The Jerusalem Post recently reported that Congregation Shaare Zion, a large Orthodox synagogue serving the Syrian-Jewish community in Brooklyn, had taken an unprecedented step in the run-up to New York City’s mayoral election: Members and their spouses must show proof of voter registration before they can secure seats for the High Holidays.

“In approximately two months, New York City will be electing its next mayor,” the synagogue’s executive committee wrote, “The outcome of this election could result in very serious problems throughout the city and, in particular, the Jewish communities across the city, including our own. The safety and quality of life for our community and our institutions may be at serious risk. As a result, we have no choice but to require that all of our members and their spouses provide proof of voter registration prior to securing their High Holiday seats.”

Many people were concerned that the Brooklyn synagogue was playing with fire and running the risk of violating long-standing IRS policy that non-profits enjoying American tax-exempt status cannot endorse political candidates or make political statements. 

Under the Internal Revenue Code, “All section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

“Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.”

But everything might have just changed. NPR reported that in a break with decades of tradition, the IRS released a surprise announcement that it will allow houses of worship to endorse candidates for political office without losing their tax-exempt status.

Since 1954, a provision in the tax code called the Johnson Amendment says that churches and other nonprofit organizations could lose their tax-exempt status if they participate in, or intervene in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

The National Religious Broadcasters and several churches sued the IRS over the rule, arguing that it infringes on their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

The IRS explained that when a house of worship “in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith,” it neither participates nor intervenes in a political campaign.

“Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.”

The IRS has rarely punished houses of worship for endorsements during religious services. Only one church has ever lost its tax exemption over politics. In 1992, a church in New York took out ads opposing the candidacy of Bill Clinton, leading to the loss of its tax exemption.

Americans United for a Separation of Church and State criticized the IRS decision. “Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money,” it said in a statement.

While endorsements might now be legal, is it a good idea for rabbis and synagogues to endorse candidates running for political office? 

The question was debated in a Fall 2016 issue of Jewish Action, the quarterly magazine of the Orthodox Union. Two rabbis took opposing views.

Rabbi Daniel Korobkin, senior rabbi of Beth Avraham Yoseph of Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto Congregation (“the BAYT”), argued that a rabbi should absolutely and resoundingly discuss politics in shul.

Korobkin explained, “A Judaism that limits itself to halachic issues like Shabbat or the kashrut status of a fleishig spoon that fell into a milchig pot dangerously minimizes the Torah’s significance. As members of the larger society, and as a nation that is expected by our Creator to be a positive influence upon that society, it is our duty to stay abreast of and be part of the social and political fabric of our time. As religious Jews, just as we view our own lives and activities through a prism of Torah, so should we view the world around us with that very same perspective.”

He addressed the fears that other rabbis might have about expressing political views from the pulpit, recognizing they may face fallout or rejection. But, he responded, their fears are unfounded.

“Many congregants are looking for religious guidance in the political sphere, and the proper responses to current events are almost always found in the Torah. If we listen to the political pundits on Fox News and CNN, whose opinions are informed by their own biases and preconceived notions, surely we’ll want to listen to what our rabbi, whose opinion is enlightened by the Torah, has to say.”

“But,” Korobkin warned, “the rabbi should fall short of endorsing political candidates. Endorsing candidates from the pulpit is the ‘third rail’ of rabbinics. It is rare for one candidate to emerge clearly and unequivocally superior for both society and the Jewish people while the other candidates emerge as being entirely wrong. It may be unwise for a religious leader to put all his eggs in one basket.”

Korobkin added that a rabbi would be well advised to avoid endorsing candidates because, in the end, he will invariably estrange himself from a number of his constituents. He needs to be everyone’s rabbi. Politics should never get in the way of a rabbi’s safe space and approachability.

“Most importantly,” Korobkin added, “the rabbi must be careful not to overstep his privilege. The rabbi is a spiritual guide and mentor, not a religious dictator. The greatest mentors are those who foster independent thinking and decision-making. A good rabbi respects his congregants’ independent ability to think critically and come up with their own conclusions after weighing all the factors, be they religious or secular.”

Rabbi Akiva Males disagreed with Korobkin. “I believe it is in the best interests of pulpit rabbis to keep their political views to themselves,” he said. “It’s simply a bad idea for a synagogue rabbi to become clearly identified as politically blue or red. Becoming an outspoken supporter or opponent of any one political candidate or party limits a rabbi’s ability to reach the greatest number of Jews possible. Every pulpit rabbi hopes to create a shul atmosphere wherein as many Jews as possible will feel welcome and comfortable.”

Males added, “In today’s heated political environment, if we wear our politics on our sleeves, we may end up turning those who could have been important allies into unnecessary adversaries. Why would anyone choose to undermine their own efforts?”

The IRS’s recent decision to allow houses of worship to endorse political candidates without losing tax-exempt status has added fuel to the fire of a decades-old debate.

While Congregation Shaare Zion’s voter registration requirement highlights the urgency of political engagement, there are contrasting views about rabbis and political engagement.

One approach encourages discussing politics through a Torah lens, cautioning against endorsements, while a different approach urges neutrality to maintain inclusivity. As synagogues navigate this new landscape, balancing civic duty with spiritual unity remains a complex challenge for Jewish communities. 

The post Should rabbis and synagogues endorse political candidates? appeared first on JNS.org.