Don't listen to the complainers on the religious right.
We need the Johnson Amendment
Donald Trump's promise to "totally destroy" the Johnson Amendment, delivered at the National
Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, is a colossally bad idea, one that compromises the 1st Amendment.
The Johnson Amendment, passed by Congress in 1954 and named for Lyndon Johnson, then
a U.S. senator, is a provision in the tax code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations
from openly supporting political candidates.
In the words of the tax code, "all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited
from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign
on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."
I have no doubt that Johnson, consummate politician that he was, had his own reasons for pushing
the legislation in 1954; he was running for reelection and didn't want adversarial groups
working against him under cover of tax-exempt organizations.
But those motives should in no way diminish the wisdom of the measure.
Leaders of the religious right in recent years, however, have been pushing for a repeal of
the Johnson Amendment.
They argue that pastors should be able to make political endorsements from the pulpit
without jeopardizing their churches' tax exemptions.
The fact that they cannot now do so, they argue, represents an infringement on their
religious freedom.
That's utter nonsense.
The Johnson Amendment merely assures that taxpayers do not subsidize partisan politicking.
It also ensures that tax-exempt organizations do not serve as the conduit for tax-exempt
contributions to political candidates.
By complaining about the supposed limitations on their free speech, the religious right
fails to acknowledge that tax exemption is a form of public subsidy.
All of this kvetching from the religious right is an attempt to confuse voters with sleight
of hand.
By complaining about the supposed limitations on their freedom of speech, these leaders
of the religious right fail to acknowledge that tax exemption is a form of public subsidy.
The vast majority of the nation's religious organizations — churches, temples, mosques,
synagogues — pay no taxes (other than Social Security taxes on wages), no income or corporate
tax and no property taxes.
We can have a vigorous conversation about whether or not such an exemption is a good
thing.
(I think, on balance, it is; the founders recognized the value of voluntary associations
and sought to encourage them.)
But that discussion aside, the bottom line is that taxpayers in any given community effectively
subsidize religious groups by paying extra taxes to support municipal services such as
police protection, firefighters, parks, snow removal, road maintenance and the like.
These institutions certainly benefit from those services.
If a fire breaks out, for example, the fire department responds – even though these
religious organizations pay no property taxes to support that service.
Local taxpayers pay instead, taking up the slack for the tax exemption on property that
would otherwise be valued very highly.
To state it plainly, tax exemption is a form of public subsidy.
All the Johnson Amendment requires is that, in exchange for that subsidy, the beneficiaries
refrain from partisan politicking.
Various entities, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, have nevertheless urged pastors to
defy the law and endorse political candidates.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, asserts that the
Johnson Amendment "prevents religious leaders from truly exercising their constitutionally-protected
free speech rights when they act in their official capacity as a pastor or head of a
religious, tax-exempt organization."
More nonsense.
Pastors, churches or any other entity can make political endorsements from the pulpit
or in any other forum.
They need only to renounce their tax exemptions — their public subsidies — and they are
free to be as partisan as they wish.
But there is another reason why the Johnson Amendment is a good idea and should not be
repealed.
Religion has flourished in the United States as nowhere else in the world precisely because
the government has (for the most part, at least) stayed out of the religion business,
and vice versa.
Despite the religious right's persistent attempts to circumvent it, the 1st Amendment
is the best friend that religion ever had.
It ensures that there is no established church, no state religion, and that religious groups
can compete for adherents on an equal footing.
Evangelicals, by the way, have historically fared very well in that free marketplace.
The Johnson Amendment both derives from, and builds upon, the 1st Amendment.
It reinforces the wall of separation between church and state that was advocated by Roger
Williams, founder of the Baptist tradition in America.
We should also remember that Williams wanted a "wall of separation" between the "garden
of the church" and the "wilderness of the world" because he feared that the integrity
of the faith would be compromised by too much entanglement with politics.
That's a lesson worth recalling today
Randall Balmer is chairman of the religion department at Dartmouth College.
His most recent book, "Evangelicalism in America," includes several chapters on the
1st Amendment and the Baptist tradition.
by Randall Balmer
For more infomation >> Beauty and the Beast
For more infomation >> Video a 360° - Sopravviverai ad una Apocalisse Zombie vissuta in Prima Persona? w/ 360 VR Adventure - Duration: 5:36. 
For more infomation >> Ausbildung Schweisshund Teil 5 - A - Duration: 10:01. 
No comments:
Post a Comment