‘Churches and the Elections’

In regard to “Churches and the Elections” [Editorial, November 7, 2006] about Americans United’s effort to keep partisan politicking out of the pulpit, the law is clear on this subject: tax-exempt organizations, including churches, may speak out on issues, but may not intervene in a campaign on behalf of a candidate. That means churches may not use their tax-exempt funds and other resources for electioneering.

You argue that Americans United is attacking religious leaders’ free exercise, free speech, and free peaceable assembly rights by urging the IRS to enforce the law. However, tax exemption is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Religious institutions are well within their First Amendment rights to campaign for candidates, if they agree to pay taxes like the rest of us.

Americans United recognizes and respects every religious leader’s right to speak out on social and moral issues. As a minister, I especially value diverse religious voices in American public life. However, houses of worship should stay true to their role of encouraging spiritual growth, offering a prophetic voice, and helping those in need. Candidate endorsements are not part of the church’s mission. Pulling politics into the pulpit does nothing but undercut democracy, divide congregations, and degrade the integrity of houses of worship.

REVEREND BARRY LYNN
Executive Director
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Washington, D.C.

‘Another Middle East War Is on the Horizon’

In regard to John Keegan’s article “Another Middle East War Is on the Horizon” on [Foreign, November 3, 2006]. I refer to the to the following statement: “After all, it [Israel] attacked a American communications ship during the Six-Day War because it objected to America listening in to its most secret signals.”

I would suggest that the attack by Israel was carried out in error. This belief is supported by investigations of our government. In addition, declassified information is in agreement with this conclusion.

JUDITH SHAPIRO
Brooklyn, N.Y.

‘Thanks to the Council’

Stuart Appelbaum can see “gouging” in Wal-Mart’s low prices and “exploitation” in creating jobs for which people queue up to apply [Letters, “Thanks to the Council,” November 13, 2006]. How come? The premise of such terminology is the doctrine that the alleged needs of some create a moral claim on the property — and lives — of others. Since Wal-Mart’s owners don’t sell below cost, since they profit from their efforts and investment, they are failing to comply with the primordial morality of self-sacrifice. My question is: How, at this late date, can Mr. Appelbaum still chant the Marxist line and pretend that Ayn Rand never wrote?

HARRY BINSWANGER
New York, N.Y.