Churches and Political Speech - A little History

[Supertramp78]

A few weeks back there was a thread about dirty politics and that morphed into a discussion about the subpoena in Houston for sermons and talks from a few pastors speaking out against an LGBT ordinance.

(news flash as of a few minutes ago, those subpoenas have now been fully withdrawn.)

My comment was that there are things churches can't talk about and making direct lobbying efforts against specific legislation is on the list. I also mentioned that historically there is a tradition of Black preachers speaking out on politics for the last 60 years and nobody has questioned their tax-exempt status.

This got me thinking about the history of the tax exempt laws as regards churches and why they can't talk politics. The prohibition against pastors talking about politics isn't in the Constitution, it is an IRS rule. And since the IRS hasn't been around forever, it must have started at some point and something must have motivated that rule. Knowing the history of a law can sometimes inform you as to the relevancy or even the merits of the law. I did a little digging and I think I tracked the history down. This historical search has made me question a few things and I thought some folks here might find it interesting.

Prior to the invention of income tax, churches were no different from anyone else. They didn't pay income tax because nobody did. They didn't pay property taxes because the assumption was that a tax was "impeding the free exercise of religion" by making a church pay taxes. A small poor church might not be able to afford to own the land upon which to construct a chapel. When income taxes came out they needed a way to classify themselves so that they didn't have to pay those either. They ended up being grouped into the 501(c)(3) which were broadly stated to be charitable organizations. This category included churches, public service groups, high school booster programs (like the band booster program I was part of for four years), religious and secular charities, you name it. Folks supposedly doing good things for the community and not profiting from the practice. You know, good guys.

But it also included groups put together in the 1950s to fight communism and socialism at the height of the McCarthyism era because at that time they were thought to be good guys too. Two such outfits were the Texas based Facts Forum (founded by H.L. Hunt) and the Committee for Constitutional Government founded by Frank Gannett who also founded the news media company that has his name. Both of these groups were very active in anti-communism political lobbying that took the form of radio shows, TV shows and pamphlets that were distributed or broadcast free of charge because they were seen as a public service back then.

Eventually both of these groups aligned themselves with the right wing of the Republican party as it existed in the 1950's. They started to lobby for specific candidates. One of the people they liked was a guy named Dudley T. Dougherty who was running for the Texas Senate seat. They liked him because he supported a bill that would have prohibited subversives (admitted communists or socialists or anyone suspected of such) from holding public office, speaking in public, speaking on the radio or on TV, or publishing pamphlets. They liked that idea so they liked him. Problem was Dougherty was running against the sitting Texas Senator by the name of Lyndon Johnson.

Johnson didn't like the fact that these groups were campaigning against him and doing it tax free. So in 1954 he proposed what was later called the Johnson Amendment that altered the rules on 501(c)(3) organizations. First it allowed them to incorporate and prohibited them from being sued. This was the carrot. Secondly it prohibited them from doing anything political. That was the stick. The change to the tax law was passed on a voice vote with no opposition.

Despite the fact that Johnson's goal was to get some political action committees off his back, the amendment also swept up churches as well since they were included in the 501(3)(c) classification. I guess band booster orgs can't talk politics either but that wasn't very likely. At that time the churches went along with it because they liked that 'not getting sued' part although a good case could be made that they couldn't have been sued prior to the bill anyway. More recent conversations with assorted people in Johnson's staff at that time have stated that Johnson had no intention of targeting churches. They were really an unfortunate by-product of the fact that they held the same IRS classification as those political action groups listed above. So prohibiting churches from commenting on politics was unintended collateral damage as it were.

So the fact that Churches can't pontificate on political issues only dates as far back as 1954. Prior to that, Churches could and did talk about any issue in the public realm that they wanted to and what the assorted Scriptures had to say about those issues. It was kind of their job. They took that job seriously and after talking to a pastor last weekend I learned that they still do and really resent not being able to talk about them today.

They feel that this is a violation of 1) their first amendment right to free speech and 2) their right to freely practice their religion without being impeded. You know, what the Constitution expressly prohibits the government from doing.

There is pretty much nothing in the political sphere topic wise that doesn't have some scripture somewhere that might be interpreted to reasonably apply. When you ask the question, "What does the Bible say about....?" the answer is rarely if ever "Nothing."

One research paper I read on this topic (yeah, college professors have written papers on this) mentioned that most pastors don't talk about politics for purely practical reasons. "Church leaders knew that, if they went out on political limbs, their actions would reveal political divisions in all except the most homogeneous churches. Once activated, these divisions would threaten congregational civility, especially in churches with heterogeneous memberships. In churches with democratic politics allowing members to hire and fire pastors, it also could cost church leaders their jobs." One poll found that only 10% of pastors even wanted to endorse candidates in elections. But that question is substantially different from asking if they mind being prohibited from doing so.

