In a surprising move, the IRS has effectively weakened the Johnson Amendment by stating that religious organizations can now speak about electoral politics from the pulpit without jeopardizing their tax exempt status, so long as it's done in good faith and within customary religious communication. The Johnson Amendment, in place since nineteen fifty four, prohibits nonprofits, including churches, from endorsing political candidates. Although rarely enforced, only one church has ever
lost its tax exempt status. Religious conservatives have long sought its removal, arguing is restrict free speech. A legal settlement now exact exempts sorry two Texas churches from the rule entirely. Critics argue the shift could transform houses of worship into political action committees, fueling dark money into elections. Most Americans, including major religious groups, oppose pulpit endorsements. Civil rights groups warn this decision undermines both the integrity of religious institutions
and the foundation separation of church and state. The story is from NPR, published on July eighth, twenty twenty five. Okay, so, first off, before we get started, I would like to welcome our brand new guest hosts, Filaba guested. Hello, flabagasted. How are you?
I'm doing so well. Thank you very much for having me here.
It is our pleasure indeed. And also may I please say hello to Eli? How art thou nice?
Cynthia? Well, how's ever ready?
Oh? I think that we're all Peter King jellybean in the place that we are to be nonprofiting, So, you know, flabbergasted. Since you are our first guest that's here, I would like to know what are your thoughts on this particular decision from the IRS.
Ooh. I think in a way it doesn't really change a lot in practice, but I think it does kind of start eroding some of the foundations that we have set up as a society to ensure that our government and religious institutions are separate from each other, which is effectively what this nation was founded upon. And that's my biggest concern. Like, in practice, it doesn't mean much necessarily,
it could. I could be totally wrong that there's some people talking about like greater concerns when it becomes of finances and money and stuff. But when we talk about it in practice, I don't know if it's going to change much, but it is an erosion of foundations that really concern you on it.
Yeah, I think I think that is very factual to be concerned about the erosions that could be taking place just because now you have faith based organizations that can actually involve themselves in electioneering, which is a no no for all of us who happen to be part of secular organizations. Right, the ACA just not electioneer. We like people to come up with their own thoughts. The only thing that we do is like present the news. But at the same time, we do understand that there's a
double standard when it comes to religious and faith based organizations. So, Eli, I'm going to go ahead and put my next question to you. So, can you see or do you know, what are the potential consequences for a democracy and civil society for allowing tax exempt religious institutions to endorse political candidates.
I think the consequences, I mean, we're kind of seeing this already. I think this is nothing new, Like, churches have been doing this for decades. The only time that Johnson Amendment was ever enforced, it was mentioned in the article, was in nineteen ninety two. So like if if that was before April that year, that didn't even happen. In my lifetime. So this change isn't really it's just cementing what's already been de facto for like a long time
in my view. But I think as far as the consequence is, what we're going to see is that because this bareness boundary is no longer there, this line is no longer there, now they have the freedom to find the next line and start crossing that and like just do that little by little until that becomes a norm, and then that restriction gets lifted and now there's one less boundary because like churches are no stranger to like
crossing lines like ethically or morally illegally. Hi, the Vatican, I'm looking at you, so like it's not that's kind of what I think. It's sort of like there're just this I called it like religious quantum tunneling, where like there's a boundary there, but the religious movement has just enough like momentum or energy that just a little bit of that is crossing that boundary and we're just like, Yep, that's normal, no problem.
Well, first, Eli, I like to mention that you mentioned that nineteen ninety two wasn't even in your lifetime. Fuck you. Secondly, let me clarify it.
So I was, so, I was more then April of ninety two, right.
So and so kids these days, I don't know when.
Depends on when when that actual event took.
Place, but sure, sure, yeah, you know, well whatever, good you flabbergasted. We're going to keep this road on the show. What are the arguments behind the idea of the Johnson Amendment.
The idea behind the Johnson Amendment is effectively that if you make it where religious institutions or nonprofit organizations in general are getting federal benefits but they're also politicking effectively, then they're able to engage in politics while also receiving benefits from politicking. Right, So it's effectively this circle that is a circle of corruption that you want to avoid.
If you're giving people a tax cut and then you're giving them an ability to engage in politics to get further tax cuts or do other things with the tax cuts that they're receiving, then you're creating, effectively in a corrupt system.
Indeed, I yeah, I bet, I bet, I bet that we can all think of certain policies that have come out since we've been having issues with some of dark money that has been involved with politics, right, and yeah, just this a couple but we are still experiencing the backlash of it, right because you know, now we have and like I said, I think they look alike of a lot of us have seen, you know, churches and faith based leadership have like dared the I R s
to take away the taxes and status. I can even think of what's his name, greg A Lott, who's like, I don't care about the Johnson A Mendment take away my taxes in status. I gotta speak the truth. I gotta you know, lift the bear.
God.
Yeah he has to you know, wave a sword and things of that nature. Who knows.
But by the baseball bat in the Barbie house.
