Loading ...California to investigate Mormon Church
flockwoodThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will face questions from a California government agency about its role in defending the traditional definition of marriage by supporting passage of Proposition 8. This will present a challenging political and public relations dilemma for the nation’s fourth-largest religious body.
Politically, the church could cooperate with the investigation or they could refuse to submit on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the state of California is preventing the free exercise of religion by inserting itself into the church’s internal matters. If the LDS church takes this position, my hunch is that Catholic and evangelical religious leaders will side with the Mormon Church, as will at least a few mainline Protestant, Muslim and orthodox Jewish leaders. The state of California can’t revoke the church’s 501(c)(3) status, which comes from the federal government. And any penalties levied against the church could be appealed on first amendment grounds. Taking this stand could solidify ties between social conservatives across denominational and religious grounds. It would also outrage some liberal Californians, but liberal Californians aren’t the most pro-Mormon constituency in the first place.
There may be at least some reluctance to take this stand, though, because the Mormon church (like many other churches) stresses the importance of obeying the law and submitting to civil authorities. This position, clearly enunciated in 1 Peter chapter 2, states:
“13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.”
Of course, the Mormon Church would not require complete submission to government in all circumstances. After all, government officials were often involved in mob actions against Mormons in Missouri and Illinois in the nineteenth century. But a decision to challenge government authority would be done, with great reluctance, I imagine.
For more, here’s the latest from the Associated Press.
California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.
Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.
Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.
A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
As always the details matter a great deal. The complaint must allege that the LDS church violated a point of law. What does the law say? Is the law fair? We shall see.
I don’t particularly like the way that the Latter Day Saints underwrote the Prop 8 campaign in California, but if their actions are protected by the First Amendment right of free speech then for darned sure we ought to support the rights of people to conduct a nationwide protest against them.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“…if their actions are protected by the First Amendment right of free speech then for darned sure we ought to support the rights of people to conduct a nationwide protest against them.”
Your words show me that you have no desire, Jose, to actually find out the truth in this matter than those gathered outside our places of worship with their signs.
I support a person’s right to free speech, even if they wish to protest against our church, but it seems to me that the LDS church has been singled out for a disproportionate share of the “blame” (what foes of Prop 8 would call a democratic vote) when we were not the “underwriters” of Prop 8. Did our church support it? Yes. We’re we the only religious group that supported it? Not by a long shot.
How come California is not investigating the Catholic church? How about the many other churches that were behind Prop 8.
As for our general guidelines in following government, our 12th Article of Faith states,
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
Here’s are links to articles that I think shows the other side of this issue:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA=
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757137423754669.html
I will say this, Jose. Protest all you want. Seems to me that these mobs outside our temples in LA and Salt Lake are akin to the mobs that gathered outside Carthage, Illinois. They might not want to murder anyone, they are much craftier than that of course. But, that mob didn’t stop the church….and neither will these.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
And here’s another link…
http://www.abovethehate.com
November 26th, 2008 at 8:19 am
The issue is not whether political speech by a religious group can be curtailed, but whether, by voluntarily seeking and receiving exemption from taxation by the IRS (and probably various states) a church has violated the law governing their bargain for that exemption. I agree that any church which violates these rules should be investigated, and no one group should be singled out. However, when there is a sufficient basis to investigate one, the state has no obligation to wait until there is probable cause to investigate every other religious group before undertaking an investigation.
Using tax exempt income to pay for phone banking or paying for mass mailings to urge a particular vote (yes or no) on a ballot initiative is “grassroots” activity specifically limited for non-profit organizations by the IRS. Perhaps since some of our religious groups and institutions have become so interested in democratic political activism as a part of their divine missions, they should simply give up their tax exempt status and be free to engage in political activity whatever extent they choose. It would certainly help the general welfare of all America to properly bolster the tax base in these times of economic stress.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:30 am
“Why are they not investigating the Catholic Church?”
Because that would mess with the “go after a relatively small and stigmatized minority group” strategy that is being employed. Turning the Mormons into the scapegoats for the success of the ballot measure is just employing one of the oldest tricks in the political book.
IMO, whatever your position on prop. 8 is, the recent rise of anti-LDS actions and sentiments needs to critically addressed.
So David, I am sorry that your church is being used as a convenient target, and sorry that the the anti-8 folks are not living up to the standards set by their own rhetoric (i.e. being against hate).
One hopes that with time cooler heads will prevail, and that more sensible people on both sides will reign in the extreme activists. It would be nice to put civility back into our “civil discourse.”
November 26th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Dennis,
I think employing IRS exemptions to try to muzzle religious speech is wrong, and constitutes a cheapening of the 1st Amendment.