I guess all this is getting to the question of why can't churches talk about anything they want to? Most do already. Why isn't the Johnson Amendment a violation of the freedom of religious expression?

There are groups out there trying to get the amendment overturned through the time honored practice of breaking the law, getting punished for it, then taking the case to court on the grounds the law is unconstitutional. One such org is "Alliance Defending Freedom", a conservative Christian nonprofit organization with the stated goal of "defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation." They are interested in the standard suite of social conservative issues like traditional marriage, abortion, and prayer in school. They have been sponsoring an event called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" where pastors agree to preach a sermon about election issues and then send a copy of the sermon to the IRS. This has been going on since they started it in 2008. I wonder why they only got interested in overturning the Johnson Amendment in 2008? These guys have been trying to get the IRS to punish them for six years and so far the IRS has ignored them. And they have a fair amount of pastors supporting them. 1,621 church and religious leaders participated in 2012. In 2013 that number dropped to nearly 1,100 participants. These churches provoke the IRS by endorsing candidates from the pulpit during Pulpit Freedom Sunday events.

As stated earlier, the IRS has ignored them. This resulted in a law suit from the Freedom from Religion Foundation to force the IRS to at least have some mechanism in place to investigate these churches. The IRS said sure, we can set that up, and still ignored them afterwards. Seems the IRS would rather have the rule unquestioned (and unenforced) vs. questioned and possibly overturned.

While I don't agree with the politics of the Alliance Defending Freedom group, I have to admit I think they have a point. The Constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment has never been tested and it probably should. I am not so sure it would be upheld.

I know this thread is the perfect storm of politics AND religion and as such I humbly request we not devolve into a cat fight over these issues. Yeah, I know. I just thought it was an interesting way to look at the issue. What would the results be if the rule was overturned? Should the results of overturning the rule be a consideration in whether it should be overturned? Anyway, now you know the kinds of things I do when I get curious.

[millring]

Good post.

[patrick]

Churches aren't prohibited from talking politics, or endorsing candidates.

They are prohibited from doing that AND enjoying special tax free privileges at the same time.

When they voluntarily filed for (c)(3) status, they voluntarily gave up that right in return for a break on their taxes. Furthermore, they can set up affiliated political organizations that are not (c)(3)s to pursue political activities. They just want to have their cake and eat it too.

When you voluntarily become a Federal employee, you voluntarily give up some rights that others enjoy. There are limits on your political activities, and there are limits on your ability to sue the Federal government. Don't like it? Quit.

Churches want to spout politics from the pulpit? Pay taxes like everyone else.

(In reality, the prohibition on (3)(c)s engaging in politics is almost nonexistent anymore. Hence the farce of the IRS "scandal.")

[Marshall]

Oct 29, 2014 13:54:04 GMT -5 millring said:

Good post.

Awfully long, though. . . , (I'll read it later when I've got more time. )

[Doug]

I'm not big on churches spouting political stuff, but seems to me that it is certainly unconstitutional to prohibit it.  

And the power to tax is the power to destroy.  - Daniel Webster  and upheld by the SC.  

Which also means that any tax on paper, pens, TV, internet, computers, phones and arms is also unconstitutional.  If it's protected in the BoR taxing it is the power to destroy.   

[Fingerplucked]

Interesting post, Tramp.  Interesting thought process too.

I looked at the length of it and almost stopped. I thought it might be better to wait for it to come out on Kindle. Then I thought what the hell, I've got nothing better to do for the next hour or two.

[Fingerplucked]

BTW, it never would have occurred to me to dig into it.  I would have chalked it up to common sense: the best way to keep government out of religion is for religion to keep out of government.

But in typing that out, I can see where I went wrong.  I had common sense, government and religion all lumped together.

[Doug]

I don't know about other faiths but I don't see how it's possible to be preaching Christianity and not be involved in politics.

[fauxmaha]

There's really no reconciling the First Amendment with any form of taxation on churches.

Which suggests that the government must decides who is and who isn't a church.

Which is itself irreconcilable with the First Amendment.

Hmmm...

[theevan]

Probably all faiths, Doug. Well, most of 'em.

I humbly request we not devolve into a cat fight over these issues.

Oh come on, Tramp. You're no fun...

I could probably discuss this, but my viewpoint is colored by my deep suspicion of the institutions of the visible church.

But I'm digging the invisible.

[Deleted]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.




Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist group.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.


I was going to throw the "Separation of Church and State" card in the mix but in researching that I found it is not in the Bill of Rights, it's only a statement made by Jefferson.

