Should Churches Face Political Scrutiny?

Jan de Vries · 2026-05-15

Harry Margulies raises a tough question: should religious institutions get a free pass when they wade into politics? In a democracy, no one should be beyond criticism—not even the church. Margulies argues that when religious groups push for political influence, they need to be open to public scrutiny. It's a fair point. We hold politicians accountable. We hold corporations accountable. Why should churches be any different? ### The Role of Religion in Public Life Religion has always played a big role in shaping values and communities. That's not a bad thing. But when a church starts lobbying for laws or endorsing candidates, it steps into the political arena. At that point, it's no longer just about faith. It's about power. And power needs checks and balances. Margulies suggests that shielding religious institutions from criticism creates a double standard. If you're going to influence policy, you should expect pushback. Think about it this way: if a tech company spent millions on a political campaign, we'd ask questions. We'd want transparency. The same should go for churches. They're not above the law, and they shouldn't be above debate. Margulies doesn't call for restricting religious freedom. He calls for accountability. That's a distinction worth holding onto. ### Why Public Scrutiny Matters Public scrutiny keeps institutions honest. Without it, power can corrupt. Religious groups have a long history of moral authority, but that authority doesn't make them immune to mistakes. When a church uses its platform to sway voters or shape legislation, it should be ready to defend its positions. Margulies points out that hiding behind "religious freedom" can be a way to avoid tough questions. But in a healthy democracy, every voice gets examined. - **Transparency builds trust.** When churches are open about their political activities, they earn respect. - **Criticism isn't persecution.** Disagreeing with a church's stance doesn't mean attacking faith itself. - **Accountability protects everyone.** It ensures that no group holds unchecked influence. Margulies makes a compelling case. He's not anti-religion. He's pro-democracy. And democracy thrives on open dialogue, even when it gets uncomfortable. ### The Line Between Faith and Politics Where do we draw the line? Churches can speak out on moral issues—that's their job. But when they start acting like political machines, the rules change. Margulies argues that the church shouldn't be "beyond political scrutiny" just because it's a religious body. That's a reasonable position. If a pastor endorses a candidate from the pulpit, that's a political act. It deserves the same scrutiny as any other political endorsement. Some might say this infringes on religious freedom. But Margulies counters that scrutiny isn't the same as suppression. You can criticize a church's political moves without banning its worship. It's about keeping the conversation fair. In the United States, we value both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Those rights work together, not against each other. ### What This Means for Today This debate isn't just theoretical. In recent years, religious groups have been at the center of political fights over abortion, marriage equality, and education. Margulies reminds us that these groups shouldn't get a special shield. If they want a seat at the table, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. That means facing tough questions, media coverage, and public debate. So, should the church be beyond political scrutiny? Margulies says no. And after reading his argument, it's hard to disagree. In a democracy, no institution is above criticism—not even the ones that claim divine guidance. That's not about disrespect. It's about keeping our system healthy and balanced.