People act as if religious freedom in this country has always been contingent upon being politically neutral, or at least on the sidelines enough to not be investigated. However, the 1st amendment pre-dates the IRS, and the restrictions on tax-exempt religious institutions are fairly recent and of rather dubious origin. I think all religious activity, including using a prophetic voice on important issues, should be tax exempt, and I lament threats to “strip their tax exempt status” and other tactics to push faith institutions outside of our national discourse.
And there has never been a fair or even handed approach to how these investigations are conducted. In past years, Churches were hosting presidential candidates and office holders for big “faith sunday rallies,” for groups like “patriot pastors” and engaging in massive political activity on behalf of the GOP, yet avoided investigation or losing their tax exempt status. However, an episcopal congregation in California, based on a single anti-war sermon, was investigated. Democracy was not harmed by the former example, but the latter should send chills to any one who takes civil liberties seriously.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“It would certainly help the general welfare of all America to properly bolster the tax base in these times of economic stress.”
Yeah, that would be great. Let’s give the government more tax money they can waste with incredibly stupid spending instead of leave it with churches like ours and many others whose humanitarian efforts help millions each year and do it with a much higher percentage of each dollar actually going to those good works.
Yeah….that would be a great idea….
November 26th, 2008 at 10:19 am
And to put more emphasis on UK’s thoughts, you find at every presidential elections the candidates “preaching” at Sunday services of many churches, yet those churches are never investigated, although it is obvious which candidate they are supporting.
During each election cycle every congregation in our church is sent a letter to be read by the bishop over the pulpit. To summarize, it states that the church is not to be used to support one candidate or party over another, that each member should prayerfully consider each measure and candidate and vote for which one aligns best with that individuals ideals (not the church’s ideal) of good government and that (surprise!) each political party has standards that align with the gospel. It also states that no LDS church can be used for functions to support a particular candidate for office.
You will never find an LDS candidate, or a candidate of any faith, holding a rally at one of our churches, because it is not permitted.
I wonder how many other churches announce such things?
The LDS efforts to pass Prop 8 were not based on political motives. They were based on right and wrong and the very real belief of why our Father in Heaven placed us on this earth and the plan he has for his children. But then again, in our “politically correct” and “tolerant” times, we shouldn’t ask our religious leaders to teach us right and wrong should we? That is such an outdated mode of thinking. We know better now, right? Surely we are such an enlightened and intelligent people that the word of God can be set aside. Sounds like a particular scripture I’ve read.
“2 Nephi 9: 28 (The Book of Mormon)
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.”
Those who are take such drastic measure to bully us and others of a like mind will find that we will not be swayed so easily.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
UK Lutheran, I do not see the conflict, and I take civil liberties quite seriously. I condemn selective enforcement of the law by a conservative administration driven by Karl Rove ideologues which chooses to protect taxpayer supported (a tax break for a Wall Street exec or church is a taxpayer supported benefit just as much as tax expenditure for a nuclear warhead or a Food Stamp alotment) “massive political activity” by threatening persecution of only those holding opposing views. All non-profits, religious or otherwise are treated the same by the law (and should be by the enforcers of the law): if you want to generate income free from taxation like any other business, there are uniformly applicable limits on your political activity. If you don’t want any limit on your political activity, you are free to choose not to seek special tax treatment for your business.
Democracy will not be harmed one bit by churches who pay taxes like everyone else choosing to have either mass antiwar rallies or mass vote Republican/Democrat/Ralph Nader rallies. I may disagree with the accuracy or value of their chosen speech, but it will be purely privately supported religious speech with no subsidy from every taxpayer, regardless of their belief or agreement with the speech.
The government intrusion into religious activity which you fear as chilling civil liberties only takes place when a group voluntarily seeks a government benefit while expecting no responsible government oversight of that taxpayer funded benefit. If a welfare mom insisted on receiving taxpayer assistance but resisted following the rules of the program to seek work because of her sincere moral belief that she should not have to work while her children need her care as a stay at home mom, she would get little sympathy. Same if she were motivated by a sincere belief that in a modern society, her family should be entitled to a subsistence level of food as human beings with a right not to starve, regardless of whether she seeks or finds work. Uniform rules apply government benefits without regard to the religious or secular content of the belief which motivates the activity (or lack thereof).
In any event, if one doesn’t want to subject one’s religious beliefs and religiously motivated action to government line drawing (giving a sermon versus having a mass “patriot” rally versus organizing phone banks and paying for mass mailings urging a particular political action) one is free to report business income and pay taxes, and avoid the potential chill to one’s civil liberties for religiously motivated political expression.
November 27th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“…urging a particular political action…”
What the LDS church, and all other churches that supported Prop 8, did was not urge a political action, but a moral action. This is something that any religion has the right to do. That fact that citizens had to vote on it is secondary to the reason behind that “urging.”
November 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Dennis,
So in summary, you argument is something like this:
A mom receiving welfare benefits who will not work is like unto a church who actively preaches morality as they see it from the pulpit and asks it’s members to stand up for said morality.
