Five oh one C three status means that nonprofit organizations cannot get involved in certain ways in politics. Does a new policy exempt church clergy members from that very rule? EJ's here to discuss.
So.
Senator James Langford, who is known for pro is real, anti abortion, and borderline racist stances, wants the Johnson Amendment, an amendment made to keep charities and churches of politics scrap as he believes it infringes upon the free speech of passers. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, it's a bid to chisel away at the non existent barrier between church and state. The story is from The Friendly Atheist by hement Meta on the April fourteenth, twenty twenty five.
Yeah, and you know, when it comes to the effort to do away with the Johnson Amendment, it's actually not overturning an amendment per se, but.
It's just an attempt to introduce.
A new bill to revise what the IRS says five oh one C three organizations are allowed to do. I understand stood that correctly. The thing that I have a problem with here is that Lankford actually admits that this effort is not even really neededj What what is he talking about why why go through the trouble to make revisions to an IRS role that restricts political involvement from five to one or political support from five o' one c three nonprofit organizations?
Why do that? If it's if it's useless. What's he talking about?
Well, I feel part of it is because churches get away with so much, whether it's covering up assaults that we were talking about, uh with the Catholic Church, controlling towns as you tend to find in places like a Mormon communities, or even in some cases violating key legal documents that the constitution. Chances are if it's illegal, the church has done it and got away with it, which is a what IM president, hopefully not holding out much
hope we don't see continued in the future. That is an upside though, if they get rid of the Johnson Amendment, or at least they appeal some of it and allow five to one C three charities to be more vocal, it means that some charities can gloves off and speak their mind, which may not work out so well for folks like Central Langford because not all five one C
three charities are churches. Some of them are charities focused on helping people get better lives, and not all of them would agree with a lot of the things that he is very vocalist.
Well, we have the nonprofits are part of a five oh one c three nonprofit organization in the atheist community of Boston, and I don't agree with probably many of the things that Langford supports. And so if he sets a precedent for us to speak our minds a little bit more fluidly, I would welcome that. But you know, Rob, getting back to the idea of this bill not even really being necessary, is there any substance to it, and does it make a difference at all?
It depends on what you mean by what level of substantive it is. Because actually within the bill now, like he has already admitted that the point is to remove barriers from pastors being able to say things that they would otherwise not be able to say, because they're saying that like the irs is targeting them and that's simply not true, and he knows it. Pastor Josh Blevin's, for example, of the Grace Calvary Chapel in Missouri is like on
video literally just saying vote for this person. They're not going to do anything to us. So it's like they already don't respect the rules, so substantially, no, there's nothing in there because like they're already not being targeted. However, I came into this discussion being like, they need to stop it because they need to follow the rules. And frankly, you've like immediately compelled me.
It should pass.
And then since they're already not following the rule, it actually just opens everyone else up to do the thing they're already doing. So hell, yeah, brother, I'm in yeah.
And on that note, you know, with the with the pastor or excuse me, we'll not with the pastor, with the with Senator Langford already kind of admitting that clergy members do get away with this sort of thing, and maybe the bill is not necessary. I have this idea that maybe he's blowing a dog whistle to everybody to say, hey,
start campaigning. Start You're not gonna get in trouble, like you're fine, right, And so with that, I want to turn to Tracy and ask, you know, are the pastors or clergy members in this country afforded different free speech rights.
Than average Americans?
Of course, in the same way that service members are afforded different free speech rights. When you sign up to a certain agreement with the government, they afford you certain things and take away certain things as payment. When you sign up as a five ZHO one C three organization, you gain some benefits and in return you give up some things. It's that way with everything. It's just because it's with the government. You the only thing they really
give out is certain rights to certain things. And the only thing they can really take or you know, tax benefits. I suppose the only thing the only thing they can really take from you is either money, which they're giving you tax benefits. So why would they take money? So they take away you can't talk about these certain things. And I think that's kind.
Of the way it should be.
Keep if you agree to a certain set of rules, you should follow that set of rules. I don't know why that that's a that's such a big problem. Go ahead, Rob, yeah, real quick.