Right, yes, yes, yes, And I was like very upset because I always wanted a Barbie dream house. How dare you destroy that? But you know reasons. But I want to know, I Eli, because you mentioned something specifically that you were surprised to learn about. Can you talk a little bit more about that?
Yeah, so, and it was kind of based off of a little bit of your notes.
But I was, uh uh, well, and I'll say this this this here was like this was the first step in like like preventing like religion running away in government, right, Like in principle, it remains true that like they're not allowed.
To financially contribute to like electoral campaigns or political campaigns as a church organizations, as a charitable organization, but that doesn't mean that they can't like now they can encourage their congregants to do so, or they can't collect tithings. And then just like after they pay them themselves their salary, make a personal donation, which they could have done all along, I guess anyway, but it just kind of opens the door.
It's like, that's just that next line that I was talking about a little bit ago, like since they're financial if they're a most churches or a five oh one C four or to have that designation rather than five oh one C three, And one of the differences there is that they don't have to make their their financial books public, so they can basically it's just that next line that they can easily get away with crossing because
who's going to stop them? And it's you know now that they don't have to worry about catching a fade from the I R S for supporting uh, like you know, speaking in support of any given you know, system or candidate and now they can just do the next thing.
You know, I just think about, like, while I was listening to you about when it comes to enforcing Ceartain guardrails that are placed up in order for you know, certain constitutional laws to be adhered to, and how slowly but surely we're eroding them. It makes me just think about, like, Okay, so what is going to be the guardrail is going to be put up right in order to keep people
from actually going too far? You know, we have in like federal government, you know, regulators, right, we have inspector generals what we used to to actually say what you could and could not do and actually like you know, step in and investigate certain things that may be happening from the top level on down that would say, hey, you can't do this because the law says blah blah blah. But when you get rid of that guardrail, what does
that say? What does that say to the institution, What does that say to how to protect you know, people from being propagandized by faith based leaders and how they're going to be led when it comes to their politics. Right, and even like we're always seeing and we've been seeing
this chipping away of the church state separation. I would say for the past like fifty to sixty years right where we are constantly blurring the lines about what can be said, what can't be said, what can be done, what can't be done, and to the point where we're just looking at just like I said, article said to turn you know, churches into packs right five one, one c fours instead of being like five o' one to ce threes where they can give money to candidates, where
they can like invite what they which a lot of them already do, invite candidates for them to go ahead and to talk to their congregations about you know, what they want to do if you send them into whatever seats that they're going to be occupying at that time. And we even did a story, you know, I would say like a few years not like a few weeks ago, where a pastor openly admitted that they received a ten thousand dollars donation just because they were open about their
political leanings. And that was and I mean like it was on tape and everything, and like nothing happened to this person. He used to still run around like ain't nothing wrong, you know what I'm saying, so he's like, da da da da da, send me more money. I'm going to tell I'm going to say more things that you are going to like, and you know, and and in the meantime, I can go ahead and just get enriched by, you know, doing this thing. So all of
it is like so problematic. But you know, fiber guests, did I want to ask you, if the Johnson Amendment is no longer meaningful and meaningfully enforced, what safeguards, if any, should exist to prevent tax exempt churches from becoming political powers centers.
I think the best approach to addressing this as a problem is to not have a rule on the books that people can wave away with a stroke of a pen as the way that we're drawing a line between what we should and shouldn't be allowed to do as nonprofit organizations or as churches who are getting nonprofit benefits, right, And that's Congress needs to step up and create legislation that can't be removed with that penstroke, because aside from
removing this Johnson Amendment, there are no other guardrails. There is nothing else holding any of any of them accountable. None, And so there's not a solution and we could just put this back, but then it never had teeth in the first place. And if we just put it back into place, then it's going to be ignored even more than it was in the past, because the fact that it could just be removed under someone's whim means it's pointless. And so we need actual legislation we needed, and we
need it actually enforced. If anything, anything that's actually put back on the books needs to be enforced meaningfully. And that's what we need to be doing if we're going to be having this clear cut line between church and the state in the meaningful way.
Yeah, I hear you. What about you, Eli, same question to you.
I think that kind of goes right back to what I was saying earlier, like this, this was it. This was the one that was like supposed to stop, you know, people from doing that. Now that don't have that to worry about, you know, they can just casually contribute here and there and wait and eventually it'll just be the way of the world. I think that I think that it makes sense for people's religious views to influence their
to be careful to the decisions they make politically. Right, So I they're going to listen to their religious leaders when it comes to forming those opinions that form their their voting decisions. So I think that it makes sense. But like if if they're going to go, if they're going to get advice to form those decisions from that clergy, from those religious leaders, I think that should be like
a private conversation. I think that's and and and and it it goes so deep, and it doesn't really like what the thought I have there doesn't really answer your question. I don't have. I don't know what else it should be that this was the one thing that was in place to stop that from happening, and it's not there. So it makes me nervous, and I hope that there will be I'm going to stop that thought, but in
the interest of our organization. But I think in a truly free society, there would be a time in which this Johnson Amendment is adequately enforced and there is a lot less relious influence in governance.
