Nationwide pastors’ revolt planned against IRS tax code
One of my recent poll questions was on the pastors’ revolt planned by the Alliance Defense Fund to challenge an IRS tax code that disallows churches and pastors from expressing opinions on political candidates.
I spoke with Erik Stanley a couple times this week, ADF’s attorney heading up the initiative, and got more information….
Challenged will be a 1954 change in the tax code called the Johnson Amendment, after then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson.
Johnson, known for his mean streak, proposed the amendment to silence vocal opponents to his next Senate race. Two nonprofit foundations were pouring money into a publicity campaign calling Johnson soft on Communism. As an aside, I found the interesting vintage photo below of Johnson shouting at a heckler during his 1960 campaign with Kennedy.
There is no legislative history on the Johnson Amendment. According to the scant Senate record, Johnson stood up on the floor and proposed it as an attachment to an existing bill. After Johnson said the bill sponsor was in agreement, the Speaker simply called for a voice vote. There was no debate.
Prior to 1954, churches were free to evaluate political candidates’ positions on moral issues without fear the IRS would revoke their tax-exempt status.
The ramifications to the Johnson Amendment have been sweeping and catastrophic to the mission of the Church.
Rev. Barry Lynn and his Americans United for the Separation of Church and State rely on this amendment to intimidate churches and pastors from expressing any opinion on political issues.
Many churches and pastors, wanting to live the Biblical priniciple of behaving “above reproach,” have overreacted to avoid criticism and are today silent on even topics this amendment does not implicate, such as abortion.
Meanwhile, in over 50 years since this code was enacted, the IRS has only prosecuted 1 church. This was the Church at Pierce Creek in NY that sponsored a newspaper ad in 1992 opposing Bill Clinton for president.
But the IRS has remained vague on when a nonprofit might cross the line, adding to the paranoia. And in 2004 it stepped up investigations by creating the Political Activities Compliance Initiative after receiving complaints it was not enforcing or selectivelyenforcing the code. In 2006 the IRS increased the length of time per year the PACI committee meets. The IRS refuses to name the churches it is investigating.
ADF will challenge 1 specific part of the code, the prohibition of a pastor to speak from the pulpit about views on political candidates. ADF considers this a violation of a pastor’s First Amendment rights. This has never been challenged in court.
On Sunday, September 28, approximately 50 pastors the ADF has chosen from volunteers nationwide will preach sermons to provoke the IRS on this point. This would immediately invoke a lawsuit that would find its way to the US Supreme Court.
In a press release condemning the plan as “deplorable” and “worldly, AU’s Lynn stated, “I assume the ADF will provide a list of congregations unwise enough to join this move, and we’ll be ready to report those churches to the IRS.”
Barry, ADF is planning 1 better – no, 2 better. It plans to give you videotapes of the sermons as well as the IRS.
The Palm Beach Post posted a good op ed on this on May 16, which stated in part:
The government can regulate – and tax – not-for-profit political action committees, but tax-exempt status for religious institutions is based on the First Amendment, not on a law passed in 1954. Congress cannot overrule the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion in its effort to regulate other not-for-profits….
This Supreme Court may well find for the church regardless of the merits of its case.
Pastors and/or churches interested in participating in the September 28 revolt can find more information here.

I might be misunderstanding the code but isn’t PP a non-profit organization? They regularly speak out against political candidates, no? Why do they get to?
And as for separation of Church and State why isn’t it being looked at the other way? The State is telling the Church what it can (or rather can’t) talk about. How is that separation? They are tax exempt because they are a Church, not because they don’t talk about candidates. Why can the State infringe on relevant Church topics and say its “separation?”
As I wrote previously, this is not a freedom of speech or separation of church and state issue. Allowing churches to endorse or promote candidates would create a loophole in campaign finance law that would allow anyone to create a church and use its tax deductible donation status to support political candidates. This cannot and must not be allowed to happen.
Regarding PP, Kristen, the main organization itself remains mute on political matters, and instead handles them though a separate organization called Planned Parenthood Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) to which donations are NOT tax deductible. Any church can do the same thing under existing law, but these pastors want to have their cake and eat it, too.
It amazes me that AU could go so holy on us.
Turn ‘incense-filled sanctuaries into smoke-filled political backrooms’
Using such words as ‘deplorable’ and ‘lust’, just wow!
Methinks they do protest too much.
I don’t have an opinion on this issue right now, and I may never have one.
I just wanted to comment on that photo. Wow. It is so powerful and says so much about Johnson and about Kennedy. I studied it for several minutes, and then kept sneaking looks at it again while I was trying to read the article. I can’t believe I’ve never seen it before.
