I saw a meme about the filing of an amicus brief. This meme was declaring the IRS cannot restrict freedom of speech. The speech it was referring to was political endorsements from churches. It centers of the Johnson amendment. It’s an amendment to the tax code, not the constitution.

The Johnson amendment was introduced by Lyndon B Johnson in 1954. He was a senator at the time. The bill was to prohibit non-profits, including churches from using their funds and influence to campaign against political candidates, including himself! It doesn’t have any effect of the first amendment to the constitution.

In July of last year, the IRS ruled that the church and pastors could, from the pulpit and in good faith through the lens of religious doctrine, talk about political issues. In doing so they would not risk losing their tax-exempt status. In short, pastors could endorse or oppose candidates.

Various groups have submitted amicus briefs on both sides of the argument. There is fear that by allowing pastors to endorse or oppose candidates and/or political parties, shell churches could be established. These churches would act like political action committees. On the other side of that argument are those insisting it violates the first amendment right to free speech.

The right to free speech and religious freedom was of paramount importance to the founding fathers. It is the first amendment to the constitution after all. The first amendment, along with the nine others in the Bill of Rights, were the result of political compromise. It has to be remembered the church of England had tremendous influence in government and the founders wanted to avoid that!

As with everything else there will be those that abuse, misuse and stretch legislation to their benefit. Does freedom of speech mean you can just say whatever you want? Not if it is, hate speech, slanderous or libel. The old, you can’t holler fire in a crowded theater. Lyndon Johnson was concerned that religious leaders would tell their parishioners who to vote for and so introduced that amendment to the tax code. He knew he wasn’t going to change the first amendment.

In my view the church has always been political. It’s inevitable. What is the purpose of religious instruction? It is concerned with how we treat our fellow man. It is concerned with what is morally correct. Thou shalt not murder is very clear, although it is most often quoted as, thou shalt not kill. There are those making a distinction between those wordings. Is murder the same as killing?

I’m not going to get into that discussion. I do believe that Pastors have exactly the same right to voice their opinions as everyone else. They also have a responsibility to their parishioners. It is a matter of trust and of faith.

Will pastors sell out to the highest bidder? Will pastors share their personal opinions, their views on political issues including candidates? My feeling is they certainly will, even if they have to do within some boundaries, some restrictions. Can we prevent people from engaging in nefarious activities? No, we can’t, all we can do is punish after the fact.

The Johnson amendment is an attempt to silence the dissenters by punishment, the withholding of tax-exempt status. Today we have social media influencers whose purpose is to do what? Influence you! What does a pastor hope to do? Influence you to follow a religious doctrine, that’s what.

It is interesting to note that the bill was passed by voice vote. That means there was no committee hearings, no debate on the floor of the senate, just a verbal vote that was unanimous!

Congress was almost evenly divided along political lines at that time. Interesting that regardless of political party they all agreed, Pastors should remain silent about who and what party to vote for! They don’t get free speech! They all agreed there should be exceptions to that!