https://www.au.org/blogs/texas-church-johnson
https://www.facebook.com/181549438557178/videos/1496460373885187/
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1744/johnson-amendment
http://projectfairplay.org/letters
http://projectfairplay.org/the-johnson-amendment/#johnson-amendment
During a sermon on October 14 of this year, Pastor
Derek Rogers of the Cowboy Church of Corsicana, Texas
warned against Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden
and issued a blatant endorsement of President Donald Trump.
Pastor Rogers’ rejection of Biden was framed through a
religious lens, saying “I do not understand how anybody
that calls themselves a Christian could vote for the agenda
and the platform of Joe Biden.”, and “if you’re gonna vote
as a Christian, and vote for biblical truth, you better vote for
Donald Trump,”. This sermon was live streamed and later
posted onto the Cowboy Church of Corsicana’s official Facebook
page, which is self categorized under the identity of a
religious organization. While Mr. Rogers has absolutely every
right to hold the views that he expressed, there is a legal boundary
to him doing so in the context of a religious service that is
representative of a religious organization: the Johnson Amendment.
The Johnson Amendment was passed as a part of a bill
reorganizing the Internal Revenue Code. The amendment,
as it pertains to religion, does not allow religious organizations
that receive tax-exempt status to issue an endorsement to any
particular political candidate, although it also restricts any private
organization which falls under the category of a “public good”, i.e.
charitable or scientific organizations. The most common enforcement
of the amendment is revoking the organization’s tax exempt status.
This issue may be familiar because in 2017, President Trump issued
an executive order “to defend the freedom of religion and speech”
with the explicit intent of diminishing the restrictions found in the
Johnson amendment. The executive order did not overturn the
amendment, it is still legal, but it does prevent the IRS from
enforcing the restrictions and punishing those who violate them. A
common concern of those who support the President’s executive order
is that the Johnson amendment unconstitutionally restricts free
speech and Free Exercise rights. Pastor Rogers’ endorsement is
technically illegal, even if no legal action will
be taken against him, but should it be? Are President Trump’s efforts
to ease the restrictions of the Johnson amendment in line with the
frameworks the Court uses to decide issues of religious liberty? It will
be up to whoever succeeds the President to decide whether to continue
to ease enforcement of the amendment or to reinstate it and
authorize the IRS to implement it, and with that decision, they
must ask and answer this question: does the amendment
unconstitutionally restrict free exercise rights?
We have historically seen the Court be firm in its belief
that institutions that are publicly accessible and funded,
mainly public schools, should be religiously neutral in cases
like Engel v. Vitale, but we have not studied a case about what
religious leaders are able or allowed to preach in their own private
services. The closest correlation I can find is in
Bob Jones University v. United States, where the Court decided that
it was within the rights of the IRS to revoke the University’s tax
exempt status in light of their blatant racial discrimination, which
was contrary to the compelling government interest in preventing
institutionalized racism. I share the logic used in this case; the government
has an intrinsic policy/ideological goal that they want to accomplish, and
if an institution that they are in effect subsidizing is acting contrary to
that goal, there is no incentive for the government to continue to provide
aid to them. By this framework, aid is not a right, but a privilege that one
is not guaranteed or entitled to. Houses of worship are not political actors,
and giving them the right to officially endorse candidates may lead to
coercion. It would also act contrary to the public, societal good that religious
organizations can bring: unity. If we are viewing religious practice as a
means of establishing community, direct political endorsement divides and
entrenches that community from others, and therefore, it no longer has any
public good and instead has a political agenda tied to a specific candidate.
Additionally, the line is drawn at the official act of endorsing a candidate;
religious organizations are free to speak out on any social, moral, or political
issue that they choose, and nothing is stopping Pastor Rogers from posting a
video or essay on his own personal Facebook page; he’s just not allowed to
endorse a candidate using taxpayer dollars, directly or indirectly. It’s also
worth noting that besides the issue of religious organizations endorsing
Presidential candidates, the amendment covers other kinds of organizations,
like charities, and therefore does not have the primary effect of restricting
religious expression. The fundamental goal of the amendment is to prevent
inappropriate involvement of non-profit organizations in the political process,
which is most relevantly characterized by concerns over immoral or shady
campaign finance.
However, there is reason to believe that the Court may fear content based
discrimination, which has been found to be unconstitutional in
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, where they ruled in favor of the
student publication, Wide Awake, being given the same reimbursement
rights as non-religious student clubs. This is not dissimilar to a church
being given tax exempt status. A Justice who is concerned with
content based religious discrimination in a journalism context would
most likely also be concerned with that same kind of discrimination
in churches upon this foundational principle: the government should
not place an extra burden on religious individuals expressing their
speech and free exercise rights. While endorsing a candidate may not
be a form of religious expression (unless you believe in a God Emperor,
in which case, ok cool), their speech is still being limited, although I don't
find it to be in a way that is outweighed by Free Exercise concerns.
