America had better watch its pulpits on Sunday, Sept. 28.More than three dozen pastors will be making explicit political statements concerning the upcoming election. The social conservative action group Allied Defense Fund has recruited these pastors for a “Pulpit Initiative,” calling them to endorse or oppose candidates for state, local and national office, in direct defiance of an IRS code.According to Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS tax code, a religious organization cannot expressly endorse or oppose a political candidate, or they lose their coveted tax-exempt status.The ADF is organizing this protest to elicit a response from the IRS; namely, to have the Service revoke the tax-exempt status.  Then the ADF’s lawyers plan to sue the IRS in an attempt to have the ban deemed unconstitutional.  The ADF is claiming the clause in the code restricts a congregation and pastor’s rights to freedom of religion.If the ADF succeeds, it will be reversing a precedent that has been established for 54 years.But the ADF is not the only religious group taking sides on the issue.  A group of Christian and Jewish clergy are actively petitioning the IRS to apply full pressure to the group, to stop the protest before it starts.  These religious leaders are calling for an official investigation of the ADF itself, positing that the organization of the initiative is grounds for revoking its tax-exempt status.The issue raises a controversial question: Just how far should a pastor go in influencing his congregation’s political choices?  Whether we like to admit it, religious leaders wield enormous influence, and as such it is imperative that such influence is ethically and morally sound.One of the most fundamental rights of our democratic system is a citizen’s right to vote his or her conscience, uninhibited and uninfluenced as much as possible by outside sources.  When a pastor explicitly endorses or opposes a candidate, that pastor is placing tremendous pressure on their congregation.  The implicit message of every sermon is that the words carry with them insights into divine will and should be obeyed without hesitation. Once such a pronouncement has been made, opposing views are essentially crushed within that specific congregation; very few people of faith are willing to overtly contradict the words of their pastors. Doing so is likely to be viewed as subversive, possibly even as apostasy.  Thus political dialogue, which is essential to making intelligent decisions, is stifled.It is important to note the tax code does not in any way restrict discussions of individual issues.  A pastor is free to put forth his interpretation of church beliefs, scriptures and doctrines concerning abortion, gay rights, evolution, and all other issues that have become so controversial in recent times.Thus the argument that faith, as an integral facet of a believer’s existence, should reflect on his or her political view is not applicable here.  The ban does not limit a congregation’s right to express its beliefs.  I sincerely doubt any major religious texts include explicit endorsements for contemporary political figures, and I have yet to hear of any pastor claiming to have been told by God who to vote for.  Endorsing a candidate is a complex process that forms out of a slew of issues and beliefs. It is a citizen’s individual responsibility to go through this process intelligently, thoughtfully and most of all, independently.If pastors strongly feel that they are called to endorse a particular candidate, that is by all means their prerogative.  However, once they cross the line from issues to endorsements, their church has officially become a political body and does not deserve to be exempt from taxation.Even if you disagree with the this, pay attention Sept. 28… history may very well be in the making.****To learn more about the restrictions on politics from the pulpit, see : http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=280 —-contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]