Apparently, once Barry Lynn sends a sketchy letter to the IRS, it’s over.  The church in his crosshairs is immediately to be pronounced guilty and executed by media onslaught. My local radio affiliate carried the news that a Kentucky pastor violated federal law by opposing President Barack Obama. The Associate Press article was picked up by several leading newspapers.  Each time, the opening line read:

“An eastern Kentucky Baptist pastor troubled by President Barack Obama’s views on gay marriage violated federal law…”

What happened to “presumed innocence” and the “right to a trial by a jury of your peers”?  According to the AP, Ronnie Spriggs did it. He’s guilty. He violated federal law.

In reality, whether Spriggs did it or not has not been determined. The IRS hasn’t even agreed to take the case. On what basis can it be said that Ronnie Spriggs violated the law?  The letter Barry Lynn wrote is hardly proof positive.  While the news articles make it sound as though—in Barry Lynn’s words– “This is one of the most over the top, unequivocal statements of opposition to a candidate that we have seen in a long time”—the truth is, the case is not as clear as it is made out to be. And—remember—there isn’t even a case yet, much less a conviction.

Ronnie Spriggs did not tell anyone to vote Obama out of office. He did not endorse Governor Romney (or even Ron Paul).  He simply said, “I don’t know about you folks, but I’m going on record and I don’t care who knows it. I want the guy out.”  Clearly, the pastor wants Barack Obama out of office. That is his personal opinion. He professes ignorance concerning “the church” opinion on the matter. He formed his opinion on the basis of the issue of gay marriage.  He urged his congregants to speak out against the ideology which promotes gay marriage.

Perhaps Ronnie Spriggs will be proved guilty. Perhaps he will not. It is irresponsible to pronounce him guilty on the basis of a single letter to the IRS by a vigilante rabble-rouser. I don’t believe Hager Hill Freewill Baptist Church should face any further scrutiny from the AP or anyone else on the basis of Barry Lynn’s opinion that the pastor of that church “quiet [sic] openly stated that Obama should not be reelected.”

Are we to assume that the President of the United States has the freedom to express his opinion but a rural church pastor in Eastern Kentucky ought to be sent to ADX Florence and made to bunk beside Timothy McVeigh if he dares to speak in opposition?  It would seem that Barry Lynn’s real desire is for a one-way wall to exist in which the state could impose its morality on the churches, but the churches would only run into a brick wall if they sought to say anything in response. That, emphatically, is not what Jefferson had in mind when he spoke of a wall of separation between church and state.  If anything, Jefferson had in mind the opposite.