Churches to Obama: Tax Us, We Dare You

As Amy Sullivan dutifully reports over at the New Republic, on this coming Sunday pastors around the United States will once again attempt to provoke the federal government to audit them by delivering explicitly partisan sermons against Obama, and/or endorsing Mitt Romney. Others, she writes, will tell their congregations that a good Christian could never consider voting for a candidate who supports abortion and gay marriage. The protest, now in its fifth year, rebels against an amendment introduced by then-senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954 that prohibits tax-exempt organisations from participating in partisan politicking. The idea is that by inviting an investigation by the IRS they can challenge the law in court.

They're calling it "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" and hope that an IRS intervention will help them fight back against what they see is a war on religion by Obama. Jim Garlow, a pastor from California, has described the Johnson Amendment as a "muzzle on churches." Glenn Beck, a vocal champion of the Pulpit Freedom protest, has said that there ought to be no limits on what churches can preach to their congregations, saying, "If priests can’t speak out on public issues, then what’s the Church good for?" Amy Sullivan points out that this argument doesn't really hold water:

Let’s consider this claim. In order to believe that churches are being censored by the government, you have to accept that religious organizations have not only the right to engage in partisan speech and activities but also the right to be exempt from federal taxes and the right to accept donations that are tax-deductible. There simply is no constitutional right that covers the latter. The tax-exempt status for churches is a monetary benefit given to them by the government, as is the rule allowing individuals to deduct their contributions to religious organizations.

It’s quite simple. If a church wants to endorse a candidate and engage in campaign activities, there are absolutely no restrictions preventing it from doing so. But it must pay federal taxes, and its donors cannot deduct their contributions. Additionally, a pastor can preach about same-sex marriage or immigration reform or abortion or economic justice. But he cannot tell parishioners that they must support a particular candidate because of their views on one of those issues. Thechurches involved in Pulpit Sunday want to have it both ways. They want to use tax-deductible donations to participate in campaigns, and no doubt there are plenty of political donors who would prefer to deduct their political contributions by sending them through religious organizations.

Religious figures and their hierarchies tend to be given a pretty large pit in which to wallow when it comes to what they can and cannot say while claiming tax-exempt status. I wouldn't go so far as to say I have no qualms with churches preaching on politics (how could they not, when everything is at some level political?), but I respect their right to do so within reason. We ought to have an issue though with the line blurring between a political organisation and a religious one, since we insist upon treating them differently under the tax code. Perhaps it would be easier if countries like the United States (and, of course, New Zealand) would wake up and realise that maybe there is no line at all.

(Image: Getty)