By Michael-Leonard Creditor
Our president has a bug up his ass about the Johnson Amendment, part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 prohibiting 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office. He thinks it unfairly restricts free speech.
But here’s the thing: the Johnson Amendment doesn’t stop church leaders from speaking out. Firstly, political activity is allowed so long as pastors stop short of directly or indirectly endorsing. But, even if pastors do actually endorse a candidate or ballot measure, only one church is known to have actually lost its tax-exemption due to electioneering. Also, some defiant clergy have repeatedly and for years, deliberately disregarded the Johnson Amendment. Some have even sent transcripts of their speeches to the IRS. That one church that lost its exemption, that was back in 1995.
All this rule does is pose a choice for clergy: do you wanna be a church or in politics? If you want the tax-exemption of being a church, you should simply stay out of politics. Can’t do both; choose. And this gets to the heart of the whole separation clause thing. I think the amendment solidifies the separation-of-church-and-state intent of the founding fathers.
There is a common misconception regarding the famous “separation clause” of the Constitution embodied in the First Amendment. Because it reads [in part], “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” many people think that the founding fathers objected to government-established churches. I beg to differ. While many governments had previously supported one church or another, the founders’ objection was of church established government or, more to the point, government being unduly influenced – or even co-opted – by religious establishments.
The reason for the First Amendment specifically prohibiting laws “respecting an establishment of religion” was the Founders’ fear of one of the churches attempting to influence or take over the federal government. What they feared was the actions of the church but, since they were creating a nation, they could only proscribe the actions of the government.
There is only one instance I know of a government creating a church: Henry VIII of England created the Anglican Church after the Roman pope refused to annul his marriage, mainly so he could dispose of one queen and take another. Yes, it could be said that the Church of England was born for the purpose of adultery.)
However, there have been many cases throughout history of churches influencing or co-opting a government or governmental body. Probably the most egregious example would be the “Spanish” Inquisition. Even the novel The Three Musketeers is based upon Cardinal Richelieu’s attempt to take over the throne of France. In the United States, thanks to the “Separation Clause,” this has been attempted, but never successfully.
Religious and church-based groups regularly espouse certain political views and contribute to political organizations, parties, and candidates. The actions of religions – specifically the Mormon Church – in the battle against same-sex marriage, is the most blatant recent example of a church affecting government. Other attempts, albeit on a smaller scale, occur practically every day.
Again, the Johnson Amendment gets to the heart of ensuring the First Amendment. What if a religious candidate proclaimed that if elected, he would do his utmost to outlaw all birth control drugs and devices, “because the bible tells me to do so.” If so, then that person should not hold public office in the United States. Not because of a “religious test” against that candidate because of his fundamentalist faith, but rather because of his attempt to “establish” religion as the ultimate source and sanction of secular U.S. law (contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution) and to impose his religious beliefs upon citizens that do not share these beliefs. Similarly, if a candidate of any religious persuasion were to suggest that persons of other faiths, or no faith, must be given a diminished citizenship status in our republic, then that candidate likewise disregards the establishment clause of the first amendment (“prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”). It is not hard to see Trump’s “Muslim ban” executive order as such an edict.
Those who insist that “this is a Christian nation” are of such a type, as was Mitt Romney when he asserted that he would not appoint a Muslim to high office in his administration. With his pronouncement at the Feb. 2 National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump has contravened the Constitution and likely violated his oath of office.
That same day, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to support political candidates, as long as any associated spending was minimal.
But, here’s the final irony of the issue: the president and his congressional followers are totally out of step with the religious element that they purport to support. That’s what LifeWay Research found out. The evangelical polling firm 2012 survey of Protestant pastors found 87 percent said they should not make political endorsements from the pulpit. The same company surveyed church-goers last year and found nearly 80 percent said it is inappropriate for their clergy to endorse a candidate in church and 75 percent said that churches themselves should make no endorsements.
