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

[doug yowell]

"Before 1954, American churches were fairly disparate, disunited, and pretty much politically isolated, but today Evangelical Protestants and Catholics are very much united on many issues—issues that even we can and do agree with regarding shared concerns."

 

The above quote from the op-ed makes a strange claim about the "non-unity" churches pre-1954 realized. but the author doesn't attempt to explain either why or on what political issues they were "isolated" on or what exactly changed in 1954. Well, perhaps that's easily explained by the fact that those pre-1954 churches ALL agreed that killing an unborn baby was morally unacceptable. and that same sex-marriage was NOT a constitutionally protected "human right". So,in fact, there was a general church unity on issues once not considered in the "political" fray. And why is the fact that Catholic and (conservative only) Protestant churches are today united on those two issues sudden cause for such great concern when it was the norm for 160 years prior with no claimed connection to religious liberty? Is the (alleged) 25% of church budget delegatedto political efforts a part of the Johnson restriction? Why not address the real concerns of a new policy instead of just claiming all sorts of potential negative consequences for repealing the Johnson Amendment? 

[debbym]

8 minutes ago, doug yowell said:

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?

the government has never been the source of faith and has always been the powers of the world.  The government always represents humanity and not divinity, why should we ever look to it for anything else.  whatever the government does, it cannot hinder us from knowing and serving God unless we choose for that to happen.  

we are as far as possible to live at peace with all men, and to follow the example of Christ.  Living everyday by the power of the Holy Spirit is our source not human government.

there has always been agendas in politics that are not holy and pure what has changed?  it is the religious extremist who want the reins of political power.   They are up in arms about whatever the government is doing and getting sympathies of the Christian masses,  justifying themselves to step into controlling the government for their own agendas... and erasing the separation of church and state.

 

[doug yowell]

"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,"

 

So if the Republican party embarked on a Sunday legislated "day of rest" and all it's candidates signed on to the plank would you hope that SDA pastors and church officials did not speak out against the purposed law or any of it's activist politicians from any official church outlet (pulpit, periodical, blog site, smoke signals, etc,)? 

[debbym]

2 minutes ago, doug yowell said:

"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,"

 

So if the Republican party embarked on a Sunday legislated "day of rest" and all it's candidates signed on to the plank would you hope that SDA pastors and church officials did not speak out against the purposed law or any of it's activist politicians from any official church outlet (pulpit, periodical, blog site, smoke signals, etc,)? 

this is not the same as making campaign donations to candidates.  we know church leaders have a lot of power over their congregations for truth or for error.  we have a religious liberty organization that fights earnestly and regularly for religious freedom continually.  and they have too.  People trying to have moral control over other's conscience happens already.  and the stand is taken to protect them  or not.  The suffering happens indeed.   it is something that brings spiritual growth in the faithful. 

to stand up and say what is wrong and why brings light so others can see and make their decision for or against God.  At the cross the thoughts of every heart was revealed.  When by the Spirit the issues are made clear through persecution everyone's decision can be made clearly.  Christ did not avoid the Cross, but neither did he go to the cross before it was time.

if and when the Lord steps back to permit religious persecution nothing is going to stop it.  They hated Christ and tried to end his life over and over, but not until it was time was it permitted. And when it comes it will be a grand opportunity to witness by the power of the Holy Spirit.

[CoAspen]

Yes, Christianity will turn the country around!! You bet! 

Quote

 .....for only where loyalty to God exists can liberty and freedom exist.

Poppycock!! Who is going to define what 'loyalty' is or isn't! Don't hide behind the trite phrase...." the Bible says..", how many religious groups do we have all based on the Bible? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Doug asked below:

Repeal of the Johnson Amendment would not change what churches are already allowed to do.  What would change is that it would allow churches to advocate for the elections of political candidates, which they are not now allowed to do and remain tax exempt.

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?  

 

 

[Gary K]

10 hours ago, debbym said:

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...

debbym,

This nation started without anything like a tax punishment for preachers speaking out politically in the pulpit.  It started out in liberty.  It survived, and thrived, with pastors speaking out.  Now show why it should not go back to the same conditions it thrived under. 

As I said before, I understand what you are afraid of.  But, and this again is a very large but, using government power to curtail liberty is not the way to go about things.  You just want the government to stop speech you don't like or you would not be arguing that something might happen that you are uncomfortable with so you want the government to stop what might possibly happen.  That is the very spirit of the antichrist for it uses power to stop people from saying what they might possibly say. 

