Dear pastor: STFU

I'm getting really tired of this genre of story.  Prominent politician takes a stand on a controversial issue; media finds his pastor and sees if the two disagree; reporter casts issue as a "church-state" conflict.

Friends, fifty years ago, we actually needed a presidential candidate to say this:

"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me." 

That statement still stands (at least for most Democrats).  Have we really made so little progress?

And by the way, if you like poking your nose in politics, Reverend, run for office.  Otherwise, get back to your shepherding.

IRS agrees to not compete with tax preparation services

A legal deal between the IRS and tax filing companies such as H&R Block explains why e-filing often involves shelling out part of that refund. Lower income folks (AGI less than $52,000) can get free federal e-file, but the corresponding state's e-file always costs extra. The IRS has explicitly agreed to not provide a free e-filing option for all taxpayers (despite the cost savings to the IRS) because of this deal.

Two things are disturbing. One, that a government agency can not only decide against providing a service, but can enter into a binding agreement not to (as opposed to Congress trying to prevent competition). Two, that the lawyer for the tax preparation companies threatened to paint the IRS as "Big Brother" if it ever decided to provide the e-file service.

Last time I checked, your social security number is not a mystery to the IRS.

Have booze, won't travel

The Minneapolis Airport has recently been struggling with an issue brought to them by travelers - Muslim cabbies refusing rides to people carrying (even unopened) liquor, citing their religious beliefs. This is similar to an issue arising a few months back, where national attention was focused on pharmacists who would refuse to dispense the morning-after pill, citing their Christian religious beliefs.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Muslim cabbie issue was that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was negotiating with cabbies and considering a special light for the cabs to indicate drivers who would refuse service to booze carriers. In other words, they were ready to accomodate this service distinction.

In an email listserv I read, one respondent found this idea a slippery slope:

Still, this seems to me to set a very troubling precedent. Cabbies are licensed to provide a secular public service that, in my mind, has nothing to do with their personal religious belief systems. If they are allowed to discriminate based upon their personal belief systems, where does it end? A special light for cabbies who refuse to transport scantily clad women? Another light for cabbies who refuse to transport women and men traveling together (unless of course they show proof of marriage)? I recall an incident reported in the local press a few years ago in which a Mpls cabbie kicked a gay couple out of his cab (which I believe violates the city's anti-discrimination ordinances). Perhaps local cab drivers and/or local Muslim leaders can chime in and educate the rest of us on this issue: What are the limits here? When should a cabbie's personal beliefs influence whom he chooses as a client?

The challenge is that both pharmaceuticals and cab rides fall under the purview of state licensing and therefore have a modicum of state oversight. I would think that nondiscrimination clauses should apply in both cases and that these cabbies should not be able to prohibit riders who are carrying legal and unopened substances.

After all, it really comes down to an issue of religion in a secular society - your freedom to practice extends right up until you force your beliefs on me. Christian fundies, take note.