As the 2018 mid-term election draws nearer, the issues of political speech from the pulpit is brought back to the forefront. This issue is important in the continuing debate on separation of church and state in the United States of America. It appears at first like a complex issue because many frame the discussion as a freedom of speech issue while others frame it as a freedom of religion issue; and some say it has implications of both.
On July 12th, 2017, President Trump said in an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that he signed an executive order to get rid of the Johnson Amendment. Trump said:
On July 12th, 2017, President Trump said in an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that he signed an executive order to get rid of the Johnson Amendment. Trump said:
I've gotten rid of the Johnson Amendment … I signed an executive order so that now ... ministers and and preachers and rabbis and whoever it may be, they can speak. You know, you couldn’t speak politically before, now you can.
Although the President’s executive order has “no discernible policy outcome” (ACLU) and “the President does not have constitutional authority to eliminate laws,” I think that Trump’s position on government & religion is eroding the founding principles of the First Amendment & our democracy.
Since 2008, groups like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have challenged the Johnson amendment to the tax code- proposed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 to prohibit 501(c) tax-exempt churches and other non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates running for political office- citing it as unconstitutional for violating the First amendment right to free speech. The IRS 501(c)(3) tax code states that any corporation can get tax-exemption as long as it "does not participate in, or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” That also prohibits any contributions to political campaign funds. James D. Davidson explains in 'Why Churches Cannot Endorse or Oppose Political Candidates,' how Johnson's "provision grew out of the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950's and was directed at right-wing organizations such as Facts Forum and Committee for Constitutional government. It was introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson as part of his effort to end McCarthism, protect the loyalist wing of the Texas Democratic Party, and win reelection to the Senate in 1954."
Some people like Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for ADF and director of Pulpit Freedom Initiative, reframe the issue as part of the 2013 IRS controversy which uncovered that the Internal Revenue Service allegedly targeted conservative groups, although the latest Senate subcommittee investigating the IRS review of non-profits "found no evidence of political bias," as both seemingly-radical liberal and conservative groups were equally scrutinized (Huffington Post). Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS in 2012 for failing to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations. They make the claim that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") and their Equal Protection Rights. They claim that the government gives "preferential treatment" to churches engaging in electioneering, which it does not give to secular tax-exempt organizations like FFRF.
The IRS has not publicly audited any churches since 2009. On August 1, 2014, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice when the IRS made a deal with the FFRF, promising to enforce the tax-exemption law for a number of churches, especially those participating in Pulpit Freedom Sunday, although the IRS has yet to publicly release their policy and procedures for auditing churches. On October 5th 2014, dozens of churches across America held a “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” to purposefully disobey the law by having political activity during the election cycle. Freedom of Religion Foundation co-president Dan Barker says,
if churches can get away with that, they become a political action committee (PAC) that is not accountable. People can start pouring money into churches for political reasons to mobilize the vote, and that's just not what the non-profit IRS law was intended to do.
In my opinion, if churches and "faith-based organizations" wish to have political speech in their sermons, they should have their tax-exempt status relieved. Churches are tax-exempt for the reason that the government ought not to interfere with religion. That is the stated purpose of Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison’s “wall of separation between church and state.” Many people including religious groups have argued that if churches become spiritual centers of the community, they should remain unaffiliated from politics. To be wholesome, churches must not operate in elections for the state. Even though preachers cannot endorse political candidates at church function, they still have many rights to political speech. Although church ministers cannot tell his/her congregation who to vote for in any publication or worship service, he is still granted the individual right to that political speech outside of the church. Churches are still allowed to hold non-partisan voter education, voter registration, or ‘Get out the vote’ drives. Churches can hand out non-partisan voter guides as long as they include all candidates for office and the description of the issues and the description of the candidates’ positions on those issues are neutral and unbiased. But once again, the government has never prevented church ministers and preachers from speaking about politics in churches. The IRS law as it stands is already lenient and rarely enforced.
The freedom of religion (granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution) is an extremely important part of the law of our American government, which radically distinguishes us as a nation from other democracies around the world. Many historians even characterize this feature as the defining reason for migration to the New World, citing the Puritans who first came to the Americas to escape persecution from the Church of England. The need for free expression of religious beliefs is certainly one of the fundamental needs written in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers in an attempt to differentiate from the penal policies of Great Britain. The freedom from religion is becoming as equally important as the freedom of religion, in accordance with secularism and the idea that religion ought not to be forced or imposed upon another group without their consent.