Bee
Jill:
2 Chronicles 7:14
I read an anecdote once about how Johnson took a leak on one of his secret service people once.
Hopefully I’ll be back to commenting regularly soon, my laptop took a rather serious turn for the worse and a friend of mine is trying to fix it :-P
Bee, I can just hear JKF saying, “Dude….”
“This is why dictators like Stalin and Ho-Chi-Min burned the Bible. The actions of atheists and liberals are no different.”
HisMan, I’m sure you’re not saying liberals and atheists are as bad as Stalin and Ho-Chi-Min. Right? We might not agree on some poliics, or even about religion, but we’re not mass murderers.
It’s not Lyndon, but back in 1995, professional golfer Elaine Johnson hit a shot that bounced off a tree, and into her bra.
She then said, “I’ll take a two-shot penalty, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to play the ball where it lies!”
One day Bill Moyers, LBJ’s press secretary, was called upon to say grace at lunch. “Speak up, Bill,” Johnson shouted. “I can’t hear a damn thing.” “Mr. President,” Moyers gently replied, “I wasn’t addressing you.”
LOL. I predict the IRS will take away their tax-exempt status, the lower courts will refuse to touch it, and the Supreme Court will turn it down.
During the American invasion of Panama in 1989, troops blasted AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell” in order to drive Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega from the Vatican embassy where he had taken refuge (a tactic also used by the FBI).
Some time later, AC/DC frontman Brian Johnson was asked what he thought about the use of AC/DC’s music for “psychological torture”. “I guess now,” he replied with a sarcastic shrug, “we won’t get to play for the pope.”
” HisMan, I’m sure you’re not saying liberals and atheists are as bad as Stalin and Ho-Chi-Min. Right? We might not agree on some politics, or even about religion, but we’re not mass murderers. ”
i have no use for terms liberal and conservative, red state and blue state, progressive and conservative. these are terms reserved for a lazy media. the question in terms of abortion in particular and in terms of sanctity of life in general is how do we treat our most vulnerable populations and what value or sacredness or divinity do we place on human life.
now the question arises which human life and which vulnerable population. i oppose abortion in most circumstances and i oppose capital punishment in all circumstances. i see abortion most of the time as an irresponsible choice resulting from irresponsible behaviour.
i see capital punishment as power levied against persons who have little recourse in defending themselves in court. many of these are indeed guilty of the horrendous crime which they committed and i have no sympathy for them at all. on the other hand we would do well to ask how it is that some smuck without resources will be executed while someone who can afford to mount a defense walks away. i would cite OJ Simpson as the example of someone who could afford to purchase freedom. in each instance i would much prefer to error on the side of sanctity of life.
in the simplest and most vulgar terms we would then say that stalin and ho chi min had no regard for the sancitity of life and used their most vulnerable populations as fodder to feed their corruption.
in the simplest and most vulgar terms we would then say that stalin and ho chi min had no regard for the sancitity of life and used their most vulnerable populations as fodder to feed their corruption.
In other words, they behaved like most of our world leaders do.
Roger,
Do we really need to find an equivalent to understand that our world leaders do commit atrocious acts that are harmful to our populations and only work to advance their own power?
Do we really have to set a bar between what is “acceptable” atrocity and what is not?
there is no acceptable atrocity.
world leaders do harm the population.
if the need is to preserve classical liberalism (freedom of persons, parliamentary procedures, human rights, free markets, independent judiciary, sanctity of law) and oppose communism, the west would need to demonstrate that western society, while flawed, is demonstrably more attuned to the rights and protection of the vulnerable population than is a socialist model.
once again i will bring the point to abortion. what is troubling is that the west in general and the united states in particular appear willing to trample the rights of the most vulnerable population with such ease and contempt, and this for the convenience of the woman in the majority of the cases, thus undermining this notion of classical liberalism. how does the united states assume to dictate to the soviets or the asians tenets regarding human rights and simultaneously engage in the apparent annual destruction of a million human souls. justifiable homicide indeed.
Roger, good posts, but it’s not “trampling the rights of the unborn,” etc. You might want rights attributed to the unborn, but it’s the fact that they’re not, in the first place, that has you bumming, I think.
This picture of LBJ pulling one of his dogs’ ears ignited a lot of protest, but he said the dog enjoyed it, and added, “My mother used to pull my ears, and it never got that much attention.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_NXXDVtNbA
One of those “earliest memories” things – my dad had a six-pack of “Goldwater,” a beer brewed in honor or parody of the 1964 presidential election – LBJ and Barry Goldwater.