Yeah, you know, I was just thinking as he was talking about how I've recently had a conversation with the theist, and I was alluded to how a lot of us have watched debates over time where apologists will make a mistake and say that there is an atheist world view, like there is a specific atheist world view, and that always makes me go insane because atheists are varying when it comes to their world views, and being an atheist is not a worldview in itself. It's just a position.
Do you believe in a God or God's answer?
Yeah?
Right, So, but I can say personally that, you know, being secular, being a non believer, does influence some of my worldview, but there are going to be other factors that are more predominant in my life that's going to definitely influence how I think and how I how I proceed in life, and including how I look at the world and even how I look at the nation and I and I know that if I had like some what let's just like you know, as we always say, if we had like some flying spaghetti monster that was
constantly talking to the atheists and say you vote this way, you do this, you do that, I think that we would balk at that, right. We would definitely be like, you know, shut up, fine spaghetti monster, get on my plate, give me some marinaire sauce. And then also I want all the parmesan in the world, right, you know, went a little fennel. But regardless of that now making myself hungry.
But you know, but that's where that stops, right, you know, because like I think that, like all of us have had conversations with other people who happen to be atheists who were from a very different spectrum when when it comes to like how we lean politically. But one of the things that I felt was important, and this is something that you know, we do and highly influence and
highly respect in our religion. In our particular UH organization at the Atheist Community of Austin is making sure that we have a way for us to be able to talk about certain things without electioneering, without jeopardizing our positions when it comes to to A five and one C three. I mean, like we believe in actually I don't know, following the rules of the law. That's why, Yeah, exactly.
You know.
I was like, you know, so when you say, you know, I'm was going to stop right here, I was like, I feel you because like I was doing that like the whole time that I was actually just keeping coming
up with my notes. But I think that like what can be said about all of this is that it's it's if I want to speak for myself, it's incredibly unfair for there to be a standard that's different from you know, faith based organizations versus like, you know, organizations like us when it comes to you know, how we
proceed with you know, political thought. But at the same time, you know, it would make more sense for a lot of us to be like, you know what, even though that may be something that the irs decided to do, we're still going to follow those So with that being said, I like to give both of you a chance to get out your final thoughts. Flabberg A said, I'm going to start with you, and then I'm went to round up with mister Eli.
Well, thank you. I think what you touched on there is really important in regards to the two things. One the fact that this rule only seems to be applying for religious institutions, not all nonprofits. So the entire justification that they put out for this as a problem was that it was an infringement on free speech. But apparently free speech now only applies to religious institutions and not all nonprofits, and so it's completely contradicting the basis for
their argument. It also shows that where the bias actually is in this case. They're not trying to give people more opportunities to engage in politics or not be curtailed in their speech in any meaningful way, which is also a misunderstanding what free speech actually means. But they're trying to give effectively more power to people who they think are going to be supporting them on these topics. And
it's a very biased approach to it. But I think the other thing that's really important that we all need to be aware of is this is not an atheist versus religious issue. This is not a This is a issue of secularism, which is beneficial to all types of religious beliefs across the spectrum, right because once you allow one religion and we all know there's a particular version of religiosity that's going to be advantaged in this much more than any other religion that you can't guess which
one that is. It's not Buddhism, my friend, that it's going to negatively affect all of these Everyone, everyone across the spectrum is being negatively influenced, not just religious believers, different versions of Christianity that don't agree with the type of Christians that are going to be taking advantage of this new rule set are going to be disadvantaged by
this as well. So it's clear favoritism towards not just religions in general, but particular versions of religion that tend to engage in this far more than others, because the other ones value, generally speaking, this idea of a secular society because that is how you have a society with multiple religions existing and thriving, which they should be allowed to do.
And certainly, Yeah, so.
One of the I don't have the name in front of me right now, but one of the people that was sort of like involved with overturning this was coryas saying or comparing churches talking about political views more like a They said, it's more like a family discussion. And for a second I was like, I didn't really think that that was I was like, honestly, I kind of
can keep behind that a little bit. But then I realized, like that would be the case if there weren't so much like coercion and blackmail basically just like baked into the whole concept. If the pass, then we're getting up in the pulpit and saying like I think this person is good because they represent these things, and that's how I interpret, you know, what God is saying to me
when I read the Bible. I encourage you to make sure that you understand what God is saying to you when you read the Bible, and make decisions that align with what God is saying to you. If that's what they were doing, like that's one thing. That's religious guidance, you know, for political views, but that's not what's happening. They're saying like if you don't, you know, behave, if you don't make this choice, then you're going to go to hell because this person is God's chosen politician. And
that's coercion, that's black mail. Like there are people that are actually genuinely terrified of what they consider or perceive to be a very real possibility of going to hell for violating what God wants. So that's not how you treat your family or in diesel. But it's it's violent, it's coercive, it's it's extortive, and it's exploitative. I guess extortive maybe also, but that's not what I meant.
Well, all right, well, you know, I'd just like to say this like. As secular humanists, we should ask if fairness, plurism, plurism pluralism that is the word, and evidence based policies are our goals, what do we lose when religion gains unchecked political access. Tax three