Congress Should Protect Religious Freedom and Pass H.R. 2275
The Declaration of Independence May Be Faded But the Religious Foundation of American Beliefs Are Not
What possibly could bring three Congressman so diverse on the political spectrum as Ronald Paul [R, TX-14], Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52], and Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2] together? The issue is older than America but has never grown stale. What should be the proper relationship to organized religion and politics?
During the early years of the American revolution there was great divide in the population about whether colonists had the right to proceed with an armed rebellion against the British monarchy. The initial arguments that they were unfairly taxed without representation were strong but not enough to convince the general population as a whole who still felt that they were subjects of the British empire. In order to convince the general population that they were not committing treason or breaking a sacred oath, the main author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, brilliantly conceived of the concept that revolution was necessary because there was a higher ultimate law than government and it was from this authority that government ultimately received its rightful authority. This authority granted certain unalienable rights which if impinged upon granted the people the right to abolish the government. This historic document set the precedent that the government of the United States recognized that God existed and that it had duty to govern in accordance with the laws of God.
Subsequently, the Congress of the United States passed the First Amendment of the Constitution with the intent that no religion would be the official religion and guaranteeing that there would be freedom of religion. Most importantly, it did not question the importance of religion, in fact by mentioning it, pointed to the importance of religion and warrantied its continued survival. However, it allowed for competition of religious ideas without the government officially endorsing one religion over another or giving unfair advantage to one particular form of religion.
In the years following World War II, the Federal government was forced to deal with a very complex tax situation that had developed. Inflation and the more common use of corporation as a tax entity in everyday life was affecting the tax code. Tax rates ranged from 91% for the wealthy to much lower rates for low wage earners who were still paying some taxes. The Internal Revenue Act of 1954 was an attempt to modernize the tax code. At the time hundreds of different groups were pressuring Congress for special treatment and exemptions. There was considerable debate over who should be “tax exempt” in this chaotic time. Senate Minority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson, purposed an amendment that basically allowed religious clergy as individuals to partake in political activities but forbade religious organizations from doing so if they wished to maintain their tax exempt status. Clearly Congress was fearful of the power of religious organization by this action.
Through out American history organized religion and its leaders have played more than a significant role in guiding the American sense of what is right and what is wrong. The power of Martin Luther King to influence a white majority that a social wrong depended upon showing that majority their religious beliefs were being violated by unjust laws and treatment of a minority.
Now the Johnson Amendment is being openly challenged by ministers who are sending the Internal Revenue Service copies of sermons where they are openly espousing political viewpoints. H.R. 2275 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the prohibition against churches and other tax-exempt organizations participating in political campaigns or supporting or opposing candidates for public office however and very importantly it still provides that this repeal shall not invalidate or limit any provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Campaign disclosures, limits, and activities would apply to religious organizations as they do to other organizations.
Congress should proceed with passage of H.R. 2275. Realistically there is no real way to enforce a law against religious participation in the election process. Who is to judge whether a minister, preacher, rabbi, or muslim cleric is expressing a religious idea or endorsing a political candidate? Active enforcement of this law would invite pandemonium. The overall experience in American history of religious influence on American life has been overwhelmingly positive. One cannot imagine how the fight against slavery, discrimination, poverty, wrongful wars, access to health care, right to education or many other issues we now take for granted would proceed in the absence of our religious beliefs.
The tests of government interaction with religion have been whether its remains neutral on religion, avoids excessive entanglement with religion, avoids defining government benefits based upon a specific religious affiliation, and does not force religion upon the populace. Restoring free speech to our religious organizations would be in keeping with these principles. Continuing the status quo will only threaten our religious freedom and diminish the source of the American way of life. America’s sense of what is right and what is wrong has always been and always will be from our religious foundations.
Go To Contempo Magazine Home Page