What I wanted to follow up with is with the admission that they are not held to the same standards. Are they actually afforded different free speech rights in a different way in that they're not restricted, but they're actually given more So go ahead, Rob, please.
Well, like that's why I was saying that EJ has just compelled me so much because EJ literally said.
Five O one C.
Three the he was quoting the Senator in fringes and the free speech of pastors as if as if that's a bad thing, Like that's the thing is that it's like they're infringing on the free speech of pastors.
Yes, it's doing.
Literally the thing it is meant to do. You're right, Like it's one of the rare cases where we can tell them, you are correct. It is infringing. That's what it's supposed to do. So it's just kind of funny to me that they're pointing to the thing working properly and being like, do you see what they're doing to us?
It's it's it's a bit like if they signed up to serve and then they had then they complained that they had to wear a scratch a uniform all day. Yeah that was in the contract.
Yeah, well I I am still currently serving, and uh I never had it in my contract that my uniform would be uncomfortable, to be honest with you.
But you know, they do. They make, they make, they make, you know, great gains and I love my job.
But there are certain things you are not permitted to say as exactly right.
That's exactly right, and I wouldn't violate that. And and you know, I take my agreement seriously. I don't understand. And that's why you know, I asked, do clergy members have the same free speech rights because they.
Seem to get away with it?
And admittedly so, And if the Senator that is writing this bill to remove that is actually saying, well, we don't really need to do it, you know, don't they already have a benefit over other people, like, for example, us, Because if I got on here in a segment, or any one of you did, and started either really bashing and obliterating a political opponent or part or excuse me, a political an elected official or political party.
You know, without supporting it with some kind of data, we could be in violation.
And something tells me that we wouldn't have the same the same protections as clergy members do.
And so on. That go ahead, Tracy, I would like to reflect on.
That well, viewers. I'm gonna speak directly to them for a second. Viewers before this segment and a few times in our recording session we're having tonight, we have talked very explicitly about what we are permitted to and what we are not permitted to say. We're talking about it in the ACA right now, going to get some new
discussions about it. We take this very seriously, and it's very disheartening to find that we care very much about like respecting the rules and following the agreement that we've made. When we find out that like these guys don't even care and they're trying to change the rules to get away with something they can already get away with.
It's worse than that they openly mocket. You watch the video with the pastor.
Joss disheartening, EJ.
Over here. It has a lot to say, but he has to like figure out how to say it so that he can stay within the constraints of what we're allowed to say. And I watch very smart man have this hard time trying to figure out what he's got to say, and they just mock us. They just mack those who want to follow the rules.
You know what I want to ask you, EJ.
Why is it that Christian institution institutions are not held to the same standards as everyone else.
I think part of it, at least in America goes back to the old anti comedy and anti Reagan days, because well, at least back then everything was seen. If it was anti USSR, it was good. And the USSR were atheists. So we need to be very strong Christians.
So you know what if occasionally a pastor breaks a little rule, well, you know what, it helps us in the long run, and that like a lot of things from that era that maybe slightly outdated, have just stuck around so that it's become normal these days to well, these this pastor may have endorsed X political party or political person. However, ah, the older it's nothing really, despite the fact that they agreed to rules that the rest
of us have to follow. And if they seriously, if they don't want to get behind the restrictions that come with the five oh one CE charity title, they should not get the benefits of the weather sure, sure.
And I think that I agree with you there.
If they are going to violate those rules, then their tax benefits should be taken away. Do you imagine with all of the discussion in government and politics right now in this country about wasting money, about not collecting adequate taxes, how much property taxes if paid to the United States, whether it's the federal government or the state and local government. How much money I don't even know. If I could put a figure on it, it'd be in the trillions.
It would have to be every year if they paid their fair share of property taxes and so yeah, the fact that they can openly teut violations of this law, it's really disconcerting to me.
And I really don't have much to say on that. I think that when it comes to well, you know.
What, I want to turn this over to you, guys, Rob, why do you think why do you think that.
This is allowed?
