into taking action.  The Alliance feels that a court will rule in its favor and will force the IRS to change its current rules.

I’ve got to wonder if maybe Dayton has a local chapter of this Alliance Defense Fund at Emmanuel Baptist Church influencing this church to be particularly provocative.  (“Let’s put a huge political sign in the church’s front yard!”)

I found an AP article, dated September 29, “Pastors’ political endorsements draw complaints,” that gives more information:

“A church-state separation group filed complaints Monday with the Internal Revenue Service against six churches whose pastors either endorsed or made pointed comments about political candidates from their pulpits Sunday in defiance of federal tax law.

“The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based conservative legal group, orchestrated the pulpit protest to invite IRS scrutiny and a legal fight it hopes will lead to the restrictions being found unconstitutional.

“The group released a list Monday of 33 participating pastors – most if not all from conservative evangelical churches – and pledged to defend them.

“The pastors intend to send copies of their sermons to the IRS. But Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State didn’t wait for that: The group filed complaints Monday with the IRS about six pastors whose sermons were detailed in media reports.

“Five of the six supported Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The sixth, Wiley Drake of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., said: “According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama.” Drake was not among the pastors Alliance Defense Fund selected for the protest and was acting independently.

“The five others reported to the IRS were Jody Hice of Bethlehem First Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga.; Paul Blair of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla.; Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn.; Francis Pultro of Calvary Chapel Kings Highway in Philadelphia; and Luke Emrich of New Life Church in West Bend, Wis.

“The IRS has said it would “take action as appropriate.”

The last presidential debate touched on the idea of “wealth,” and how it is, in our society, that it is distributed.  John McCain derided comments reported in the news by his opponent, Barack Obama.  McCain said,  “You know, when Sen. Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber, he said, ‘we need to spread the wealth around.’ In other words, we’re going to take Joe’s money, give it to Sen. Obama, and let him spread the wealth around….I want Joe, himself,to spread that wealth around (not the government).”

In a country whose motto is “freedom and justice for all,” a big issue to figure out is what the role of government should play in making this motto a reality.  It seems a happy refrain that we want government off our backs, that government is the problem, that the way to greater freedom and greater justice is through lesser government.  But, history shows that freedom and justice doesn’t happen by accident, that given the chance, the powerful subject the weak, greed triumphs over justice.

There is a progression in history toward greater justice. Over time, the “divine right” of kings to be lords and masters was subjected to the prerogatives of princes, and the prerogatives of prices, over time, subjected to the monied classes, and the monied classes, over time, subjected to a wider democracy.  We are, even now, trying to advance our democracy to make it more effectively work

McCain showed disdain to the principle of government helping to “spread wealth around,” but it is a principle firmly established as part of American history, and is firmly established as part of our progressive tax structure.  It’s a great question to consider:  What is fair?  What is just?  We have one notion, that in order to be fair, everyone must be treated equally.  In America, for example, all citizens have an equal right to hop on an airplane and enjoy an expensive vacation in Hawaii, but having that right means little — unless one also has the money to buy the ticket.  Similarly, every citizen has a right to good health care — if he or she can find a way to pay for it. Freedom and justice has a lot to do with economics.  A democracy  must find a way  to organize itself, economically, so that its motto about “freedom and justice for all” has a chance to be realized.

Left to itself, the market demands cheap, disrespected labor — including child labor; it demands unsafe working conditions; it demands the right to disregard environmental degradation.  Left to itself, a purely capitalist system makes a few obscenely wealthy and the vast majority abjectly poor.

The idea that in a democracy, government should help regulate the economy, should help bring about greater economic justice, is a well established idea.  When McCain shows disdain for the fact that government should help spread the wealth, he is appealing to simple mindedness, he is appealing to advocates of a pure doctrine that is not reality based.

The prevailing tax doctrine, progressive taxation, established in our democracy, by great effort and struggle, is the idea that fairness means that incomes and, therefore, tax payers with different incomes, must not be treated the same, but must be treated differently.  At one time, when John Kennedy came to power, the highest brackets of income was 90%.  In Obama’s plan the highest tax bracket on personal income will be 39%.

Is the amount Obama wants to tax the wealthy fair?  That is the question.  The answer to that question depends a lot on an appreciation for why, in the United States, any of us are rich.  If Joe the Plumber had a plumbing business in Nigeria or Egypt, for example, he would be working just as hard or harder and not making much money at all.  The same is true of the money made by teachers, or doctors, or lawyers.  And, of course, factory workers.  What is the “fair” amount Joe should pay for the privilege to plumb here in United States, the privilege to get rich?  The point is, we are all rich because we live in America, and particularly, the wealthy are rich because of the unique opportunities America has given to them.  I write about this here:  Why Are We Rich?

I wrote in Shouldn’t How To Increase Wealth, How To Fairly Distribute Wealth, Be At The Center Of Our Political Debate? “I’ve not been paying enough attention to the details of Obama’s plan to distribute money to low wage earners.  Getting more money into the hands of ordinary people sounds great to me.  And if the tax system can help us accomplish such a goal, then why would we not do so?  I didn’t, until now, realize that Obama’s plan involves sending checks to qualifying citizens who pay no income tax.  I like the idea.  The important consideration is not whether by some definition this is ‘socialism,’ the question is:  Will this action impact our economy to add to the general increase of wealth?  The question is:  Will this action result in a more fair distribution of wealth?”

This is what Obama said to Joe the Plumber: “I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well … I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. … I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

It makes sense to me.