Posted on 07/27/2004 8:40:23 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The head of the Christian Seniors Association (CSA) has asked U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate reported harassment of churches in Kansas and Missouri.
CSA Executive Director James Lafferty said that the Mainstream Coalition (web site) has more than 100 volunteer members who are "monitoring" sermons at targeted churches.
Lafferty, who said he initially learned about the situation through an Associated Press article, has delivered letters to U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft and to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division asking that federal agents be dispatched to Kansas and Missouri to observe the coalition's activities against churches there.
"Churches in those states are being strong-armed and pushed around because of their beliefs," said Lafferty in a press release. "We want those religious citizens to get the protection they are promised in the Constitution. It is time somebody pushed back at the liberal bullies. This is harassment, pure and simple. Churches in Kansas and Missouri which oppose homosexual marriage go to the top of the coalition's target list for some 'monitoring.'"
In a recent interview, Lafferty said, "We are hoping that [the Justice Department] will take a look at what it going on in Kansas and Missouri and take whatever steps are necessary to protect the religious liberties of people in this state. [This activity] sounds sort of Nazi-ish. It is very unAmerican and particularly from people who claim to be defenders of liberty and choice. They are really trying to intimidate religious people."
Lafferty charged the Mainstream Coalition with having a "very definite political leaning."
"They point with pride to their board being active in ACLU and left of center groups," Lafferty explained. "They are very liberal and anti religious and come at it from a very definite point of view, and we believe they are not the sort of objective good government people they pretend they are."
However, the executive director of the Mainstream Coalition had a different perspective. Caroline McKnight said she saw developing in her community something of great concern to her: "An escalation on the part of the religious community to get into [politics] in a way they never had before."
In an apparent attempt to make sure churches toe the legal political line, the Mainstream Coalition obtained addresses for every church in the community -- about 400. According to McKnight, the group had done this before but on a smaller scale.
McKnight said in a letter to churches, "We are well aware we are coming into difficult [political] times, and we encourage your participation in the democratic process. Have candidate forums and do voter registration drives. However, other things may be more questionable and we urge caution. Because we have become concerned over this we will be randomly sending our members to worship in your church."
According to McKnight, the Coalition asked for volunteers willing to worship in a church other than their own. This was with the idea of reporting back to the Coalition about any activities they felt were crossing the lines-such as actual endorsement of candidates -- an activity prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
"It was a happy kind of thing on our part," McKnight said. "We have not found anything that was remotely objectionable because we educated the people on what to look for. A clergy person can say almost anything except vote for or vote against [a particular candidate]. A lot of people are unaware about how broad the parameters are for clergy. A candidate can [even] appear as long as the other one is given the opportunity."
McKnight said the potentially negative fallout of what her group did occurred to her but only "in some degree."
Dr. Jerry Johnston, pastor of the First Family Church of Overland Park, Kansas (web site) was not at all happy about the monitoring activities of the Mainstream Coalition. He said McKnight's apparent lack of concern about the ramifications of her group's activities was very revealing.
"It shows you how out of step and out of touch the Coalition is with issues that mean a great deal to people of faith and the majority of Americans," Johnston said. "When you start redefining marriage ... you're out of touch."
Johnston said that McKnight's passion over this issue is fueled at least in part by a fear that the influence of the Mainstream Coalition is fading.
"The growing churches in Johnson County are evangelical and Bible believing," Johnson said. "Everyone associated with the Mainstream Coalition is on the left side of the political spectrum. There is nothing mainstream about the Mainstream Coalition. They need to be censored. [This activity] was so Orwellian and Nazi-esque."
McKnight's zeal also springs from a concern about the 40 TV stations we're on and our 3,000 members and our reputation in the community," Johnston said. "They were concerned about the effect."
He added, "What [McKnight] did was further energize us to do a thorough job. [We have seen] how ridiculous her rhetoric is."
McKnight defended her actions saying, "Rev. Johnston is an uncommon man of God. ... Whatever we did was not a huge deal in conjunction to what Johnston did."
It would have been one thing, she said, to have one, two, ten, or even 20 clergy who wanted to influence politics -- but to have so many all led by one person was something quite different. That person, she said, was Johnson.
McKnight explained that when the Kansas legislature defeated a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Johnston began distributing a voters guide containing background information on incumbent state legislators from the area.
According to McKnight state legislators did not see the need for such an amendment.
She said, "Same sex marriage is not allowed in the state so why do we need an amendment?"
