Church politics have no place in the pulpit unless they are willing to face tax consequences
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has made a controversial decision that could significantly alter the relationship between religion and politics in the United States. In a recent court settlement, the IRS has adopted the view that churches can speak about political candidates during services without risking their tax-exempt status [1][3].
This move, critics argue, undermines the integrity of both the campaign finance system and the nation's long-held separation between church and state. It effectively loosens enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, a 70-year-old rule that barred churches from endorsing candidates without risking their tax-exempt status [1][3].
The key implications of this decision are far-reaching. Increased political speech from religious leaders is expected, with pastors and clergy now openly recommending specific candidates from the pulpit during worship services [1][3]. This could lead to more explicit political guidance from houses of worship, potentially heightening political polarization within religious communities [1].
Critics like the Interfaith Alliance argue that the new IRS stance erodes the historic boundary protecting religion from government and partisan politics. They worry it could politicize pulpits, turning churches into de facto partisan entities, undermining the Johnson Amendment’s goal [2].
The policy shift reflects ongoing debates over First Amendment protections versus maintaining a nonpartisan tax-exempt sector [1][3]. The same prohibition against campaign activity applies to secular nonprofits, including food banks, educational foundations, and cancer research institutes [4].
The IRS argues that such messaging should be seen as private "family discussions" rather than political activity [1]. However, the IRS's view is not supported by common sense, as public conversations in a church sanctuary are not private events [5].
The Johnson Amendment, a foundational element of nonprofit law, has been in place for nearly 70 years. If churches become legally sanctioned campaign platforms, the line between spiritual guidance and political manipulation blurs [6]. Wealthy donors might channel campaign cash through religious institutions to skirt campaign finance laws [7].
Some faith leaders themselves are sounding the alarm about the potential division, compromise of spiritual integrity, and weakening of public trust that political endorsements from the pulpit could cause [4]. Houses of worship, like all nonprofits, must choose: be a platform for faith or for politics. If they choose the latter, they should not expect the public to foot the bill [8].
Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court must step in to reaffirm the principles of the Johnson Amendment and ensure that tax-exempt status is conditioned on serving the public interest, not a political campaign [9]. The IRS's decision allows churches to endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status, effectively subsidizing political speech with taxpayer money [10]. This is a distortion of both the law and common sense, as public conversations in a church sanctuary are not private family discussions [5].
In summary, the IRS decision expands religious groups' political speech rights but risks deeper political conflict within faith communities and challenges long-standing norms separating religious institutions from partisan electoral politics [1][2][3].
This decision by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could lead to more political news in religious discussions, potentially polarizing general-news topics within religious communities. The IRS's stance on church political speech, if enforced, might also blur the line between policy-and-legislation and religion, potentially disrupting the traditional separation between church and state.
