Op-Ed: How Abolishing the Johnson Amendment Would Harm Religious Liberty

[phkrause]

Last week at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, the newly inaugurated President of the United States repeated his campaign vow to repeal the Johnson Amendment, the 1954 provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from endorsing political candidates.

http://religiousliberty.tv/op-ed-abolishing-johnson-amendment-harm-religious-liberty.html

[CoAspen]

Ah yes, church for sale....my God supports you!!

[debbym]

this allows churches to become political machines much like a new law allowed corporations to become political machines.  this cannot be good.  Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world.  to render to God what is God's and to render to Cesar what is Cesar's.

[Gary K]

Let me think here.  From 1793, when our current constitution was put in place, to 1954 is how many years?  Oh, 161 years without a Johnson amendment and the wall between church and state, and religious liberty, was greater than it is now.  Now we have laws that limit the free expression of someone's beliefs while the Johnson amendment is in force, and repealing the Johnson amendment is going to make things worse?  How so?  How did we survive 161 years without this amendment without the 1st amendment being abolished, and now it is going to go down the tubes because of something that has only been in force for about 63 years?  All that amendment does, in my opinion, is to limit religious influence in the lawful right of each citizen to participate in the process of making our laws.  Why should religious people not be included in the process?  Wouldn't our country be better off with a lot of God's people influencing what laws are created and enforced?  Why limit God's influence and let the devil have free reign in this area?

[bonnie]

3 hours ago, Gary K said:

Let me think here.  From 1793, when our current constitution was put in place, to 1954 is how many years?  Oh, 161 years without a Johnson amendment and the wall between church and state, and religious liberty, was greater than it is now.  

It has been a few years but if I remember my civics class the constitution was worded in such a way as to protect against a government established religion. It is not separation of church and state it is "making no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion

While I am not crazy about the idea and would not attend a church very long that was political from the pulpit,how is this the state establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of your religion?

Black churches have done so for decades,many democratic politicians have spoken in black churches.

[Gary K]

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

It has been a few years but if I remember my civics class the constitution was worded in such a way as to protect against a government established religion. It is not separation of church and state it is "making no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion

While I am not crazy about the idea and would not attend a church very long that was political from the pulpit,how is this the state establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of your religion?

Black churches have done so for decades,many democratic politicians have spoken in black churches.

Hi bonnie,

Yes, your memory of civics class is correct and so is your memory of the constitution.  It denies both the establishment of a state religion AND any denying of the free expression of religion.  As a person's religious views affects their political views the Johnson amendment does, in fact, suppress the free expression of a person's religious beliefs.  It is unconstitutional itself.  It breaks down the wall between church and state because it is the state denying the church the right to freely exericse its right to free speech just because it is a religious organization.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary K said below:

All that amendment does, in my opinion, is to limit religious influence in the lawful right of each citizen to participate in the process of making our laws.  Why should religious people not be included in the process?  Wouldn't our country be better off with a lot of God's people influencing what laws are created and enforced?  Why limit God's influence and let the devil have free reign in this area?

You seriously misunderstand.  Individual have freedom.  Religious people may speak as individuals.

But, tax exempt organizations face a choice.  they may give up their tax exemption and speak as they desire.  Or they may keep their t ax exemption and as a result be limited as to how they can speak as an organization.

Those limitation are not total.

A religious organization can advocate for  a limitation on abortions, for example, as does the Roman Catholic Church.  But a religious organization can not endorse Ben Carson for President, or any other person.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary K said below:

As a person's religious views affects their political views the Johnson amendment does, in fact, suppress the free expression of a person's religious beliefs.  It is unconstitutional itself.  It breaks down the wall between church and state because it is the state denying the church the right to freely exericise its right to free speech just because it is a religious organization.

 

Again, you misunderstand.  A church has total ability to speak freely if it is willing to give up its tax exemption.  The church has not been denied its right of free speech.

 

[Gary K]

8 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gary K said below:

 

 

You seriously misunderstand.  Individual have freedom.  Religious people may speak as individuals.

But, tax exempt organizations face a choice.  they may give up their tax exemption and speak as they desire.  Or they may keep their t ax exemption and as a result be limited as to how they can speak as an organization.

