Paul and Mark's posts raise fascinating historical insights. As some of you
know, I have been working on a book for a while on the use of religion in
American elections, so any interesting historical examples you come across like
this, I would greatly appreciate being sent .
But as to the debate over clergy involvement on "political" issues , the posts
appear to conflate religious institutional involvement in partisan electoral
"political activity" (which according to the IRS/FEC rules cannot be done at
all --except in a purely personal capacity by clergy--and no tax exempt money
could be used for) and Paul's reference to "speak out on public issues" type
"political activity," which, as Paul and everyone on the list knows, can be
done with tax exempt money, with the obvious substantiality or 501h limitations
as to lobbying.
Since these rules did not exist in Archbishop Hughes' day, I would think , Mark
, that his model, or that of the political practices of other religious groups
at that time, is of great historical public policy interest but (with few or
any on point court decisions from that era), not really relevant to the debates
we face today on e.g. candidate endorsements from the pulpit with no IRS/FEC
restrictions.
As to Marty Lederman's query to Mark ("who opposes clergy political
activity?"), that this latter example is the kind of "political activity" some
(many?) on this list "oppose" to which Mark's challenge is addressed. But Mark
can certainly clarify for himself.
Best wishes for a joyful and meaningful Christmas to all who celebrate it.
David
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 24, 2014, at 7:19 PM, "Finkelman, Paul" <paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I have written a bit about this in my biography of Millard Fillmore --who was
> totally insensitive to issues involving Catholics, Jews, and blacks -- a sort
> of equal opportunity bigot.
>
> If was state wide, not just NYC. Fillmore lost the NY Gov. race in 1844 in
> part over this issue -- to the extent that he alienated almost all Catholic
> voters in the state. The issue may have affected the presidential race as
> well, since Clay lots NY State to Polk by about 5,000 votes.
>
> The issue is in part that the school day began with a prayer and a Bible
> reading, and the prayer was Protestant (usually the Protestant Lord's Prayer,
> not to be confused with the Catholic Lord's Prayer), followed by Bible
> reading from the King James Bible -- which was also both Protestant and in
> places translated to be anti-Catholic.
>
> Almost all of the teachers were Protestant in a pre-Civil Service world.
>
> I am not sure what the curriculum was, but there was certainly a sense among
> Catholics that the schools were hostile to their faith. It was doubtless
> tied up up in British vs. Irish ethnic hostility as well (although were there
> a minority of German Catholics as well, but most of the political conflict
> was over the Irish). It helped set the stage for various anti-Catholic and
> anti-Immigrant parties, most famously the Know Nothings, but there were
> others before that one. (For what it is worth, Millard Fillmore ran for
> president in 1856 on the Know Nothing ticket, with a party platform provision
> against Catholics ever holding office in the US).
>
> While the Irish generally voted for Democrats, some Whigs -- like William
> Henry Seward -- supported their position,, not merely to get Catholic votes
> but because he saw the bigotry in the issue.
>
> Mark, I am not sure what you mean by "oppose clergy political activity." I
> oppose religious bodies using their tax exempt status for political purposes.
> I think that is wrong and probably illegal.
>
> I think all Americans should be politically active, and that includes the
> Clergy. I think members of the Clergy should speak out -- as citizens -- on
> public issues, as long as they are not doing it on tax exempt money. The
> easy way is to create organizations that are not religious but are supportive
> of religious goals, to support political issues.
>
> I am pretty sure the Catholic Church, for example, did not fund Father Robert
> Drinan's successful campaigns for Congress. There are number of members of
> Congress now (or in the recent past) who are members of the clergy. Surely
> that is not a problem as long as their campaigns are not funded by
> tax-deductible contributions to their church.
>
> Obviously this analysis is anachronistic and perhaps irrelevant for the
> mid-19th century. In that period members of the clergy were deeply involved
> in political issues, although not (as far as I know) ever telling their flock
> how to vote or arguing that politicians should be denied communion based on
> their political position. The most obvious example of political/religious
> debate was over slavery; where three church split into southern and northern
> branches and thousands of ministers gave sermons for or against slavery. The
> southern churches funded books and essay contests to prove that the Bible
> supported slavery. My favorite book title of the period is "The Duties of a
> Christian Master," which was not (as some might think today) to free his
> slaves!
>
>
>
> *************************************************
> Paul Finkelman
> Senior Fellow
> Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism
> University of Pennsylvania
> and
> Scholar-in-Residence
> National Constitution Center
> Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
>
> 518-439-7296 (p)
> 518-605-0296 (c)
>
> paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu
> www.paulfinkelman.com
> *************************************************
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Scarberry, Mark [mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 6:21 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Bishop John Hughes, Protestant Public Schools in New York, and
> Political Activity by Clergy
>
> It seems that Bishop John Hughes in New York endorsed political candidates.
> Apparently he opposed public funding of schools that taught Protestantism
> unless funds were also provided for Catholic schools, as he requested. When
> the request was denied, he endorsed political candidates who took steps to
> remove religion from NY public schools (New York City, I think, rather than
> New York State, but I could be wrong). My sense is that New York public
> schools (perhaps in NY City or perhaps just elsewhere in the state) continued
> to (or eventually later began again to) promulgate Protestantism, at least of
> a sort.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing from list members who oppose clergy political
> activity what they think about this example.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
> forward the messages to others.
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
> forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