It's well, that's the thing. It's not allowed by rules, but it is allowed because they just keep doing it and they can openly like I'm just gonna keep harping on specifically the one video of just where he specifically says they're not going to get us, like they just they just know. One thing about this discussion that I thought was really interesting is that normally when this sort of thing occurs, the talk tends to go in the
direction of this is political theater. They're doing it for their constituents, but it doesn't actually mean anything like that's just and both sides do it genuinely, because it's all just rage bait. But what I find very interesting about this specific one is that this talk hasn't been much about the political theater ness of it, because he's already admitted that it is. He already admitted that it didn't mean anything, but like, we're genuinely considering the effects of
what if it was repealed. So it's almost like this guy, in an attempt to have political theater, hit on something that would actually be a substantial change.
Yeah, he threw a punch, no realizing it would let everyone else punch back. It's it's not something that is incredibly common, but when it does happen, it does. At least it gave me that little moment of a oh, this has a little unintended side effect that might actually help everyone else in the lone run. Maybe we shouldn't been this time.
Yeah, And I think as as people who speak out against the abuses of religion and the importance of keeping religious institutions and governments separate, we can realize, or we can speak to the fact that things do backfire and
things precedents are dangerous. Right, this is a little bit of a different case, but we know that if one group gets away with abuse, probably the rest of us, even if we're not being or gets away with If one group is abused and the abuser is not held to a standard or held accountable, that those other groups are probably going to get abused someday because nothing was done about it.
Right, This is a little bit different.
This could also backfire, and that's what makes it kind of similar.
In the way that we go about doing our business.
You know, we have to kind of call out the hypocrisy, and we have to make sure that people are held.
To standards so that standards that are not enforced don't lead.
To further abuses. And I think that these standards do need to be enforced. But if this particular one they don't want to do doesn't get enforced, like we've talked about, I'm probably okay with that because that means that I get to do more things that I'm not supposed to do, which would be really beneficial and helpful to the cause that I'm that I'm so invested in.
Go ahead, Rob, Well, the bigger issue, You're right, right, like in an equal playing field, that's absolutely correct. It's just that by virtue of being non religious we have less populations, so mob rules in this case.
Yeah, and with that, I want to just in case, just in case anybody's not following.
What we're talking about, by the way, you know. So the exemption in.
This bill that would allow clergy members to openly support political members' states that as long as their speech, their rhetoric, their support is made in the ordinary course of the organization's regular and customary activities in carrying out its exempt purpose and be results in the organization incurring not more than deminimous incremental expenses.
And what that means.
According to dot gov, a deminimus benefit is one for which, considering its value and frequency with which it is provided, is so small as to make accounting for it are reasonable. This basically says, hey, clergy members, go out support whoever you want politically, even if you get more money because of it, We're not really concerned about that because it's going to be so small. Who gets to decide what's
so small? And you know with that, Yeah, this group, these religious groups, while while most of us are not religious, and they are to the mob rule point that Rob made, they are incredibly organized.
And that is uh, that is a major.
Major concern, and so Tracy, I want to I want to talk to you about that. You know, what, in what way do the rest of us combat such an organized structure that is powerful, that has a lot of money, and that is intertwined with far right groups in our government?
What can be done?
As near as I can tell, the only thing that we can do is, UH, is to just be loud. That that's that's the best thing I can I can figure out is just be loud, don't sit down and be quiet. Bad people get stronger when good people stay quiet, and and and and that's that's the best I can I can come up with. Be loud, don't don't sit down and let things happen.
Uh.
And just as a side note, I did a little bit of calculation while you guys were talking about property tax for one specific building in my city, the Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis.
If if the.
Catholic Church were required to pay property tax on that building alone, it would be over one million dollars yearly.
So go Ahead wants to capitalize on that.
And I just want to say, I want to inject this before you transition.
How many pairs of shoes?
How many college educations, how many backpacks, how many sets of school supplies, how much clothing? Like, how in what way can that million dollars a year benefit society? But instead it does not, and AJ please take it away.
So what you were saying is bang on what I was going to say. I was also thinking about specifically pastors like Kenneth Copeland who have a private jet, and other megapastors like that, because they oftentimes don't have churches, they have stadiums.
And if you.
