Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Churches Oppose Bill; Call Unusual Legislative Process “Far From Transparent”

Boston, MA - Despite broad opposition from many disparate religious communities in Massachusetts, state Senators today voted favorably on a bill that would require every congregation, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and others, to pay for financial audits and fees to report their finances to the Attorney General. While on its face this may seem like an innocuous proposal, the practical effects could have harmful unintended consequences- especially for small, struggling congregations, which are numerous in Massachusetts.

Senator Marian Walsh, the lead sponsor of the legislation, bypassed the normal legislative process to move the matter to the Senate floor on the day the Senate was scheduled to take up important health care legislation. The original bill, S1074, already had been reported out of the Judiciary Committee and to the House side. But proponents convinced the Senate Ways and Means Committee on election day in an informal session to report a pre-existing bill “H2313: An act authorizing the refund of the automobile sales tax to Helen Bergman of Wilmington" and add the language from S1074, in effect, creating a ‘new bill,' numbered S2267.

Rev. Dr. Diane C. Kessler, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, said, “it is ironic that those advocating transparency would resort to these tactics which are far from transparent.”

Opponents of the legislation include a wide array of such religious bodies as, the Massachusetts Council of Churches whose members are seventeen Orthodox and Protestant churches/denominations; the Massachusetts Catholic Conference; the Islamic Council of New England; the Massachusetts Association of Temple and Synagogue Administrators; the Black Ministerial Alliance; the Massachusetts Family Institute; and the Christian Science Church.

This legislation will be especially burdensome and costly to small churches and perhaps even detrimental to their ministry in the communities they serve. Rev. Bob Carpenter, pastor of First Baptist Church in Framingham said, “when I called my legislators to oppose this bill, they told me it would be helpful if I could fax to them my reasons for opposing this bill. I informed them that we don’t have a fax machine; we can’t afford a fax machine. We’re concerned about paying our fuel bill this winter and helping others to pay their fuel bill.”

Others voiced unease about the Legislature being used to affect change in one religious community, in this case the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. They also noted a lack of credence given to opposition from other religious communities. Bishop Peter Weaver of the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church wrote in a letter to Senate Leadership, “I am concerned that the whole religious community is being unfairly targeted because of the political pressures you may be experiencing due to the problems of only one of our number…I do not oppose the churches and state working together in reasonable ways, but I do oppose the state making intrusive demands without any respect for the input from the religious institutions you’re proposing to regulate.”

Laura Everett, Program Associate at the Massachusetts Council of Churches, said, “This clearly is a misguided legislative attempt targeting the Archdiocese of Boston. In a recent hearing, one of the bill’s co-sponsors said, that he believed this legislation would “restore peoples’ faith in the church.” We need to remember that there are many churches and many faith traditions in this Commonwealth. And while many may want faith to be restored, it is not now, nor has it ever been, the legislature’s task to do so.”

# # # # #