Posted on 02/07/2017 4:43:33 AM PST by Kaslin
At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, President Trump promised to "totally destroy" the so-called "Johnson Amendment," a law that prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status.
Politifact.com gives the background on how the amendment became law: "The restriction was championed by (Lyndon Johnson) in 1954 when Johnson was a U.S. senator running for re-election. A conservative nonprofit group that wanted to limit the treaty-making ability of the president produced material that called for electing his primary opponent, millionaire rancher-oilman Dudley Dougherty, and defeating Johnson. There was no church involved.
"Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations, including groups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes, or to prevent cruelty to children or animals. It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn't be involved in partisan politics."
Conservatives have argued that the Johnson Amendment limits the free speech of pastors and ignores the history of the nation. They also claim the law is applied unevenly, especially when it comes to African-American churches, which have a long history of inviting mostly Democratic political candidates to speak in their churches and on occasion endorsing them without having their tax-exempt status challenged by the IRS.
Opponents of the amendment have a point, but there is a larger one. From the founding of the nation, through the Civil War when fiery pro- and anti-slavery sermons were heard from pulpits, to Prohibition, to contemporary examples, the ordained have played active roles in the nation's political and social life. Pastors should be as free as anyone to speak their minds on political issues, but should they do so from the pulpit? By focusing more on the temporal than the eternal there is the risk of diluting the power in their primary message.
There are legitimate concerns that government is not sufficiently protecting people whose consciences forbid them from participating in activities they consider immoral. Recent examples include lawsuits against Christian bakers and photographers who have refused service to people whose lifestyles offend their beliefs. The Obama administration ordered The Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptives to staff members as part of their health insurance in contravention of Catholic teaching.
The subtle temptation for evangelicals to engage in partisan politics dilutes their primary message. If I go to a political rally, I expect to hear political speeches. When I go to church, I am expecting soul food.
Many political views are represented in my church. If the pastor began preaching on politics he would find people, including me, headed for the exits. There is also the presumption that people are uninformed, needing a pastor to tell them what to think. This is as silly as the notion that conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh in order to know what to believe.
Yes, Congress should repeal the law prohibiting preachers from talking about politics from the pulpit while passing a new law protecting the consciences of believers. The larger question is: should preachers preach on politics and to what end?
Muslims would have to be included. How comfortable would those conservatives now campaigning for repeal of the Johnson law be if some imams began preaching death to America and endorsing Muslim candidates for political office? Would the repeal lead to activist mosques supporting terrorist groups? It's already happened in the Holy Land Foundation case where the government alleged money passed through the charity to support Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Whether the Johnson law is repealed, or not, evangelicals have a more powerful message than partisan politics. Senate Chaplain Barry Black referenced that power by quoting from an old hymn at last Thursday's prayer breakfast: "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly loan on Jesus' name. On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand." He said that includes government institutions.
Isn't that a better message for conservative Christians to preach than the sinking sand of partisan politics?
“Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations, including groups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes
______________________________________
and yet the teachers unions endorse a candidate every election without penalties...
I attended a church where the pastor would tackle the relevant social/political issues from a Biblical perspective. Do I want that every Sunday? No. But I do expect a pastor to be aware of what’s happening and be able to address it from a Biblical perspective.
>>>Muslims would have to be included. How comfortable would those conservatives now campaigning for repeal of the Johnson law be if some imams began preaching death to America<<<
Simple . . . he has crossed a line and will be arrested for inciting others to commit murder. Total win-win!
The premise of this article is silly you can bet mosques are already doing all this stuff including supporting Muslims and preaching against cultural and social norms in this country.
“some imams began preaching death to America and endorsing Muslim candidates for political office?”
The Muslims are a sizable voting block in Virginia now and have recently been credited for putting a Democrat governor in office. There is no doubt the imans are telling Muslims how to vote.
“It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn’t be involved in partisan politics.”