In this case, I do not find the issue of content based discrimination
convincing, and I think that if this were taken to Court, the the Johnson
amendment would be found to be constitutional on the grounds that
there is a compelling government interest in maintaining the wall of
separation. The amendment is also just not primarily about religion,
and the President's insistence on a Free Exercise violation is, to me, baseless.
It’s additionally worth mentioning that religious leaders all
around the country support the Johnson amendment as it stands. It’s not
just within the government’s interests, but also a religious organization’s
interests to be protected from partisan politics, which is why changing
the law as it stands is deeply unpopular. Allowing explicit endorsements
of particular candidates would create an unhealthy pressure for religious
organizations to become politically affiliated, because to not do so would mean that
the religious organization has no "base", like a political party. It encourages
polarization, partisanship, and competition in a context where it does not
belong; this is not a concern we should impose upon religion. Perhaps our
President would be in support of the Cowboy Church of Corsicana’s right to
endorse candidates, but this is an easy thing to support when you’re the
one being endorsed. Therefore, while it may be within the interests of a
political candidate or party to oppose the Johnson amendment, the
provisions it enacts are essential to maintaining a wall of separation; the
exact point of it is to act contrary to the interests of any political actor by
maintaining neutrality.
9 comments:
First of all, I always think it is interesting or perhaps ironic when people cite voting for Donald Trump because they are religious when Trump is not religious at all himself and in fact Joe Biden is but anyway more related to the topic you discussed, I agree with your analysis. Thinking back to the Founders, particularly Madison, in Memorial and Remonstrance he noted that it was important to keep secular or political affairs out of religion as they would end up weakening the religion itself and so I think he would also agree with the provisions outlined in the the Johnson Amendment as well.
I agree with the author on this post, and I think this is a really interesting issue in which the roles are somewhat reversed compared to what we usually discuss. It is important to note that the Johnson Amendment does not restrict religious leaders from discussing politics at all, but simply prohibits them from endorsing one in an organized religious setting. This is similar to how public school teachers cannot promote any religious views while on the job. Ultimately, both individuals are receiving funding from the State and there is an interest in separating politics from religion.
This particular case is very interesting and I can see why it is so highly controversial. On one hand, how can you censor what a preacher preaches in his sermon? But on the other hand, how can you stand by and watch a religious leader endorse one candidate over another. I had never heard of the Johnson Amendment before this, and I find it very interesting. I think that it would be hard to prosecute it in court just because of the difficulty in deciding what is an "endorsement" or just simply an educated religious opinion. If the pastor really believes this opinion to be crucial to his faith, how can we restrict that?
I have overall mixed opinions on this case. I think it is important to understand that there is a difference between having and discussing political beliefs versus actively endorsing specific political candidates and parties within religious spaces. I do support individuals actively discussing politics and debating it with individuals they may know, even if they know those people from religious groups. However, actually including political endorsements within the religious services itself is clearly violating what should be a separation of religion and politics. The Johnson Act should be considered constitutional as it has a clear purpose of maintaining non-political neutrality within religion.
I agree with your conclusions in this case and can see how this case is very controversial. I think that a preacher should be allowed to discuss and comment on his/her political opinions as that is protected by the First Amendment and that they should not be allowed to endorse a candidate within the church setting. I think that the line between discussing and endorsing is very thin and easy to cross. Also, I do believe that if a church is caught endorsing a particular candidate and pushing their beliefs onto their church community, they should then have their tax-exempt status revoked.
I also think that any institution that receives state funding should not be allowed to endorse anyone presidential candidate. Obviously, the preacher and all members of their church cannot be asked to sacrifice their free speech rights for their religious ones; however, state support (like tax cuts) comes with conditions that the church and its members must accept and abide by to continue receiving the support. I think you make this point when you invoke the Bob Jones case in your analysis. The court never said Bob Jones U could not racially discriminate, but they couldn't receive tax cuts while doing so.
I agree with the author's opinion throughout the case. I think the most important thing to emphasize is that the Johnson Amendment does not have an effect on whether or not religious leaders are allowed to have political views rather they as well as religious organizations are not supposed to endorse political views. I am concerned that if we allow religious institutions to hold and endorse their political beliefs that political leaders will try to sway churches similiar to when they have rallies attempting to gain voters. Also coercion could play a large role. Religious institutions could discriminate based on political view or force their members to vote certain ways.
Because the Church is supported by the state through tax credits, I do not believe that the preacher should be allowed to publicly endorse a candidate and denounce the opponent. I think that the overall statement said by Rogers is not only critizing Biden but is calling his audience for action. I do not believe that it is constitutional for Rogers to do so, because he is receiving state benefits. Likewise to the government cannot endorse a candidate, religious institutions should not be permitted to do so. I agree with your application of Bob Jones and analysis of the Johnson Amendment.
I agree with the assertions made in this blog. I believe the most important part about this case is that we must remember that the church is supported through tax dollars by the state, so according too the Johnson amendment, the church must separate itself from ordering or suggesting church goers with their political opinions. I believe that this is essential. people go to church to hear from the lord, and if they here the man that is supposedly closer to God than they are speaking about how god would want them to vote, it would certainly sway their opinion.
Post a Comment