Despite having supposed “separation of Church and State,” our governmental system is operated solely by Christians, who openly use their religion to operate in politics i.e. making decisions based on their faith in God. The common justification/rationalization for our representatives’ policy decisions is trust in the Bible and confidence that God’s hands will mold our country into greatness. Christianity is the widely accepted view, and it is nearly impossible to become an elected official without having accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Seeing how deeply the average citizen was influenced by their belief system, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison understood how important it was to prevent the nation state from advocating for one singular religious doctrine (as they understood from the Enlightenment ideals of individual freedoms and “self-evident” inalienable human rights i.e. Locke, J.S. Mill, Rousseau, Voltaire). They saw the separation of church and state as a necessity to prevent the corruption of either. They were afraid of the churches’ power over government, but more so they feared the meddling influence of government in their churches.
Some interpreters of Constitutional law seem to think that the separation of Church and State is implied in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
In accordance with this understanding of the law, churches and “faith-based organizations” filed under the 501(c)(3) tax code are not allowed to have ministers who back a particular candidate prior to the election cycle a.k.a. “political speech from the pulpit.” They are allowed to inform the public of their civic duties (i.e. tell their community to register, and participate in voter education) but they cannot (by IRS law) support any individual or endorse either Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian or Green political parties. The IRS has a legal obligation to revoke the tax-exemption status of any religious institution if their practices disobey the law established by national government public policy. This is the law that was put into place by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954.
The stance on political speech in churches is straightforward yet churches across America are still trying to dispute the law, claiming it violates their freedom of speech. The cause of these church leaders’ confusion is almost too ironic to be taken too seriously but it must be addressed. It seems obvious to any reasonable person reading the Constitution (the Amendments and Bill of Rights) that the freedom of religion clause (establishment and free exercise) and the freedom of speech clause (press and assembly) are distinctly specified definitions of the law. It does not work like an equation where one plus one can equal three. One is one and two is two. The First Amendment does not grant the freedom of religious institutions to speak.
There is no specific Supreme Court ruling concerning the right to speak about politics in a sermon. It appears though as if the Alliance Defending Freedom group is threatening to bring this issue to the highest judiciary level. They are simply violating IRS law, and by blatantly opposing the law, the churches who follow the ADF by promoting political speech in their “faith-based organization” are forfeiting their 501(c)(3) tax-exemption status. The Supreme Court case Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) has a similar ruling to what we would expect as the Judges’ ruling: in order for an institution to keep their tax-exemption status, they “must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.” These public policies are explicitly stated on the IRS government website.
If a church wishes to keep their tax-exemption status, they must follow the law, plain and simple. If a church wants to preach political speech in their sermons, so be it, but they must fund themselves without the aid of the U.S. government. It would not be just or fair for every citizens’ tax dollars to fund religion.
In other words, if a preacher of a church wants to speak on political issues and advocate for a certain candidate or party, they ought not to expect to get a tax break from the government. It is only a common sense rule that the government should not fund political speech, for the reason that it would be redundant for a faith-based organization to promote its own values in the sphere of politics. The law should not allow preachers to influence their congregations to vote a certain way based on religious doctrine, since the American public ought to be voting on their own personal moral and rational principles. Political speech in churches is antithetical to (small-d) democratic principles which America stands for.
Sources:
Wayne Slater. TEXAS FAITH: Why should the government say whether churches can preach politics from the pulpit?
Bob Unruh. 'I'm from the government and I'm here to rewrite your sermon'
Davidson, James D. 'Why Churches Cannot Endorse or Oppose Political Candidates’
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3512457?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104126229281
Victory: FFRF, IRS settle suit over church politicking
Fox News Attacks Atheists Fighting Tax-Exempt Churches Acting Like Super PACs? Liberalviewer. YouTube.
Senate Probe Of IRS Scandal Finds Liberals Targeted Too
'Trump Claims He Got Rid of Johnson Amendment.' Politifact. Politifact.com
No comments:
Post a Comment