Those limitation are not total.

A religious organization can advocate for  a limitation on abortions, for example, as does the Roman Catholic Church.  But a religious organization can not endorse Ben Carson for President, or any other person.

 

So, what you are saying then, as I see it, is that a pastor gives up his rights to say what he believes, politically speaking, to his congregation just because of his religion and his job.  Where does the constitution say a person's job affects his rights as a citizen?  I want this shown from the constitution, not from some law that has been since.  Just because a law has been passed does not mean it supercedes the constitution.  The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and anything that violates it is unlawful. 

Is not limiting what a pastor can say to his congregation not limiting the free exercise of his religion?  To me it is exactly what it is, and as such it is unconstitutional. 

[Gary K]

21 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gary K said below:

 

 

 

Again, you misunderstand.  A church has total ability to speak freely if it is willing to give up its tax exemption.  The church has not been denied its right of free speech.

 

Thank you for making my point for me.  The government is telling the church, we will punish you for speaking out politically.  Again, this is unconstitutional.  Do you realize that the US would never have come into being if not for pastors speaking out against the King of England's abuse of his power?  They were extremely influential in changing the status quo.  Now the government says we don't want you doing that again, so we will punish you if you speak out.  A violation of the 1st amendment

[Gregory Matthews]

The pastor has a choice:

1) The pastor can accept tax exemption and give up certain rights to free speech, in the pulpit.  Tax exemption does not have the Constitutional basis that freedom of speech has.   You ask for a  Constitutional statement. In regard to tax exemption that exists due to both  case law and statute law.  Tax exemption is not grounded in a specific provision of the Constitution outside of case law to the extent that freedom of speech is grounded.

2)  Once the pastor steps out of the pulpit, that pastor may support a candidate for political office and advocate that others do so, as long as that pastor does not do it in the name of the denomination.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary K  The situation you talk about is not limited to churches.  It applies to employees of the Federal government.  As a Federal employee (I was a civilian Federal employee for 20 years.)  I  could say whatever I wanted to say.  But , I could not do it on government time and with government resources.

While I was so employed someone else sent out an e-mail the appeared to make fun of a candidate for President of the U.S.  I sent a copy of the e-mail to the appropriate agency.  As a result a 3 month criminal investigation was launched to determine whether or not that employee should go to trail.  NOT:  The employee changed his ways.

  This situation is much worse that applies to churches.

 

 

[Gary K]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The pastor has a choice:

1) The pastor can accept tax exemption and give up certain rights to free speech, in the pulpit.  Tax exemption does not have the Constitutional basis that freedom of speech has.   You ask for a  Constitutional statement. In regard to tax exemption that exists due to both  case law and statute law.  Tax exemption is not grounded in a specific provision of the Constitution outside of case law to the extent that freedom of speech is grounded.

2)  Once the pastor steps out of the pulpit, that pastor may support a candidate for political office and advocate that others do so, as long as that pastor does not do it in the name of the denomination.

 

 

Exactly.  The government will punish him and the organization he belongs to if he exercises his rights in the pulpit.  The government is punishing the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed free speech and religious freedom.  Both at the same time.

[debbym]

if my church became a political voice then my donations could end up endorsing a candidate i disagree with.  My donations are for the purpose of serving the Lord  and the cause of God not serving the cause of a government. 

this is about rendering to God what is God's and rendering to Caesar what is Caesar"s.  Church stands as an independent  from Government and as benevolent and giving service to the community and therefore donations are tax deductible.

[Gary K]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gary K  The situation you talk about is not limited to churches.  It applies to employees of the Federal government.  As a Federal employee (I was a civilian Federal employee for 20 years.)  I  could say whatever I wanted to say.  But , I could not do it on government time and with government resources.

While I was so employed someone else sent out an e-mail the appeared to make fun of a candidate for President of the U.S.  I sent a copy of the e-mail to the appropriate agency.  As a result a 3 month criminal investigation was launched to determine whether or not that employee should go to trail.  NOT:  The employee changed his ways.

  This situation is much worse that applies to churches.

 

 

Just what government resources is a pastor using?  None.   A church is an NGO.   He is simply exercising his rights as a citizen of the United States. 

You must have been real popular to have been turning someone in for humor just because you didn't like their humor. 