[Doug]

Had a thought.  Because the SC has said that money = speech and the SC has said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  It must follow that you can't tax money.  But then we have an amendment allowing taxing of income, so I guess that would be legal just all other taxes on money must not be like sales tax. 

[Russell Letson]

"Establishment" of religion has a pretty clear meaning in the historical context in which the Bill of Rights was composed, and Jefferson's famous letter shows that the notion of separation of church and state was not utterly foreign to our supposedly religion-friendly founders (pace the "America was founded on Christian principles" and "this is a Judeo-Christian nation" crowds). It took a couple centuries for courts and legislatures to come around to the notion that "free exercise" didn't extend to injecting sectarian values--or any solely religious practices or preferences--into public life.

If a religion is a matter of individual belief (or at least profession), standards of behavior, and free association, it has no more official standing than the local Toastmasters International or DAR chapter. The problem with cutting out a special place or status for religion in public affairs is lit up by the nature of Scientology (a giant fraud and tax scam with legions of delusional adherents) or by Pastafarianism or the Church of the SubGenius or Discordianism (all deliberately parodic religion-constructs). If the legislators who design tax codes decide to offer special status for organizations that deliver some concrete, well-defined social or economic benefit to the polity (charities and civic non-profits are the classic examples), that's jake with me. But carving out a special niche just for people who profess some set of beliefs and claim special metaphysical status for them strikes me as having no particular social benefit--except for whatever activities they might engage in that do provide some public benefit. I'll say it right out in the open: Any arrangement that lets Scientology operate as a tax-free enterprise is fundamentally flawed. (Now I'd better go check the mailbox for rattlesnakes.)

[Deleted]

The twin, politicians and their religious speech for political gain is of equal and related concern.

[Doug]

Oct 29, 2014 17:40:57 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

"Establishment" of religion has a pretty clear meaning in the historical context in which the Bill of Rights was composed, and Jefferson's famous letter shows that the notion of separation of church and state was not utterly foreign to our supposedly religion-friendly founders (pace the "America was founded on Christian principles" and "this is a Judeo-Christian nation" crowds). It took a couple centuries for courts and legislatures to come around to the notion that "free exercise" didn't extend to injecting sectarian values--or any solely religious practices or preferences--into public life.

If a religion is a matter of individual belief (or at least profession), standards of behavior, and free association, it has no more official standing than the local Toastmasters International or DAR chapter. The problem with cutting out a special place or status for religion in public affairs is lit up by the nature of Scientology (a giant fraud and tax scam with legions of delusional adherents) or by Pastafarianism or the Church of the SubGenius or Discordianism (all deliberately parodic religion-constructs). If the legislators who design tax codes decide to offer special status for organizations that deliver some concrete, well-defined social or economic benefit to the polity (charities and civic non-profits are the classic examples), that's jake with me. But carving out a special niche just for people who profess some set of beliefs and claim special metaphysical status for them strikes me as having no particular social benefit--except for whatever activities they might engage in that do provide some public benefit. I'll say it right out in the open: Any arrangement that lets Scientology operate as a tax-free enterprise is fundamentally flawed. (Now I'd better go check the mailbox for rattlesnakes.)

While I agree with that in general I think it's a case of the good far out weighs the bad.  And there is no way to draw a line that isn't subjective with the government deciding what is god.  Drawing lines is hard enough with material things like cars or guns but you are opening a real can of worms drawing lines in god.

Edit: Not good in the church does good but good in the government having to stay out of religion. 

[Cornflake]

I saw the thread title and thought: Hey! Rumble! But no. What's this place coming to?

This is an issue where generally applicable constitutional principles break down a bit because of history. My tentative view, about which I don't feel strongly, is that churches should be both exempt from taxes and free to express their views on politics. They have a special constitutional status. I may well be wrong and don't greatly care.

[Deleted]

If politicians and would be politicians were exempted from tax if they didn't use their position to make appeals to people on religious grounds. I wonder how that would play out.

[aquaduct]

Oct 29, 2014 20:41:24 GMT -5 @elf said:

If politicians and would be politicians were exempted from tax if they didn't use their position to make appeals to people on religious grounds. I wonder how that would play out.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2014 20:44:29 GMT -5 aquaduct said:

Oct 29, 2014 20:41:24 GMT -5 @elf said:

If politicians and would be politicians were exempted from tax if they didn't use their position to make appeals to people on religious grounds. I wonder how that would play out.

What does that have to do with anything?

In a thread that discusses the separation of church and state and taxation? There are connections, less tangential than often observed here.

[fauxmaha]

I think churches should be treated by the federal income tax code exactly the same as any other incorporated entity.

But then, I don't think there should be any taxes on income for any incorporated entity, so there's that.