Are like me and you're a bit of a nerd and you get curious about figures, you should probably look up how much property tax stadium is worth, because they are worth more than you would think. They are incredibly big billings that hold people in the thousands comfortably. And I feel if instead of going down the route of diminishing the John snack, they were instead to enforce it fully.
I feel a lot of megapastors would be selling their stadiums, hopping on their private jet going to the nearest country that doesn't have any contact with the US, because they would be owing the US government a lot of money that I don't think a lot of them have.
Yeah, you know, we've covered a lot in this segment. There's so many things that I wanted to kind of harp back on. I think the property taxes and the economic impact of churches is something that everybody really needs to consider.
I mean, think about it. If you're watching this show right now.
It's very likely that you pay more in property taxes than the Catholic Church does. A multi billion dollar, one hundred billion dollar organization. I don't know how much they're endowed with or you know, what they've got. I'm sure it's in the billions, probably hundreds of billions. But in any case, you know, this is an organization, like we've talked about in previous segments, that has the money to do what they want. These clergy members on TV, they
have the money to do what they want. They pay no taxes, and I just don't understand how that sits well with America. And then harping back on, you know, where does this come from? EJ talked about, you know, earlier in our country's history. You know, we just kind of got comfortable with these policies. You know, I think that it's a much older, much older doctrine in which the church was just in charge of everything.
And we kind of just let it happen.
And it's five thousand years in the making, I mean, or older than that, where religious people or people in power said well, I get my power from God and nobody could question it because they either you know, didn't have the education to, didn't have the means to or the power to, and they just kind of accepted it.
I think our memory as human beings generationally is not one that's very long, and we tend to just kind of adopt the perspectives of our ancestors, of our forefathers, if you will, and if they kind of held the church on a pedestal many many times, they raised their
children to do it, and it's it's fine. Here we are in a a situation where now the church is openly gloating and Republican or excuse me, I shouldn't say Republicans, even though Senator Langford is a Republican, but lawmakers are gloating as well that this isn't useful, or that a measure like this isn't even really necessary.
We've recently just heard from Tracy and EJ.
Rob. I want to give you a chance to respond before we close out. So what's on your mind.
I was convinced immediately by EJ. And I have changed my mind again. They should enforce the rule because mob rules you were talking about, it's hard to fathom the immense amount of money that they have, so like wouldn't be great if you know, there's a bunch of little underdogs I can say everything that they want to say. That just wouldn't be the case. So if the rule we're actually enforced properly, then it would level the playing field because then just people couldn't say things that they're
not supposed to say. But if repealed and then people could say anything they want. The people with more money will say more. With their private jets and abilities to go places. Soney money wins. I should have more of it.
Yeah, on that note, we should have more of it.
Tracy, Tracy, you're you're dropping some fire in the private chat that we have here.
Can you just go over some of these stats that you're finding? This is crazy?
Yeah.
I looked up the value of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, which includes Eagle Mountain International Church. They're estimated to have a property value of almost sixty million dollars just in Tarrant County, and so I looked up the zip code of where they were, and I plugged that into an online calculator, and that only limited me up to ten million dollars.
So I just multiplied it by six.
Uh, and that came out with hang on, let me pull up my calculator again. The Kenneth Copeland Ministries just out of Tarrant County would have to pay seven hundred and thirty eight six hundred dollars yearly approximately. That's not accounting for, you know, whatever write offs or what have you, but that would just be their their base property tax.
That's crazy. That's crazy.
And you know, this is why our logo on the nonprofits is a preacher in kind of that circle and slash sign, you know, keep out. And I want to remind people actually on that note that the nonprofits has merch. We've got all kinds of great gear, shirts, T shirts, sweatshirts, the Bigotry duck. If it looks like bigotry and quacks like bigotry, it's probably bigotry.
And that's the Bigotry Duck for you.
But yeah, go ahead, folks, if you want to support us, go ahead, grab a T shirt like I've got, uh, Grab a tank top because the summer's coming up, and if you like coffee, grab yourself a mug.
But anyway, I want to thank you again for tuning in.
Don't forget to tune in tomorrow night with our last segment of the week, and go ahead and get yourself some merch.
Thanks.