Clearing the way for more Chan Chandlers

The controversy surrounding the Rev. Chan Chandler, who endorsed Bush from his pulpit last fall and purged his church of Democrats about two weeks ago, has come to a fitting end. Chandler’s resigned, the congregation is coming back together, and the change in leadership will almost certainly help the church steer clear of troubles with the IRS.

And while I’m glad to see the mess surrounding the East Waynesville (N.C.) Baptist Church wrap up so nicely, it’s probably a good time to note that plenty of conservatives want to change existing tax law to allow pastors like Chan Chandler to engage in equally partisan behavior and generate similar controversies across the country.

It hasn’t gotten a lot of attention lately, but there’s a bill called the “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act” (H.R. 235) that would change the law to allow tax-exempt houses of worship to engage in blatantly partisan campaign activities. In fact, the bill was introduced by North Carolinian Walter Jones (R) and has received support from Rep. Charles Taylor (R), who happens to represent the district in which the East Waynesville Baptist Church resides.

The funny thing is, the Chan Chandler controversy was so outrageous, no one’s defending it. It’s the kind of incident that might kill off the “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act” once and for all.

Not too long ago, it seemed Republican interest in the bill was fairly strong. In Tom DeLay’s infamous speech on Terri Schiavo to the Family Research Council in March, he mentioned his opposition to a federal tax-law provision that prohibits churches from engaging in partisan political activities. He assured the FRC, “We’re trying to repeal” the law, but added, “It’s very difficult to do that.”

DeLay wasn’t alone. The proposal picked up 174 cosponsors in the House and was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). Of course, the religious right was eager to throw the movement’s support behind the effort, and when Walter Jones unveiled the bill in March, representatives of Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, and the Christian Coalition were at the event.

But yet, all of these folks have been eerily quiet about the Chan Chandler mess, in large part because it’s indefensible. In fact, as the East Waynesville incident generated national attention, it quickly became clear that no one wants to see churches fractured along political lines, houses of worship being turned into political action committees, or pastors acting like precinct bosses. And yet, that’s exactly what this legislation aims to do.

I don’t agree with the Heritage Foundation’s Joe Loconte about almost anything, but he was absolutely right when he said the legislation would only add to the partisan divide that characterizes America.

“We don’t want to see red churches and blue churches,” Loconte said.

When it came to the House floor in 2002, the bill failed badly, 178-239. Thanks to the Chan Chandler fiasco, it probably won’t be considered again anytime soon.

You would think that the fact the affair wrapped up nicely and that no one is defending that pastor would help kill off that bill. However, I don’t have that much faith, so sounds like something to keep an eye on. I had no idea they were pushing such legislation to do what seems like blatant politicizing in a house of worship. Thanks for pointing it out and writing about it.

  • That’s the thing about extremists who actually believe the bile they spew. Sooner or later the reality-based majority kicks in and puts the wingnuts out on the sidewalk where they belong once they start being affected in real life. Our current government leaders should take note of this. American blood and treasure keeps pouring into the bottomless pit of Irag while our own retirements are put in jeopardy and Johnny can’t get his teeth fixed because there’s no money for health care or anything else of value for the average citizen.

    Sooner or later even the most numbed and cowed voter is going to wake up and ask what the hell is going on here?? And that’s when things are going to get really fun!!

  • The fact that religious movements have come and gone throoughout American history tends to give comfort to those who hope the current one will die off of its own weight as have the previous “Great Awakenings” – 1730s & ’70s under the likes of Jonathon Edwards; the 1820s during which the Baptists and Methodists overpowered the “mainline” Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationlists and Quakers; the 1880-1910s, high-lighted by the efforts of William Jennings Bryan and the Temperance movement. They all just came and went (except for the secular component of the last Awakening, Bryan’s farm-labor populism and Prohibition). So, like previous fads, “this, too shall pass”?

    I’m concerned that this is different. Those other movements (including the main focus of the Bryan one) were primarily religious movements. They tried to awaken the public’s concern for Salvation, to prepare for the Rapture. They were “not of this world”. The current one is primarily a move to seize political control of everything from school boards to the federal judiciary and everything in between. It focuses on things which can be legislated – abortion, civil rights of homosexuals, the role of women in the home and workplace, religious symbols in public places, prayer in the schools. It doesn’t seem to mind what sleaze from its preachers makes it into the tabloids, or where the endless money comes from, or what political bedfellows it hooks up with. The current movement seems hell bent on institutionalizing itself in this world. Permanently. That is, or ought to be, scary.

  • There you go again Mr. Carpetbagger, being all reasonalble and rational, thinking that publicity about “Reverend” Chandler’s shennanigans will cause this bill to again fail to be adopted by Congress. Never figured you for being such a rube! (snark) 🙂

  • Comments are closed.