Religion

 

Pastors to Protest IRS Rules on

Political Advocacy part:III

 

The ADF would almost certainly argue that the 1954 amendment violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits the government from regulating religious organizations more strictly than their secular counterparts. Similarly, ADF will likely argue that the amendment violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 federal statute that prohibits the federal government from imposing a "substantial burden" on a religious organization unless the government demonstrates that it must impose that burden to achieve a "compelling government interest." The ADF will also likely argue that the restriction violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, which prohibits the government from regulating speech on the basis of its content. Finally, ADF might also claim that IRS enforcement of the 1954 amendment violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by requiring the IRS to scrutinize sermons or other religious messages, thus excessively entangling government and religion.
How might the government defend the 1954 amendment?
The government will likely defend the 1954 amendment by arguing that the rule does not violate congregations' rights under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA because the restriction treats religious organizations just like other charitable and educational organizations. Moreover, the government would say, the restriction does not bar congregations from participating in campaigns; it only prohibits donors from making tax-deductible political contributions. Likewise, the government will likely argue, the restriction does not violate the Free Speech Clause because the restriction does not prohibit the congregations from making political statements; it only bars them from using tax-deductible donations to do so. Finally, in response to ADF's Establishment Clause argument, the government will likely argue that there is no excessive entanglement of government and religion because the IRS does not need to evaluate a sermon's theological merit to determine whether the sermon promotes a politician.
How do you think a court might evaluate these arguments?

Site Menu:

 

Other News:

Americans Wary of Church Involvement in Partisan Politics

On Sunday, Sept. 28, more than two dozen pastors challenged a provision in the tax code that restricts the political activities of houses of worship and other tax-exempt organizations. Arguing that they have a constitutional right to speak out on political issues, the pastors discussed the 2008 presidential candidates from the pulpit and, in some cases, endorsed a particular candidate. On Sept. 29, the church-state watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service based on the political content of six of these sermons. The Alliance Defense Fund, the conservative legal-advocacy group that organized “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” has said that if the IRS tries to penalize the houses of worship for their pastors’ political advocacy, it will bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these penalties.
Whatever the legal merits of the ADF’s protest and Americans United’s complaints, and regardless of the eventual outcome, many Americans clearly are uncomfortable with churches participating in partisan politics. While a strong majority of Americans support religion’s role in public life, a solid majority also expresses opposition to churches coming out in favor of particular political candidates. Indeed, an August 2008 survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that two-thirds (66%) of the public opposes churches and other houses of worship speaking out in favor of one candidate over another. The high level of opposition to such endorsements is consistent with Pew polling conducted in recent years.
Although Pew surveys often find major differences – both among religious traditions and among those with different levels of religious commitment – on other issues relating to religion and public life, there is widespread agreement on opposition to churches endorsing political candidates. For instance, among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are nearly as opposed to such endorsements as are those who are unaffiliated with any particular religion (64% vs. 68%). Black Protestants register the lowest level of opposition, but even among this group, those who oppose such endorsements outnumber those who favor them by almost 20 percentage points (55% vs. 36%).
This strong opposition to church political endorsements also applies to people with different levels of religious commitment. For example, virtually the same level of opposition exists among those who say that religion is very important to them (66%) as among those who say religion is not too important or not at all important to them (69%).
Similarly, more than six-in-ten of those who attend religious services at least once a week oppose such services (63%), as do 69% of those who seldom or never attend services.