by Kimberly Blaker

As the month progresses, the anticipated hearing of H.R. 2357, the “Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act,” closes in. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones was drafted with the assistance of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

The ACLJ, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson “is dedicated to the concept that freedom and democracy are God given inalienable rights that must be protected both domestically and internationally,” according to its mission.

That mission is intact so long as such freedoms fit neatly into the Christian right’s myopic views!

Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue tax code, non-profit organizations may not participate in partisan campaigns. If passed, H.R. 2357 will “permit churches and other houses of worship to engage” in such.

All the while, other nonprofits would not be extended this preferential treatment. Those failing to receive such status include non-profit environmental, health, and even child advocacy groups all of which would benefit from the ability to participate in the political arena.

Also notable, organizations for protecting the principal of separation of church and state—namely, any group that would counter Christian right activities—would be left out of the loop, elevating the status and substantially increasing the power of the religious right

In its attempt to bolster approval, the ACLJ claims in a press release that the H.R. 2357 “protects the First Amendment free speech rights of religious leaders.”

Colby M. May, the ACLJ’s Director of the Office of Governmental Affairs, argues: the “[current tax code] violates the First Amendment rights of ministers, rabbis, pastors, and people of faith.”

May’s line of reasoning, however, lacks merit. The IRS code does allow Houses of Worship to participate in social and “moral” issues and even political ones. What they cannot do is endorse or oppose political candidates—or the equivalent of such.

wedding dresses May and other Christian right proponents totally miss the point on the purpose of nonprofit status, which is to offer a tax-free base to charitable organizations.

If a House of Worship is willing to forego its tax-exempt status, it may participate freely and fully in politics, just as some other would-be nonprofit organizations with opposite views as the Christian right have elected—or been forced—to do.

Also, misleading about the ACLJ’s claim, religious leaders do have the right to endorse political candidates, so long as their non-profit church or organization or its funds is not used to do so.

The Christian Coalition, which was also founded by Robertson, lost its tax-exempt status in 1999. The Coalition was guilty of, among other things, distributing voter guides with a Christian-right bent to thousands of churches each year.

Robertson and the Coalition had repeatedly denied the Coalition’s partisan political involvement since the organization’s 1989 inception, in an attempt to maintain its tax-exempt status.

The Coalition was caught when Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) delivered to the IRS a revealing tape. In it, Robertson claimed responsibility for the 1994 congressional Republican takeover. He also outlined the Coalition’s plans “to elect a Republican to the presidency in 2000.”

Resulting from the Coalition’s continued fight to regain its tax-exempt status, on July 5, 2000 the IRS reaffirmed, with a strict warning, that tax-exempt organizations "are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."

America’s nonreligious citizens are not the only ones opposed to politicking by nonprofit religious groups. According to two polls, one by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life as well as a 2001 Gallup Poll, between 70 and 77 percent of Americans oppose Houses of Worship endorsing political candidates and participating in other political activities.

Numerous religious organizations have opposed H.R. 2357 including the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.

According to a Progressive Newswire report, executive director for AU, Rev. Barry W. Lynn, points out, “When people put their money in the collection plate, they don’t expect it to be used for candidates’ campaign literature and attack ads.”

Should the House pass H.R. 2357, it would be a direct violation of the First Amendment by offering preferential treatment to religious-based organizations.

Moreover, the power held by the religious-right over the GOP would be unprecedented as it is given free reign in the political arena while maintaining tax-exempt status, which is the equivalent of substantial donations at tax-payer expense.

Kimberly Blaker’s The Wall™ appears weekly. She is editor and coauthor of the The Fundamentals of Extremism: the Christian Right in America. Send your comments to Kimberly Blaker: TheWall@TheWall-OnChurchAndState.com  © 2002, Kimberly Blaker