OK, if you say so….
November 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am
It should be understood that violent and defamatory actions are not acceptable, and it’s an insult to me to have someone twist my support of free speech into promoting anarchy. No more of that, please. In the Prop 8 aftermath there are many anti-LDS protesters who demonstrate with a peaceful presence. Others write serious and reasoned explanations of why they belief the Mormons were wrong on this issue. Have the courage and integrity to face them.
Now, let’s take a closer look at some of the questions and assertions made by David and UK.
1. Is the LDS church being scapegoated or unfairly targeted by protesters? What about the Catholic Church?
Estimates are that Mormons gave more than $22 million to the Proposition 8 cause, nearly half of the total contributions. Given that Mormons are a small minority in California, that’s an extraordinarily disproportionate amount. About 30% of the California population is Catholic, I think, compared to less than 2% Mormon. Furthermore, many of these donations came from out of state. For the moment let’s not get distracted over the issue of law, because it appears that these donations were allowable. The real question is this: Is it legal and acceptable for gay rights activists to highlight the role that the LDS church played in encouraging its members to underwrite the Proposition 8 campaign, and is it legal and appropriate to voice one’s complaints to that church directly? Peacefully, of course. If you have any problem with this I would like to know.
2. Is the State of California treating the LDS church unfairly with its investigation?
The facts are this. A group filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging that the LDS church illegally understated its contributions to the Proposition 8 campaign. The FPPC saw enough justification to investigate. Just because an organization is rich and powerful doesn’t mean that it can lie and ignore the law, and David is quick to show that the LDS says it obeys civil laws. We shall see. I don’t see that the FPPC did anything wrong in responding to a complaint. Do you?
3. “What the LDS church, and all other churches that supported Prop 8, did was not urge a political action, but a moral action.”
Pardon my strong language, but this is poppycock.
Proposition 8 very clearly does one thing– change the law to prohibit same sex couples from obtaining a legal marriage in the State of California. That’s a legal and political matter. It has everything to do with law, and nothing to do with personal behavior.
A moral action would be to preach the dogma that homosexuality is a sin against God, and to persuade people to turn away from this lifestyle. But Proposition 8 doesn’t do any such thing. It does not ban homosexual activity. It just robs them of the right to marriage. It forces the state to codify the theological beliefs of a shrinking population, a community that is not satisfied with holding dominion over its own membership but which insists on imposing its religious regulations on the general populace. There is not a credible case to be made for Proposition 8 being moral.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I have a feeling this is going to go no where, but I guess I will reply to Jose:
1. My objection has been twofold:
A. to the vicious tone that the highlighting “the role that the LDS church played” has taken on. Identifying the LDS community as being among the strongest supporters of the proposition is one thing: hate-filled tirades against Mormons is another. Now a number of people have not crossed over that line, but enough others have to warrant (to me at least) concern, and the general tone of the discussion is shifting toward demagoguery. Of course the protestors have the right to (peacefully) voice their complaints… and I have the right to (peacefully) voice my distaste for much of what I have read or heard recently from prop 8 opponents on the subject of Mormons.
(I would be doing the same if the vote had gone differently… both the opponents and the supports of the proposition where doing their civic duty by participating in public decision making on a tough issue. I am not certain that referenda are the best forum to decide such matters, but that is the practice in California. However, while I on this subject, I should say that I am sympathetic to those who face homophobia and prejudice, and have long supported equal rights for gay and lesbian couples. I just don’t think that fighting homophobia by whipping up anti-Moronism is a good idea, and that it betrays the values that the anti-8 activists claim to stand for)
b. to the selection of the LDS church as a target of criticism. I won’t get into arguments about population “proportions,” but is is clear that the LDS church (or its membership) felt strongly about this. You say their “disproportionate” support justifies the protests against Mormons specifically. I merely want to point out that of all the groups that supported the proposition, the protestors have conveniently picked out one with significant contemporary and historical biases against it, and that these biases are coming out in their protests.
2: I don’t believe that state restrictions on religious activity should be considered constitutional. I believe that church participation in politics is a theological issue, not a legal or political one, so yes, I think they did something wrong.
3. Morality, Jose, is more than just a matter of personal behavior… it also is about society, social norms, and the actions of government. If one believes that the concept of gay marriage is immoral, then it is also immoral for the state to recognize it, and it is a moral action to prevent that recognition. It is merely pointing out that the government can do immoral things, and that this would be one of them.
(And, seriously Jose, whatever political or legal tones this matter takes on, you should be charitable enough to accept that David’s words are true: that he sees his, and his fellow church members, motivations as primarily a matter of upholding their principles of morality, not winning a political victory.)
Now David, if I have misspoken or erred in my response, please feel free to correct me. It is a fine line to walk to make arguments for positions you don’t necessarily hold or on behalf of groups that you are not a member of.