Comments on: Pulpit Pitches Rankle Some Churchgoers http://nycitynewsservice.com/2008/02/05/pulpit-pitches-rankle-some-churchgoers/ New York News from the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:37:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Denise http://nycitynewsservice.com/2008/02/05/pulpit-pitches-rankle-some-churchgoers/#comment-5490 Denise Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:25:46 +0000 http://nycitynewsservice.com/2008/02/05/pulpit-pitches-rankle-some-churchgoers/#comment-5490 The premise of this story is flawed. First, pastors - especially African-American pastors - have endorsed political candidates and encouraged their congregations to participate in the democratic process for decades upon decades. This is nothing new. In addition to being the spiritual backbone of the African-American community, the African-American church has long been a social, economic, and political backbone as well - long before the NAACP, NUL, and others. Also, any of the community's "leaders" - pastors or otherwise - have a right as voters in this country to endorse whomever they choose. Neither Rev. Butts nor other pastors who have endorsed candidates in this campaign have stated or attempted to do so on behalf of their congregations...and they haven't provided endorsements "from the pulpit". The reason is that there is a tax code that prohibits tax-exempt groups from endorsing political candidates. So, unless the goal is to have their churches discredited for making a political endorsement, then these members should be thankful to their pastors for expressing individual opinions and not putting their churches at risk by attempting to make political statements on behalf of them. Rev. Butts has specifically stated that he doesn't push his views on his congregation and that all he wants is for his members to vote for a candidate whom they support with their head and hearts - whoever that may be. Any insinuation that he or others have done anything different simply because they don't have unanimous "congregation" support is both inaccurate and misleading. Hey, that's the beauty of living in a democracy - we each have a vote that we can exercise at will. Lastly, the lack of balance in this piece is disturbing. I find it difficult to believe that only supporters of Sen. Obama were available or willing to be interviewed. By not including opposing views, this piece appears quite one-sided...and perhaps that was the goal. The premise of this story is flawed. First, pastors - especially African-American pastors - have endorsed political candidates and encouraged their congregations to participate in the democratic process for decades upon decades. This is nothing new. In addition to being the spiritual backbone of the African-American community, the African-American church has long been a social, economic, and political backbone as well - long before the NAACP, NUL, and others.

Also, any of the community’s “leaders” - pastors or otherwise - have a right as voters in this country to endorse whomever they choose. Neither Rev. Butts nor other pastors who have endorsed candidates in this campaign have stated or attempted to do so on behalf of their congregations…and they haven’t provided endorsements “from the pulpit”. The reason is that there is a tax code that prohibits tax-exempt groups from endorsing political candidates. So, unless the goal is to have their churches discredited for making a political endorsement, then these members should be thankful to their pastors for expressing individual opinions and not putting their churches at risk by attempting to make political statements on behalf of them. Rev. Butts has specifically stated that he doesn’t push his views on his congregation and that all he wants is for his members to vote for a candidate whom they support with their head and hearts - whoever that may be. Any insinuation that he or others have done anything different simply because they don’t have unanimous “congregation” support is both inaccurate and misleading. Hey, that’s the beauty of living in a democracy - we each have a vote that we can exercise at will.

Lastly, the lack of balance in this piece is disturbing. I find it difficult to believe that only supporters of Sen. Obama were available or willing to be interviewed. By not including opposing views, this piece appears quite one-sided…and perhaps that was the goal.

]]>