[Gary K]

1 minute ago, debbym said:

if my church became a political voice then my donations could end up endorsing a candidate i disagree with.  My donations are for the purpose of serving the Lord  and the cause of God not serving the cause of a government. 

this is about rendering to God what is God's and rendering to Caesar what is Caesar"s.  Church stands as an independent  from Government and as benevolent and giving service to the community and therefore donations are tax deductible.

That's right.  It is independent of government and therefore has every right under the constitution to speak out on whatever it likes. 

I can see your point of view if the church became a political organization.  I would not stay in one that did that either. That a lot of people think that way is a big deterrent to churches becoming overtly political as they would lose a lot of members if the did.  But, and this is a big but, the government has no legal authority to punish a pastor for speaking out.  Does it try to?  Oh, yes.  Not long ago in Texas a city official tried to make a pastor give up every sermon he had ever preached just because he came out in opposition, as an individual, against some of the policies that official was pushing.  She, using city resources, finally lost in court, but the pastor had to spend a lot of money on lawyers just to defend himself.  This is wrong.  It cannot be defended in a society in which the right to exercise religious freedom cannot be abridged. 

A pastor preaching and making his viewpoint known is quite different from say a Jeremiah Wright who constantly made his political views made from the pulpit, and yet what was done to him?  Not a thing.  He was speaking in accordance with what many politicians on the left wanted to hear as it helped their political campaigns. Have you condemned him for his actions?

The government today uses the IRS as a weapon against those whom it disagrees with, and as such the revocation of tax status is used to muzzle dissent from the churches.  That was the point of putting it in the tax code.  It is a weapon used to keep down the voice of freedom and liberty for only where loyalty to God exists can liberty and freedom exist.  Loyalty to God and liberty go together like love and marriage and a horse and a carriage.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary, foundational to our political system is an ideas that as far as government is concerned, all candidates and their supporters stand on equal footing and government resources should not be used to foster the candidancy of anyone.

The employee used a government resource of a computer e-mail system.  That was prohibited by law and as I said, a 3-month criminal investigation took place as a result.

As for popularity,  as far as management was concerned, the employee was far less popular than I.  His act was considered to be quite stupid.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary K made the statement that I am quoting below:

His statement is an over generalization wand reflects a lack of understanding the facts:

1) You say that the request was for every sermon that the pastor had ever preached.  False.  There was a time limit.

2) You say that this case went to court.  I Believe that the request was cancelled without going to  trial.

3) You say that the pastor  had to spend  a lot of money on lawyers.  In actual fact legal services, which resulted in the request being cancelled were provided at no cost to the pastor.

 

Not long ago in Texas a city official tried to make a pastor give up every sermon he had ever preached just because he came out in opposition, as an individual, against some of the policies that official was pushing.  She, using city resources, finally lost in court, but the pastor had to spend a lot of money on lawyers just to defend himself. 

[doug yowell]

8 hours ago, Gary K said:

  How did we survive 161 years without this amendment without the 1st amendment being abolished, and now it is going to go down the tubes because of something that has only been in force for about 63 years? 

Exactly my first reaction. And to add more questions to the mix, would the Johnson Amendment have effectivel curtailed the political activism of the WCTU during the end of the 19th century? Would the Johnson Amendment have effectively prohibited abolitionist churches from effecting the 1860 election? Would the Johnson Amendment have justly removed the Adventist church's tax exempt status because their prophet openly encouraged their members to vote in favor of prohibition candidates on Sabbath if necessary? Are Adventists who paint the Johnson Amendment as a rise or fall of religious liberty issue really supporting the illegitimacy of their own church's history of political activism? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Doug, your questions reflect a mistaken understanding of the prohibitions that are placed on churches.

That answer to all of your questions is:  Under the law, churches can advocate for or against all of the issues that you mention.  Churches are not prohibited from doing so and never have been prohibited from doing so.

As a congregational SDA pastor, I strongly advocated from the pulpit and  by other means on  issues.  I never had any problem because churches were and are permitted to do so.

 

 

[debbym]

1 hour ago, Gary K said:

A pastor preaching and making his viewpoint known is quite different from say a Jeremiah Wright who constantly made his political views made from the pulpit, and yet what was done to him?  Not a thing.  He was speaking in accordance with what many politicians on the left wanted to hear as it helped their political campaigns. Have you condemned him for his actions?

