Freedom of Religion and Cardinal Mahoney

On Fox News today, I heard a report concerning Cardinal Mahoney's direction that priests should ignore any law intended requiring church entities to establish immigration status before offering a person assistance. (Please note: the link is not to the story I heard broadcast, but to the story as discussed on the O'Reilly Factor.) On the broadcast, there was a comment made that churches which would do such a thing would be dangerously close to losing their non-profit status. Here is the question, however. Does the IRS's non-profit policy infirnge upon freedom of religion?

The policy expressly prohibits churches from promoting certain political aims or else they would become a taxable entity. Certainly this is important to help make a clear distinction between political action groups and religious groups. It's to help clarify what is a church and what might be a lobbying group. This can be used to protect churches that are very active in promoting community development, thus working very closely with government agencies, by clarifying their intentions are not expressly political. This allows donations to stretch farther since no tax is levied on them.

However, Christian ethics has always touched on matters that are political. Whether talking about the debate on the divine right of kings, the rights of individuals to refuse military service as a consciencious objector, or the Civil Rights Movement that brought about the demise of legislated discrimination according to race--all of these have roots in Christian ethics. The cherished practice of civil disobedience has a theological origin.

Likewise, what if there were a religion that set itself up as the worship of the Constitution as the words of a divine being and treverenced he constituent elected leaders as a pantheon. Would their support support of their beloved god in a political election be deemed worthy of the IRS to refuse it non-profit status?

I think the IRS is on shaky constitutional grounds, because many religious groups are active in politics, not based on party but based on genuine ethical and theological grounds. The slow march to isolate religion from society is responsible for such threats against the Catholic church. There is no such thing as freedom from religion. Even believing in the non-existence of God is a religious belief, because it pertains to what a person thinks about God. The moment our culture understands this, they'll know why the founding fathers approached the first amendment as freedom of religion.