Liberty always comes with risks.  It always has and always will.  But those risks are well worth the taking because they allow liberty of conscience.  It is the same risk God took when He gave us free will.  Would you rather He have made us automatons without the right, desire, and power to make choices?  I have been through a lot of pain and suffering because of sin, but I still value the liberty God gave us far more than I dislike the pain I have experienced through what has come because of what He gave us.  Being given that liberty is the very proof of the love of God towards us.  When we are willing to allow others that same liberty we are acting towards them just like our heavenly Father does towards us. That is proof of our having been recreated back into the image of God.  It means we love our fellow man the same way God loves us.  We love them enough to allow them to say even the very things we might disagree with.  How can we do less for them than what God has done for us?  Is that not what sin is?

Being unwilling to allow others the same liberty God gives us without fear of punishment is the proof of fear or the desire to control.  That desire to control is what the devil has.  It is how he works, and he is a very cruel taskmaster.  I do not want to imitate him in any way, shape or form.  

[Gregory Matthews]

The New Your Times has an interesting article on the Johnson Amendment.  It is a long one.  The quote below the URL is one comment:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/opinion/campaign-stops/living-in-lbjs-america.html

“A broad change to the provision would likely cause minor-level chaos within the U.S. political system,” Emma Green wrote in The Atlantic this month. “There would no longer be any meaningful difference between charitable groups and lobbying organizations.”

And yet what is Donald Trump but a sworn agent of chaos? Repealing the Johnson Amendment would most likely flood our political system — and especially Republican Party coffers — with still more money, all of which would be tax deductible.

 

 

[Gary K]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

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.

 

 

 

You may be right and I may have been wrong.  I couldn't remember the city, the the names of either person, nor the position of the city official involved so I couldn't really research the event at this time to completely refresh my memory, but what I gave was my memory of what I heard of things.  However, that has nothing to do with the point I made about government intruding where it has no right to intrude.  Government resources were used to go after a pastor for opposing a political agenda that he opposed on moral grounds.  That is the very definition of intolerance and the overreach of politicians, and the political climate we now find ourselves in. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is another quote from the NYT article:

 

The Johnson Amendment stated that “all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” In other words, tax-deductible charitable contributions could not be used to fund election campaigns. This was considered so uncontroversial at the time that no record of what Johnson was thinking or precisely how he got this clause attached to the tax code seems to have survived. It was passed by a Republican Congress, and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Churches on all sides, liberal and conservative, proved able to skirt the provisions of the amendment easily enough, and it went largely unchallenged until 2008, when the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal and political organizing arm of right-wing Christian evangelicals, started a campaign to repeal it. The A.D.F. began an annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in which ministers were encouraged to give overtly political sermons, and then send recordings of these talks to the I.R.S.

Just as it has done in its attacks on gay rights, the Christian right is attempting to flip this issue on its head and make it one of “religious freedom.” The A.D.F. has cast its own adherents as the real victims, deprived of their rights of free speech and association, and conjured up a vision of countless federal Javerts filling the pews, jotting down every word. But the I.R.S., hobbled by years of budget cuts, has refused to rise to the bait. It is not believed to have opened any audits of churches for noncompliance under the Johnson Amendment since at least 2009, and all that ministers who send in recordings receive is a form letter thanking them for their interest. The A.D.F.’s efforts have fared little better in court, as Johnson’s typically airtight legislation did not differentiate between religious institutions or any other type of nonprofit.

 

[Gary K]

9 hours ago, debbym said:

this is not the same as making campaign donations to candidates.  we know church leaders have a lot of power over their congregations for truth or for error.  we have a religious liberty organization that fights earnestly and regularly for religious freedom continually.  and they have too.  People trying to have moral control over other's conscience happens already.  and the stand is taken to protect them  or not.  The suffering happens indeed.   it is something that brings spiritual growth in the faithful. 

to stand up and say what is wrong and why brings light so others can see and make their decision for or against God.  At the cross the thoughts of every heart was revealed.  When by the Spirit the issues are made clear through persecution everyone's decision can be made clearly.  Christ did not avoid the Cross, but neither did he go to the cross before it was time.

if and when the Lord steps back to permit religious persecution nothing is going to stop it.  They hated Christ and tried to end his life over and over, but not until it was time was it permitted. And when it comes it will be a grand opportunity to witness by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Who has said anything about using the church to make donations to political campaigns?  Not a single person.  We are talking 1st amendment rights here.  And, you are arguing that you want the church to speak out about political things, when they are that which you agree with.  Do you see your position clearly now?  You want the government to punish speech that which you disagree with, but not that speech which you do agree.    That is the antithesis of liberty of conscience.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary K said in the quote below:

ON the contrary, it has everything to do with your main point.   It demonstrates your lack of understanding and the level of your factual knowledge.  That brings into question your statements on your central issue.