Johnston said, "Everybody knows that is false [and] all it takes is one judge to strike that down [and allow same sex marriage]. They hide behind that party line excuse and it doesn't stand up. Ultimately we need a federal marriage amendment."
Johnston's guide makes it clear that his church is not endorsing candidates -- rather just providing information about their voting record on issues of importance to conservatives and evangelical believers -- something permissible under the IRS guidelines for churches.
However, Johnston raised the ire of the radical civil libertarian group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU).
Quoting from the Kansas City Star, AU commented about Johnston's voters guide, saying, "The Rev. Jerry Johnston of Oakland Park, Kan., recently organized a group of local clergy to argue that churches must get more involved in politics. Upset about the Kansas legislature's defeat of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Johnston began distributing a pamphlet containing background information on incumbent state legislators from the area. If [legislators] had supported the amendment against gay marriage, the word YES appeared by their picture. If they voted against it, the word NO appeared."
McKnight said that Johnston's current version of the voters guide has been modified, and she is appreciative, but "the original version was questionable."
However, Johnston said nothing about the document is different.
"It has been amended in that it now includes the Missouri representatives but no verbiage has been doctored or sanitized," Johnston said. "And after the defeat of the federal marriage amendment we added the voting record of the U.S. Senate on [that issue]."
What the Gestapo did wasn't criminal either.
And if they aren't there for that, and just sit quietly, how is that trespass or intimidation? I think the letter to the congregations might have some legal issues, but I don't think there is a case against someone attending a service open to the public if they do not act in a disruptive manner.
So Pastor Johnson says:
"Everyone associated with the Mainstream Coalition is on the left side of the political spectrum. There is nothing mainstream about the Mainstream Coalition. They need to be censored."
I confess that this attitude is frightening to me, even more frightening than what the other side is doing. After all, if the churches are not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear. Isn't that the "law and order" mentality we see so much here at FR?
Is there any dobut that their intent is to intimidate?
Hardly. However, a federal investigation is being called for here. I am asking, where is the crime or action that warrants such? And why is it actionable if it is indistinguishable at the time from any other congregant?
Because, in the end, if you can't make the case to me, how is the case going to be made to the feds?
I am curious - if a church has a sign out from that it is open to all and someone from this group attends a service and notes what is said - how is that a criminal act?
It isn't the writing notes on the sermon, it's threatening the church with going to the IRS if the pastor has the nerve to give the congregation info on how candidates vote or think. It's intimidation. It's extortion.
Indeed, because the lefites have the biggest mouths. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Maybe we need to squeak a little more.
Help me out here. Since when has it been harrassment to observe?
Indeed, because the lefites have the biggest mouths (even though they try to pretend they have a 'live and let live, don't judge another' philosophy). The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Maybe we need to squeak a little more.
My question exactly. I didn't see any mention of bullying in the article, just observation. Since when is that actionable or even questionable?
The SS use to monitor churches too. Anyone that doesn't think the evil dums and their fellow travelers are the reincarnation of the National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi's) are living in a fantasy world.
The whole relationship between religion and politics is very confused, and this confusion goes back to the Bible itself. Jesus clearly makes demands on his followers which in a modern context could be construed as having political implications - take care of widows, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. Churches can address these mandates through private charity (conservatives) or through government programs (liberals), or perhaps both. But it's hard for churchmen to speak on issues without it seeming political or partisan, whether it's intended that way or not. So these tax rules do intrude on free speech, in my opinion.
Drop the damned income tax.
Having someone show up to watch is intimidating? Aren't these churches open to the public?
Legally, it's probably not. However, imagine for a moment, if you will, attending church services with a representative of the Communist party watching, knowing that they will be reporting back to party headquarters.
If you can imagine that, you can kind of understand the issue.
It seems to me that they wish to use the IRS laws to prevent churches from politicking from the pulpit by looking for violations. We complain all the time about how Dems do this from liberal churches, but never do anything about it. Maybe instead of screaming about intimidation, we should step away from the keyboards and monitor liberal services for politicking - or work to change the law in question.
Ding Ding Ding
If there were no income tax code and there were no IRS, this would not even be a problem.
BTW there is a bill in Congress right now with 56 cosponsors that would indeed eliminate the entire income tax code AND eliminate/defund the IRS. It's HR 25 the "Fair Tax".
Google it.
Observation is harrassment? Get real. If the idea that someone is watching you in church is chilling, you must have something to hide.
There was a big difference - in the USSR, being religious was a crime. In this matter, using the pulpit of a tax-exempt church to politic is a civil violation of the U.S. tax code - but there is no criminality to religion being preached.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.