In response to your board editorial "Crossing the Line," (Wednesday, March 27) there are several points which the author seemed to overlook that undermine his/her premise.
Why should religious organization be exempt from First Amendment rights just because they are tax-exempt?
If you follow this reasoning, then shouldn't other similar public interest tax-exempt organizations such as the National Organization for Women, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, etc. be silenced as well?
The authors state: "Churches and nonprofit organizations are free to comment on politics, but they cannot be financially involved since they are allowed tax exemptions. ... If a church wishes to engage in partisan campaign activities, then so be it. But it cannot ask the taxpayers to subsidize those activities."
Are we not simply making this argument in order to silence those with whom we do not agree? Where is the "tolerance" we so greatly touted for both points of view? Surely the historical abolitionist movement supported by churches and assisting in overturning the blight of federally protected racism in our country would have been barred under this author's flawed reasoning.
Let's be intellectually honest in our reflection of history The Constitution was meant to protect freedom of expression of differing religious viewpoints, not muzzle it.
Let's really think about this one and refrain from the knee-jerk reactions that seem to have kept us from the public dialogue from all viewpoints that make this country great.
Margaret Holt