 

You may be right and I may have been wrong.  I couldn't remember the city, the the names of either person, nor the position of the city official involved so I couldn't really research the event at this time to completely refresh my memory, but what I gave was my memory of what I heard of things.  However, that has nothing to do with the point I made about government intruding where it has no right to intrude. 

[Gary K]

4 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Here is another quote from the NYT article:

 

 

 

That is one extremely biased article that shows no understanding of how I or many other conservatives really view things. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary K challenged Debbym as to the  Johnson Amendment and financial contributions, asked who had said anything about that, and stated that no one person has done such.

Such a view of the Johnson Amendment reflects a total failure to understand what it is about.  To advocate for its repeal  is to bring financial contributions to candidates into the conversation.  Here is what the Johnson Amendment is about:

 

The Johnson Amendment stated that “all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” In other words, tax-deductible charitable contributions could not be used to fund election campaigns. This was considered so uncontroversial at the time that no record of what Johnson was thinking or precisely how he got this clause attached to the tax code seems to have survived. It was passed by a Republican Congress, and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

[Gary K]

1 minute ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gary K said in the quote below:

ON the contrary, it has everything to do with your main point.   It demonstrates your lack of understanding and the level of your factual knowledge.  That brings into question your statements on your central issue.

 

 

 

Baloney.  You have refuted no points I have made.  All you have done is point out some minor flaws in my memory.  That the government went after someone is undeniable.  That it cost someone, even if not the pastor himself, a whole lot of money, is undeniable.  And if someone with deep pockets had not been willing to step in and fight for that pastor he woulld have been in very serious financial straights, just like I thought he was in. 

Your points are so minor as to make your insistence on them pretty strange.  It is even stranger that you insist that I have no understanding of the issues just because of something that does not change anything.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary K has said in the quote below:

Gary, did you go to the article and read the entire article, and not just the few sentences that I cited"?

That is one extremely biased article that shows no understanding of how I or many other conservatives really view things.  [/quote}

[Gary K]

8 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gary K challenged Debbym as to the  Johnson Amendment and financial contributions, asked who had said anything about that, and stated that no one person has done such.

Such a view of the Johnson Amendment reflects a total failure to understand what it is about.  To advocate for its repeal  is to bring financial contributions to candidates into the conversation.  Here is what the Johnson Amendment is about:

 

 

 

 

That's right.  The government wants to punish any kind of involvement by churches in political activity.  Tell me, Gregory, just how did this country survive for the 161 years it existed without the Johnson amendment if your doom and gloom is true?  It not only survived during those years, it thrived.  It became the bastion of liberty in the world under those conditions.  It became the one place on earth people did everything in their power to move here.  My ancestors moved here, partly because of that liberty, and partly because of the economic liberty that existed here at that time. 

I find your reliance upon government control of that which you seem to fear very troubling. 

[Gregory Matthews]

In telling us that the NYST article is biased and does not represent either your views or that of conservatives, may we assume that you reject the sections of the article that  speak out against:

1) The 1924 National Origins Act which deeply restricted the ability of Jews and Black person to come to the USA and become citizens?
 

2) The 1952 McCarran Act in a similar manner restricted the rights of Asians and Jews.

As I asked:  Did you read the whole article before you condemned it?

 

[Gary K]

Just now, Gregory Matthews said:

In telling us that the NYST article is biased and does not represent either your views or that of conservatives, may we assume that you reject the sections of the article that  speak out against:

1) The 1924 National Origins Act which deeply restricted the ability of Jews and Black person to come to the USA and become citizens?
 

2) The 1952 McCarran Act in a similar manner restricted the rights of Asians and Jews.

As I asked:  Did you read the whole article before you condemned it?

 

No.  I read what you quoted.  It is very typical of what the NYT has to say.  They are often so biased that it isn't funny.  I have never seen them actually attribute anything of substance and truth to the conservative viewpoint of things.  They speak to only one side of the issues.  That you cannot see that says you see only one side yourself.

I understand your fears.  I have them myself.  I do not, however, think that government repression is the solution.  That "solution" is the very worst thing to do.  It is the very thing you fear.

I wrote the above before you posted what I am replying to.  For some reason this site now logs me out almost immediately after I log in.  I write one post and before I can post it  I am logged out. 

