I once read the following sentence:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In case you do not know the origin of that sentence, it is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the document that defines the scope of our federal government and, in some cases, our state governments.
Which is why, when I read an article in The Oklahoman entitled, Oklahoma religious group draws scrutiny over support of state candidate, I got confused.
Apparently a tax-exempt religious group, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, has decided to endorse a candidate for that state’s House of Representatives. According to the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the group has violated the law that allows it to keep its tax-exempt status. Rev. Lynn is probably right. And this is why I am confused.
The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of religion); or abridging the freedom of speech.” Yet from appearances, the Congress did make a law that abridges the freedom of speech of tax-exempt organizations by paying off those organizations in exchange for their silence in the form of a tax break. It is also a law that violates the freedom of that religious organization from practicing its religion. So if a group decides it cannot be silent and is required to speak out because of the tenets of its religion, does the law that permits the federal government to issue hush money a violation of the First Amendment?
I think it very well may be.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
The First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…”) restricts Congress. So arguably, Congress could not grant tax exempt status to churchs, but no congressperson has the cahones to challenge that one.
The First Amendment does NOT restrict churches or individuals, therefore religious groups do not violate the amendment when they back candidates.
Jerry,
You have nut shelled what so many others find too complicated or deep to consider, and leave the subject to better qualified legal scholars, in most cases, The Left.
The diction of the amendment (limiting governments ability to shut people of faith up) is simple. Your interpretation, simple. Problem.
Using the tax law as a weapon doesn’t constitute the gov making the speech illegal. Through non-criminal, or civil code, it “takes a tax code advantage away”. Hence, as the bureaucracy is mostly run by entrenched “Big Gov” supporters, guess how things go…….
Christian conservative organizations are regularly harassed and sued for tax exempt status nullification, Focus on the Family, Bob Jones and Liberty Universities, Main stream conservative preachers.
However, look to the left. Not only given a pass, but encouraged to preach “Vote Democrat” from the pulpit! Liberal churches have a huge impact on the minority communities, and when a Reverend boldly proclaims the virtues of The Welfare State Party, it is celebrated.
Preach from a pulpit the virtues of the Republican Party and rejection of the Nanny State and see how fast an IRS agent is conducting a civil revocation of your 503C status.