The government today uses the IRS as a weapon against those whom it disagrees with, and as such the revocation of tax status is used to muzzle dissent from the churches.  That was the point of putting it in the tax code.  It is a weapon used to keep down the voice of freedom and liberty for only where loyalty to God exists can liberty and freedom exist.  Loyalty to God and liberty go together like love and marriage and a horse and a carriage.

I know little about the Jeremiah Wright case.  From a quick Wiki it looks like he was anti American and blamed our sordid history against Indians, Blacks and women for the 911 attack and this from the pulpit.  I have no doubt churches become very politically involved.  i watched a Catholic priest preaching pro trump by making it clear whatever candidate was permissive regarding abortion was not to be voted for.  it was done powerfully without mentioning any candidate, and everyone know exactly what the priest was telling them to do with religious authority.  

I do not want to see our churches become  political battlegrounds, that arena is not where souls find repentance and salvation.  Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world.  If churches become pawns of campaigns why wouldn't they  lose their 501c3 status and will pay taxes and lose their calling.  Some anti religion groups are already calling for churches to no longer be tax exempt.

we do have responsibility to vote according to our conscience but we are not to force anyone's conscience politically or otherwise.  Pastors can have a lot of power and it would save politicians lots of money campaigning of they could control mass religious organizations to support them.

the harm comes when religious authorities have control of government and military force to coerce the population with physical political, or legal force.  the evangelical right has been hoping, and seeking to control government to serve it's will to control the nation for God and when it happens it will be a dark day.  The separation of Church and state is healthy and good boundaries.  God has not shown in the Bible he has any plan for setting up a theocracy on earth with our existing governments and nations.  Not until the Stone cut out of a mountain without hands and comes strikes the statue of the human system bringing it to an end...

[doug yowell]

"Doug, your questions reflect a mistaken understanding of the prohibitions that are placed on churches."

 

Then how exactly would the repeal of the Johnson Amendment dangerously infringe on the first amendment? What changes would turn normally conservative religious churches concerned almost entirely with abortion and same sex marriage into political arms of any political machine? As Gary's and my question asked, how did we manage to survive 160 years without the Johnson Amendment without suffering a constitutional crisis?  

[doug yowell]

14 minutes ago, debbym said:

 i watched a Catholic priest preaching pro trump by making it clear whatever candidate was permissive regarding abortion was not to be voted for.  it was done powerfully without mentioning any candidate, and everyone know exactly what the priest was telling them to do with religious authority

1) Did you see this as proper? 2) If the spirit of the law was clearly broken without breaking the letter of the law, what is the need for the letter of a law which has loopholes so big that everyone knows it's being violated with impunity? 

[doug yowell]

18 minutes ago, debbym said:

the evangelical right has been hoping, and seeking to control government to serve it's will to control the nation for God and when it happens it will be a dark day. 

The secular left has been hoping and seeking to control government to serve it's will to control the nation without any interference from a populace believing in God.  What are Christian citizens supposed to do?

[debbym]

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas.

In recent years many Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have sought to repeal it, arguing that it restricts the free speech rights of churches and other religious groups. Repeal has been criticized because churches have fewer reporting requirements than other non-profit organizations, and because it would effectively make political contributions tax-deductible.

 

this amendment is about being able to use your church donation which is tax deductible to influence politics through the church.  people to want to use their money for political purposes do so because they are willing to sacrifice to effect political will.  if you can do this and financially benefit it is a political free ride.

 

when i watched the Catholic service... whether i would agree with the priest or not.... it felt strange that the congregation was being led by a religious authority to fulfill a political will.  there are individuals who have power and there is an imbalance of power in that relationship, and that power is not to be exploited but used to serve.

 

say the attorney client relationship.  the attorney is not to gratify themselves or satisfy personal interests by their client.  same with parent/child, and teacher/student and coach/athlete, and  therapist/patient relationships.  If my pastor has political convictions personally i do not want to become involved or engaged politically in worship services, to be moved to fulfill the political will of my pastor.   To receive spiritual instruction to understand the principles involved is another matter.