President Donald Trump promised last week to release the nation’s religious groups from the burden of the 63-year-old IRS rule that bans them from participating in political campaigns and from endorsing candidates for elected office.

Trump promised, during last week’s National Prayer Breakfast, to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, which was crafted by then-U.S. Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson and passed by Congress in 1954 to prevent nonprofit charitable organizations, such as churches, from participating in political campaigns and from making political endorsements. Trump said repealing the restriction would allow “our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution”and grant churches the “right to worship according to their beliefs.”

Except there is no prohibition on the right to worship according to your beliefs — the Constitution guarantees this in the First Amendment — and neither the churches nor the clergy are forbidden from tackling tough political and social issues. The minister of a church is also not banned from endorsing a candidate, so long as he is not making the endorsement as part of a church event. What’s more, the IRS has never prosecuted a single charitable organization (one was once audited) for violating the Johnson Amendment. Since 2008, the Alliance Defending Freedom — which has long lobbied for a repeal of the amendment — has supported “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” which encourages pastors to defy the law and give political sermons. As part of this event, many pastors send their sermons to the IRS.

There is not a lot of support among church members for their churches to begin engaging in partisan politics. A 2015 survey by a Christian polling firm found that 79 percent of Americans believed that allowing pastors to endorse candidates during worship services was a bad idea.

That might be the reason that church groups were among the first to disagree with Trump’s proposal. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty issued a statement arguing that letting churches be political “does them no favors” and was “an attack on the integrity” of charities and the nation’s existing campaign finance framework. The organization went on to call a repeal a move that would invite “partisan divisions into the pews and harm the church’s ability to provide refuge.”

Letting churches and charities raise and spend money for political candidates could have a profound effect on the activities of both, effectively transforming religious organizations into Super PACs free from public disclosure requirements and granting big donors enormous tax deductions for their “charitable” (read: political) donations, a subsidy that would go disproportionately to the most wealthy Americans.

Meanwhile, allowing churches to remain tax-exempt even as they are allowed to participate in partisan politics means taxpayers would be subsidizing political activities they might not agree with. Interestingly, Republican politicians have long framed their support for union-busting right-to-work legislation on the grounds that individual members’ union dues shouldn’t be used to fund the campaigns of political candidates whom they don’t support.

Politicians and religious organizations that support repealing the Johnson Amendment are being hypocritical. If a church wants to get down in the mud of partisan politicking, it is free to do it without repealing the Johnson Amendment; all it has to do is surrender its tax-exempt status and agree to share in the cost of municipal services that are now subsidized by taxpayers on its behalf.

The point of the Johnson Amendment is simple: You have to pay to play. If you don’t want to pay taxes, then you can’t get involved in politics.

(20) comments

jackmen

Much thanks to you a cluster for offering this to every one of us you really acknowledge what you are discussing! Bookmarked. If you don't mind likewise look for guidance from my site =). We could have a hyperlink change contract between us! judi poker

ReadPhred

The Johnson Amendment should definitely not be overturned. Churches should not be involved in political or commercial matters. However for many churches calling them not profit is a joke. They may raise funds differently and distribute their "profits" differently but most raise money far in excess of their operating costs. In many cases those profits don't go to charitable ends. Just look at the millionaire church leaders and often excessive spending toward non-religious ends. Churches should definitely pay taxes. Not doing so means distributing a share of their costs and of the services provided to them across all taxpayers, not just church members.

LJF0929

I'd rather the toddler force (by executive order, of course) churches to pay taxes. They're million/billion dollar factories and they should have to pay taxes just as any other business in a community.

jsklinelga

Repealing the Johnson amendment is no path to freedom of religion is correct. That war has already been fought and won starting on July 4, 240 years ago. Somehow the FNP, like many, have seemed to forgotten that.

jsklinelga

As a quick follow up the amendment has nothing to do with religious freedom. It is an IRS code dealing with charitable institutions..

Dwasserba

Don't need/don't want. Bu yang

glenkrc

I think you meant bu yao.

olefool

“The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.”
― James A. Garfield

gary4books

True. But quite popular at one time.

Truthteller

The link below points to the facts of 501c3 and the church! Researching the truth is a good thing.

http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

jsklinelga

This is, most likely, not going to happen. Congress passed this law. I doubt the present congress would support changing the law even though it is a tax issue that may not need a super majority. But it is indicative of an underlying current within this country as witnessed by the past election.

armillary

I felt the same way about Betsy DeVos, but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

awteam2000

So true[thumbup]

gary4books

I think in this climate a one eyed person would be hated. Few, if any, would believe them

armillary

Please explain our President then.

gary4books

Explain: Just read the comments from Trump voters that express hate for the Clinton voters - sore winners that despise those who did not buy their candidate.

public-redux

Repealing the Johnson amendment will help churches be both in the world and of the world.

bpsws

Exactly what Christ told us not to do: "Be not of this world," he said.

public-redux

No kidding?

Dwasserba

Christians are visitors. Their home is elsewhere.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!