” You might want rights attributed to the unborn”
the question is not whether i specifically want rights granted to the unborn. the much larger question is why society or government treats the unborn differently dependent upon the desired outcome. i found this when i googled health of unborn:
http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/index.asp?SEC=%7B51364079-6EFF-4B09-9C9D-AB32E98F4A4F%7D&Type=BAS_APIS
” Civil commitment refers either to involuntary commitment of a pregnant woman to treatment or involuntary placement of a pregnant woman in protective custody of the State for the protection of a fetus from prenatal exposure to alcohol. ”
state government has now or has had in the past, policy which calls for the involuntary commitment of the woman to a treatment facility or to a public institution for the purpose of protecting the fetus from the adverse effects of alcohol. the fetus will have rights or privileges or protection if a third party desires that the fetus be protected.
we selectively protect some fetuses as a function of convenience for the woman.
we selectively destroy some fetuses as a function of convenience to the woman.
we would do well to come to terms with this disparity.
Roger, for one thing the unborn are inside the body of a person, which makes a heck of a difference.
Agreed that the protection of the unborn, against the will of the woman, is an interesting topic.
No Hal, I wasn’t talking about you. I don’t think you’re a mass murderer.
But these dudes were atheists and they did burn Bibles. You think there was a connection?
Go pastors go! Get your tax-exempt status taken away. ALL of you!
How about a trade? Pastors give us their tax exempt status when PP gives up theirs?
Doug,
The youtube right after the one you posted is pretty great also…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpARv7vsBpA&feature=related
How about a trade? Pastors give us their tax exempt status when PP gives up theirs?
Posted by: mk at May 24, 2008 6:11 AM
Are hospitals tax-exempt also? Is this why PP is?
Roger, you wrote: “we selectively protect some fetuses as a function of convenience for the woman.
we selectively destroy some fetuses as a function of convenience to the woman.
we would do well to come to terms with this disparity. ”
The large majority of Americans HAVE come to terms with it. It’s no problem for us.
Lord, have mercy on our souls.
I might be misunderstanding the code but isn’t PP a non-profit organization? They regularly speak out against political candidates, no? Why do they get to?
And as for separation of Church and State why isn’t it being looked at the other way? The State is telling the Church what it can (or rather can’t) talk about. How is that separation? They are tax exempt because they are a Church, not because they don’t talk about candidates. Why can the State infringe on relevant Church topics and say its “separation?”
Posted by: Kristen at May 23, 2008 9:48 AM
Bingo, Kristen!!!
I’ve been making this point to the liberal media for years. The IRS hung up the Christian Coalition for putting out a votor guide which only listed the voting records of candidates on issues.
They’re no longer a non profit.
Planned parenthood can push money from fund to fund, unnnoticed (and accept money to abort Black babies) and the IRS looks the other way. Churches don’t have a separate fund to pay a pastor for a five minute portion of his sermon. And establishing such a fund means hiring lawyers to fight the IRS every year. It’s prohibitive harassment, and selective enforcement, same as that protecting planned parenthood from following the rules for reporting suspected abuse of minors.
This project of the ADF is great. I’m gonna send them a donation.
I might be misunderstanding the code but isn’t PP a non-profit organization? They regularly speak out against political candidates, no? Why do they get to?
And as for separation of Church and State why isn’t it being looked at the other way? The State is telling the Church what it can (or rather can’t) talk about. How is that separation? They are tax exempt because they are a Church, not because they don’t talk about candidates. Why can the State infringe on relevant Church topics and say its “separation?”
Posted by: Kristen at May 23, 2008 9:48 AM
Bingo, Kristen!!!
I’ve been making this point to the liberal media for years. The IRS hung up the Christian Coalition for putting out a votor guide which only listed the voting records of candidates on issues.
They’re no longer a non profit.
Planned parenthood can push money from fund to fund, unnnoticed (and accept money to abort Black babies) and the IRS looks the other way. Churches don’t have a separate fund to pay a pastor for a five minute portion of his sermon. And establishing such a fund means hiring lawyers to fight the IRS every year. It’s prohibitive harassment, and selective enforcement, same as that protecting planned parenthood from following the rules for reporting suspected abuse of minors.
This project of the ADF is great. I’m gonna send them a donation.
Sunday funny
First, don’t forget to pray for pastors across America today who are participating in the Alliance Defense Fund’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday today, which I wrote about previously here and here. This is a long-planned project by ADF for pastors in…
Update on September 28’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday
Moderator Chris reminded me to check on the outcome of the Alliance Defense Fund’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Read my previous posts here, here, and here. ADF planned a coordinated effort by pastors on September 28 to defy the IRS gag…