Political Speech by Churches

by Kerby Anderson

This week Congress will consider a bill that could give greater political freedom to churches and other houses of worship. The House Ways and Means subcommittee will consider a bill By Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina aimed at eliminating a 48-year-old ban on political endorsements.

Back in 1954, Senator Lyndon Johnson added an amendment to a revenue bill in an effort to block action by the Hunt family through existing 501c3 non-profit groups. The amendment, however, has effectively blocked all groups with a non-profit, tax-exampt status (including churches) from speaking out on moral and political issues which can be construed as political endorsement or opposition of a particular candidate. The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act (HB 2357) would level the playing field, and allow churches and their leaders to make moral and political statements.

Currently houses of worship may not engage in even a single activity that might be regarded as participating in, or intervening in a campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. Churches and their leaders are often fearful of losing their tax-exempt status by speaking out on moral and political issues. Many churches and other houses of worship even avoid providing voter education material (voters guides, voting records) for fear that they will run afoul of the law.

So far this bill has 114 co-sponsors along with endorsements from various pro-family leaders like Jim Dobson (Focus on the Family), Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America), D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries), and David Barton (WallBuilders).

Proponents believe it will free clergy from a muzzle imposed by the absolute ban on all speech that might be regarded as "political" and thereby enable them to speak out on the vital moral and political issues of our day. It would also free houses of worship from the threat of losing their tax-exempt status.

The bill is certain to raise two questions. First, should religious groups be allowed to bring religious perspectives into the political process? Two centuries ago, this was not even a question. Churches and pastors provided moral reflection on political issues and candidates. Today, the courts and tradition are erecting a wall between religion and politics. This bill should stimulate an important debate on this important topic.

Second, should only houses of worship be given protection for political speech? One argument against this bill is whether it would violate equal protection since it only applies to churches or other houses of worship. Senator Johnson's amendment applied to all nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations although there was no indication that he intended to target churches. Perhaps the bill should be broadened so that it applies to all groups not just houses of worship.

Let's let the debate begin.