Anyway.  Both of the acts you speak of have the same effect the Johnson amendment has.  They repress liberty.  That you do not see the similarity between the three tells me you do not understand even the basics of what I am saying on this thread.  It also tells me the NYT has no understanding of this issue either, or they are just being vastly hypocritical.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary K said in the quote below:

Your state is false.  Churches can and do become involved in political activity.  They have always been able to do such.  I have given you specific examples of what the churches can do.  I will add acoupoe of additionl examples of what churches can and do.

1)  They can invite a panel of representatives from the candidates to come to the church, present their candidates views on subjects and respond to questions that people ask.

2)  Churches can prepare a document that presents candidates views on subjects, publish it and circulate that published document.

The above is political activity and is done by churches at every national election here in the US.  You simply have failed to understand the extent of the freedoms that churches have.

 

 

The government wants to punish any kind of involvement by churches in political activity. 

[Gary K]

1 minute ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gary K said in the quote below:

Your state is false.  Churches can and do become involved in political activity.  They have always been able to do such.  I have given you specific examples of what the churches can do.  I will add acoupoe of additionl examples of what churches can and do.

1)  They can invite a panel of representatives from the candidates to come to the church, present their candidates views on subjects and respond to questions that people ask.

2)  Churches can prepare a document that presents candidates views on subjects, publish it and circulate that published document.

The above is political activity and is done by churches at every national election here in the US.  You simply have failed to understand the extent of the freedoms that churches have.

 

 

 

 

You can keep on making the same kind of statements until the cows come home, but it won't make them true.  I haven't seen you address even a small part of the issues I have raised on this thread. 

[doug yowell]

51 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

"Repeal of the Johnson Amendment would not change what churches are already allowed to do.  What would change is that it would allow churches to advocate for the elections of political candidates, which they are not now allowed to do and remain tax exempt."

But were churches lining up on political platforms before the JA? Why not? Why do you continue to make statements like; "Just as it has done in its attacks on gay rights, the Christian right..." Isn't your defense of the JA really in support of keeping religious conservatives from fully using their constitutional rights to politically oppose what they view as moral and societal unconstitutional political enactments? Again, I ask if the SDA church would have violated the JA in the 1800's when it preached from it's pulpits and periodicals against Sunday laws? Would they along with their "conservative Christian" allies in the WCTU have justifiably in your eyes lost their tax status for identifying political candidates for and against prohibition and calling on their members to vote for the prohibition supporting one? When moral issues that affect the general health of our society get dragged into the political arena does that automatically require that those religious entities that oppose such legal enactments keep their corporate mouths shut?---This format is difficult for me to navigate, sorry. I'll do the best I can to figure out how to interact without going to the wrong post.  

 

36 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

"

51 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

 

 

 

 

[doug yowell]

53 minutes ago, Gary K said:

Tell me, Gregory, just how did this country survive for the 161 years it existed without the Johnson amendment if your doom and gloom is true? 

I keep waiting for an answer to that question myself. A balanced history and reasonable deductions seem lost in the NYT rhetoric. In the past 40 years the NYT has NEVER shown any inclination to support the views of conservatives much less conservative Christians but has made it their goal to eliminate the effects of their constitutionally protected rights. When "politics" is the catch all for society's moral and issues such as the killing of the unborn and same sex marriage, supporters of those "rights" demand that bodies of religious opposers not use their moral clout to influence the moral changes in question in the political field. At the heart of this debate is an underlying philosophy that was once understood in the original tax exemption granted to religious organizations in the first place. What once was viewed as the church's essential positive impact on the country's societal condition is now being stamped as a major hinderance to a "progressively" more enlightened culture. And this view seems reflected in the many comments by SDA's in opposition to any political interference by conservative Christians as being attempts to undermine the Constitution and force the nation into a theocratical slavery. Gary, I find your arguments a much more balanced view of the issue reflecting a recognition of the "potential" dangers while attempting to strike a historical check on government's control of political opposition to moral issues. I appreciate your contributions.

[doug yowell]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The Johnson Amendment stated that “all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

If that is so reasonable how would that have affected the SDA church during the battle over the Blair Amendment in the late 1800's? Or the number of churches (SDA's in particular) directly (much less indirectly) participating AND intervening in those political campaigns in behalf of prohibition supporting candidates for public office? Does the church pastor have no right to call his congregation to vote for or against political candidates who either support or oppose a National Sunday law? Or slavery? Or abortion? Or homosexuality? Is there no Constitutional balance to the JA restrictions?

[Gregory Matthews]

Doug asked in the  quote below:

Read  carefully the post.  That was not a statement t hat I made.  That statement was made by another person.

 

Why do you continue to make statements like; "Just as it has done in its attacks on gay rights, the Christian right..."