By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The IRS has proposed a policy change that would allow pastors to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without jeopardizing their church’s tax-exempt status, effectively creating an exemption from the Johnson Amendment. This proposed interpretation stems from a joint court filing with the National Religious Broadcasters Association, aiming to halt enforcement of the amendment against the plaintiffs. The Johnson Amendment currently prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates, but the IRS now suggests this should not apply to communications during religious services through regular channels. This stance, though largely mirroring existing IRS practices, could significantly increase political expression within churches, as noted by experts in nonprofit law.
Read the original article here
IRS says churches whose pastors endorse candidates from the pulpit shouldn’t lose tax-exempt status, a stance that’s causing quite a stir, and it’s easy to see why. This directly clashes with the Johnson Amendment, a crucial part of the Internal Revenue Code that’s meant to keep charitable organizations, including churches, from getting too involved in political campaigns. Many people are deeply concerned about this.
Now, you can imagine the reactions. Some feel strongly that this is a blatant disregard for the law and that it could lead to a flood of political endorsements from the pulpit. The question becomes, if churches can openly support candidates without consequences, what’s to stop anyone from setting up a “church” solely to push their political agenda? It opens the door for potential abuse and the blurring of lines between religion and politics, something many find troubling.
Others are already pointing out that this isn’t exactly new territory. They argue that churches have been subtly influencing elections for years without facing repercussions, and that this new stance just formalizes the status quo. The concern is that it might allow churches to advocate for specific political parties or candidates without facing the tax consequences that should come with such activities.
The sentiment is that religious institutions are already wielding a significant influence, and some believe that this decision will only amplify that influence, particularly for conservative Christian groups. This concern is further heightened by the idea that this could lead to a form of theocracy, where religious beliefs are intertwined with government functions.
A common thread running through the discussion is the fairness of the tax system. Many feel that churches, like any other organization, should be held accountable and pay their fair share of taxes. The argument is that the tax-exempt status of churches has always been controversial, and some believe that the IRS’s leniency in enforcing the Johnson Amendment has only exacerbated the problem. The idea that some churches are already operating like businesses, making substantial profits, adds to the fuel for this view.
The worry is that the IRS’s decision is politically motivated, potentially favoring specific political viewpoints. There’s skepticism about the consistency of enforcement: will the IRS treat all churches equally, or will certain endorsements be overlooked while others face scrutiny? The fear is that this could lead to selective enforcement, where the tax-exempt status of churches endorsing progressive candidates might be targeted.
There’s also a practical concern: the potential for tax loopholes. Some believe that churches, especially those with significant resources, will exploit these opportunities to avoid taxes, further complicating the issue. The system already has a reputation for favoring large corporations, and the worry is that churches will now enjoy similar benefits.
The discussion raises questions about the fundamental role of churches in society and their relationship with the government. Many believe that churches should focus on their religious missions and stay out of politics. Others feel that, if churches choose to engage in political activities, they should be treated like any other organization and pay taxes accordingly.
Finally, this IRS stance sparks broader discussions about the role of religion in politics. Is the country heading towards a model where religious beliefs strongly influence government decisions? And how do we protect the separation of church and state if religious institutions are allowed to openly endorse political candidates without consequences? This raises profound questions that go beyond just tax exemptions and delve into the future of the relationship between faith and government.