Maybe better to expand it, so that anyone getting government funds (a government benefit, as is tax absolution) can’t be involved in partisan politics, and include in those absolved the 47% that pay zero fed income tax?
>>>Muslims would have to be included. How comfortable would those conservatives now campaigning for repeal of the Johnson law be if some imams began preaching death to America<<<
Simple . . . he has crossed a line and will be arrested for inciting others to commit murder. Total win-win!
They already are. Round um up.
They already are. That's the point, the only group that the law actually is enforced against is white evangelicals. Every other group just does as they please with impunity.
“Muslims would have to be included. How comfortable would those conservatives now campaigning for repeal of the Johnson law be if some imams began preaching death to America and endorsing Muslim candidates for political office?”
Is Cal so stupid and naive that he thinks this isn’t happening now?! Is he so stupid and naive to think black churches worry one iota about this law?!
This past presidential election this black guy I know was bragging in a very public place about how in their church they fill out sample ballots the way they want the congregation to vote and pass them out. When I pointed out ‘weren’t they worried about the law and being caught doing it’. He said ‘no, everybody does it and anyway they have guards at the church doors’.
Evidently it’s just stupid white people that follow this law and have to worry about losing their tax exempt status.
i have no issue with my priest doing the same thing....i dont get at all why there should be any issue, as long as it is tied to God’s teaching.
Stupid author. My daughter and her husband are leaving their otherwise great church because of the pastor’s namby-pamby election sermons. He made it sound that chosing who to vote for is as consequential as chosing what clothes to wear in the morning. There were no strong words pointing out candidate’s position on abortion, SCOTUS appointments, or general support of Christianity.
The only ones who obey the law are conservatives, who are also the only ones who would be prosecuted under the law.
So they may as well repeal it, since it is enforced unevenly.
Otherwise, Thomas makes a point that I agree with. Politics must rest upon a moral and spiritual foundation. Get that right, and the politics will take care of itself. Fail to get that right, and it doesn’t matter what party is in office or what politician, you have no chance.
Without effective and authentic preaching, and without a critical mass of citizens who love God, you can’t hire enough cops, and you can’t elect enough politicians to fix what ails us.
Salt and Light
Matt 5:13-16
13“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."
Jesus repeatedly spoke against the Pharisees & Sadducees, the ruling elite of his day. Jesus Christ came to redeem sinners AND to teach us how to treat our fellow man, including the ruling elite.
Ezekiel 3:18-19
If I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.
“...if some imams began preaching death to America and endorsing Muslim candidates for political office?”
Blithering liberal idiot.
Inciting murder and terrorism is already against the law. (Remember what “law” is moron? Refresher course is on the way...)
Beyond preventing the incitement of murder and terrorism, conservatives don’t seem to be all that interested in stifling the political speech of their opponents. This really puzzles the Left. Our ideas tend to win when it’s an actual battle of ideas, as opposed to a violent riot or college snowflakes preventing conservative organizations from operating.
The author doesn't mention this, but it's worth noting that the blurring of the lines between politics and religion has probably been the primary cause of most "religious disputes" in the world through our history. If Muslims weren't so embedded in governments all over the world where Islam is enshrined as a state religion, they'd be treated no differently than the Amish here in the U.S.
It’s called freedom of speech. If a person doesn’t want to hear any politics from the pulpit, then go to another church.
At best, the Johnson amendment is a fig leaf. I see a myriad of leftist non-profits doing vast amounts of political activities. On principle, I don’t see why a group has to give up certain God given rights to have a tax break.
Second, I think the whole non-profit nonsense needs to be rethought and reined in sharply. A true charity should be spending, perhaps, 80+% of its money on true charity activities that is tightly defined - religious activities, helping the poor with basic needs - food, shelter, clothing, addictions kind of activities. Excluded is all the other nonsense including advocacy, voter related activities, environmental activities, legal activities and other such.
> Muslims would have to be included.
Cults are not religions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.