Firestorm: The Contraception Mandate

As I have stated repeatedly, this is not, never has been, and never will be a political blog.  That will not stop me from speaking on matters of religion which touch upon politics.  There is currently in the United States a political firestorm begun when the Obama administration mandated that employee health plans must cover contraception, including the abortifacient "morning after pill."  While churches, synagogues, and mosques are exempt, any affiliated entities such as hospitals and social services are not.  The response did not take long, and it shouldn't have.

Some suggest, as I have in the past, that Christian organizations should renounce their tax exempt status, refuse federal funding for "faith-based initiatives," and take no federal or state funds for any reason.

One commenter on the LifeSiteNews.com listing below says that the mandate applies even for employers who take no federal funds.  Does anyone know if that is true?  Even if it is, I still think separation is a good idea.  Jesus said to render to Caesar what was Caesars and then he handed the coin back.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/southern-baptist-leader-obama-contraception-mandate-is-not-only-a-catholic

http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-bishop-blasts-obama-admin-for-contraception-mandate-68039/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094206/Catholic-Church-showdown-Obama-U-S-faith-leaders-denounce-contraception-mandate.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/01/health-reform-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions

The website of the National Abortion Rights League
http://www.naral.org/ 

Atheists Sue Catholic Bishop

In a strange coalition, a group of atheists and Catholic activists have sued Nicholas DiMarzio, the Bishop of Brooklyn; a politician, Assemblyman Vito Lopez; and the Brooklyn Catholic Diocese over their involvement in recorded phone messages by DiMarzio to voters in Lopez' district before a City Council election.

I hate to agree with the atheists but they are probably correct. A major tenet of non-profit status is non-involvement in elections. Churches have skirted around this issue for years with many stepping across the line. The church may, and should speak about issues, but must not support a particular candidate. The only legitimate political involvement for the church is non-partisan voter registration and encouragement of civic participation by voting.

Evangelicals have come dangerously close to stepping across the line with their increasing identification with the Republican Party. Our allegiance must be to Christ, not to organizations. We should be holding ourselves separate from their worldly pursuit of power and influence so they will not feel that they have any right to dictate or attempt to influence our policies, actions, or beliefs.

One of my "Common Sense Predictions for the Next Ten Years" (4 October 2009) was "Numerous churches will renounce their tax-exempt status in order to prevent governmental interference in their affairs."

Tax exemption for churches

     501 (c) (3) in IRS Publication 557 lists the organizations eligible for income tax exemption because of their charitable nature.  The exemption applies only to the organization's exclusively charitable, scientific, educational, literary, philanthropic, public safety, prevention of cruelty to children or animals, or religious activities.  Any strictly commercial activities of an otherwise eligible organization are taxable.  Another provision, 26 U.S.C 170, provides a federal income tax deduction for donors to exempted organiziations.

     Jesus recognized the authority of governments to make tax laws but he added that God also had requirements which must be met.  The principle is that civil authorities should be obeyed except when their claims on a believer's actions are superceded by God's claims.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's"  Matthew 22:21 (also Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25)

     The current United States administration has shown a tendency to attach "strings" to it's programs and policies.  I would suggest that churches strongly consider repudiating their tax exempt status in order to prevent possible governmental interference in their activities.  

     The church I attend has members of every race, nationality, and ethnic origin but we don't and probably never will, reflect the national percentages of these various groups.  Also, the vast majority of our members would oppose openly gay clergy.  Pressure (the threat of removal of the tax exemption) could be exerted upon us and others like us to change our policies and beliefs.

     One thing to consider: repudiation of the tax exemption would also remove the individual donor's tax exemption for donations to the church.