Repeal the Johnson Amendment: Make Free Speech for Churches Great Again

American Thinker ^ | August 4, 2016 | John Steinreich

[Kaslin]

While the media-begotten pseudo-scandals inundate the electorate with pro-Hillary messaging in an attempt to derail the Trump candidacy, it will do us well to consider some of the substance upon which concerned voters may wish to rely as they are sorting out the 2016 election. Donald Trump’s nomination acceptance speech contained a brief sojourn into a important but little discussed topic he has reiterated on the stump. Somewhat buried under the details that Mr. Trump laid out regarding the utter calamity that would be a Hillary Clinton presidency was his commentary on a 1954 piece of legislation known as the Johnson Amendment. The germane section of the speech was this:

At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical community who have been so good to me and so supportive. You have so much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans.

Trump’s inclusion of his desire to repeal the Johnson Amendment as a component of his strategy to win the White House is something unique: it is an unexpected shot across the bow against the left, whose culture war has blocked Americans of traditional faith from using the power of the pulpit to influence political discourse over the past half-century.

[Gamecock]

Ya beat me to it.

[gdani]

And so you would favor the government taking 40% of what the faithful give to the church?

How about they reorganize as 501(c)(4) and say what they want, when they want, and still pay no federal income tax? The big difference would be donations from their congregants would not be tax-deductible.

[\/\/ayne]

Pulpit Freedom Sunday page also has a link to a great history of the Johnson Amendment.

[buffaloguy]

Dropping their 501c(3) would kill off most churches. Property taxes alone would do it. It would also make financing new churches very dicey.

Churches work on very thin cash flow.

[drjimmy]

Currently, every Church has two choices: 1. Accept the exemption and preach as the government decides by omitting how the politics of today relates to scripture and Christian living.

That is 100% false. Churches that want to maintain their special tax-exempt privilege are prohibited from campaigning for or against a particular candidate for political office, and from contributing to a candidate's campaign. However, churches are allowed to conduct voter education activities, including publishing voter education guides, that do not promote voting for or against a particular candidate. They can also hold voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.

So there is a whole lot that churches can do and have been doing for decades to preach about political issues and how they relate to scripture, whether it be abortion, gay marriage, etc., and they can tell their parishioners that they should vote for or against politicians (not an individual candidate) based on their scriptural view.

[Taxman]

Self-ping.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

But neither if free speech absolute. Besides of the famous, “can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” example, the Johnson Amendment as applied to charities raises the question of whether charitable tax deductible contributions should be allowed to go for partisan causes. As a practical matter, I can guarantee you that the charitable sector is full of liberals who would love to engage in partisan activities.

But there is also a good argument to exempt religious organizations but not charitable ones, because freedom of religion is found in the Constitution, but charities are not.

[Secret Agent Man]

The fuss is the government forced the choice on us via one man, Johnson, because he wanted the church silenced from talking about his political record and aspirations. The fuss is that before this all churches were free to talk about whatever. Going back to the Founders days.

It is called iniquity. Gross injustice.

Tht is what the fuss is all about.

[Neidermeyer]

And so you would favor the government taking 40% of what the faithful give to the church?
***************
It’s an income tax ... it’s paid on profits not cashflow... It doesn’t take too much imagination to see a church have $0 in income after expenses...

[Impy]

Either repeal it, or start GD enforcing it against Black churches, they do nothing but shill for democrats.

[thulldud]

With the shekels come the shackles.

In this case, it's keeping your own shekels that bring the shackles.

Ain't gummint wonderful?