About Michael-Leonard Creditor:
- Born in Tucson AZ; reared in Brooklyn NY; lived in Portland OR; currently resides in Clairemont
- Three main professions: photographer, folklorist, radio program host
- Philosopher and life-long Liberal
At Large
Latest posts by At Large (see all)
- Future of Journalism is in Our Hands - December 13, 2018
- 30 Arrested at Border for Nonviolent Action in Support of Migrant Caravans - December 11, 2018
- The Dorn Effect | Remembering Bob Dorn - December 5, 2018
The greatest source of misunderstanding about religion & the First Amendment is that neither “separation” nor “wall” appear as words in the text. The key agency word is “establishment.” Clearly, the Founders welcomed Christianity into the government simply by using the Bible as the official oath book of office, as we still do today. The Founders’ overweening concern in almost all matters was fettering the Federal government’s powers. The establishment clause simply intended to prevent the national government from neither establishing nor disestablishing any religion. Tax exempting religion is a reflection of Chief Justice Marshall’s declaration that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
umm…..no.
Today, what constitutes an “establishment of religion” is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the “Lemon” test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion
Ummm . . . maybe. Bottom line, with the authority to grant or deny tax-exempt status to religion, the federal government is now in the position of certifying what is or is not a religion. If you are happy with the Church of Scientology, you can hardly be adhering to the establishment clause.
Anyway you want to expound on it, bottom line, if a church’s leadership uses its profound influence on their flock; “socialism is communism and communism is of the devil”. Or this one, “if you vote democratic you are voting and supporting the murder of babies and laws that give rights to homosexuals, laws that endanger our children, teaching them in schools that it’s ok”
I know ppl who voted for trump because their church told them that Hillary was a Muslim and they are taking over!
Dear Jesus. THESE CHURCHES SHOULD BE TAXED. Get out of politics or pay taxes,period
Jesus said render unto God what is God’s & unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. In Rome, there was no difference & they crucified him. In America, not quite so clear cut, but nobody’s being nailed to a cross.
Possibly the first separation of church and state edict :-)
Mr. Swendoza, you are conflating two separate things: a tax-exempt status is not what defines a religion. Tax-exemption is a fringe benefit that the federal government gives to *churches* – which are the “establishments of religion”. Otherwise, they would simply pay tax as any other business might (or might not ;-). But, they could still hold services, worship, etc. (They might not be able to have bingo nights if no longer a non-profit; that’s a grey area).
Ms. Reilly: What you cite here is exactly the kind of interference I’m referencing that our founders were cautious of. As a firm agnathiest, I would also strip churches of any tax exemptions.
All religions are cults until the State gives them some sort of preferred status, in law, practice or both. We are now simply debating the level of status conferred. There is no such thing as a non-State religion, unless you believe religion is a plastic layover applied directly by God.
All religions are cults, period. But, I understand what you mean.
I think there’s a difference between ‘religion’ and ‘church’. A religion is a philosophy or set of principles ascribed to a deity. A church is the man-created establishment that turns a religion into a business. This has been so since even before Jesus used religion to try and change the political reality of his era.
I think there is good in every religion. Wonderful myths, great philosophies, cogent life teachings, etc. But somehow, when men get their hands on it and make a church, religion always — ALWAYS! — goes awry.
Oh dear; have I said too much.
Point well made, but problem is the US Constitution speaks of “religion” not “church.” Perhaps the Founders saw churches as a matter for the states/locales & religion one for the federal government, which only complicates the matter. Churches, as businesses, seem taxable at the state/local level, but I believe most states follow the IRS application. So the distinction between church & religion is moot so long as the IRS certifies a church as tax-exempt.
I have throughly studied the two presidential campaigns in which Mitt Romney ran for office and published papers in well-regarded academic journals. Not once in all of the thousands of news and opinion articles I reviewed from across the political spectrum, did I see any mention or reporting that Romney said he would not appoint a Muslim to high office. I would really like to see a legitimate source on this, but I don’t believe one exists. I assert it’s fake news.
Please do not elevate a simple error to the level of “fake news”. I wasn’t trying to deceive, merely make an entre to the next item. Perhaps it was a spoken comment that you missed.