Home > Newsletter > June 2002

FREE SPEECH IN HOUSES OF WORSHIP IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

The Religious Freedom Coalition commends Congressmen Phil Crane (R-IL) and Walter Jones (R-NC) for trying to alleviate the present intolerable situation in which clergymen and their congregations fear to express publicly any political views or even opinions about moral issues such as abortion, because these may be perceived as political. This climate of fear, which is exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent, is caused by uncertainty about what is or is not permissible for a clergyman to say without having the church's tax exempt status taken away.

As things stand now, the guidelines are so unclear that it is just up to the discretion of IRS bureaucrats to decide who is in violation. There is evidence that these rulings by the IRS are selectively and unfairly enforced, targeting those who express conservative views while ignoring others whose liberal views are favored.

Congressman Crane's Bright Line Act of 2001 (H. R. 2931) and Congressman Jones' Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act (H. R. 2357) would help restore First Amendment rights to America's churches and synagogues.

America had a long history of free speech in her houses of worship, beginning with Revolutionary War era preachers who spoke out for freedom and encouraged the founding of the new country. It was largely in the churches where the abolitionist movement began, as religious people stirred up the conscience of the nation about the evils of slavery. In the first half of the twentieth century, clergymen spoke out fearlessly on many social issues and they warned of the dangers of murderous fascism and communism.

The era of free speech came to an ignoble end in 1954 when Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted the ban on political speech as a little noticed floor amendment to another bill. There were no hearings on this amendment, nor does the Congressional Record indicate that any explanation was ever given for this ban. There was a behind- the-scenes explanation though; Johnson was being criticized by a conservative pastor back in Texas. To silence his critic, Johnson slipped in a law that clearly violates the spirit of the Constitution.

It's true that the law was ignored when Martin Luther King and other black pastors led peaceful civil rights demonstrations in the 1960's. If it had been strictly enforced, Dr. King and other church leaders could have been silenced. In fact, the law was largely ignored until the early 1990's, when Democrats realized they could follow the example of LBJ and use it against political opponents.

During Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, the Church at Pierce Creek in Conklin, New York sponsored a newspaper ad that criticized Clinton for his stand on abortion. In retaliation, the church had its tax exempt status revoked. Yet when first Bill Clinton and then later Al Gore campaigned in churches, there was hardly a word said from IRS officials. Preacher and former Democrat Congressman Floyd Flake invited candidate Gore to speak at his Allen A.M.E. Church in Queens, New York. From behind the pulpit Flake told the congregation, "This should be the next president of the United States." Was Rev. Flake or his church punished in any way? Well, he did get a "caution" from the IRS, but that was all.

While this was a clear violation of the law, the actual wording of the tax code is so vague that IRS officials may interpret it any way they please. It is not necessary to name a candidate or political party to get in trouble. All that is necessary is that the IRS finds a given communication "contains some relatively clear directive that enables the recipient to know the organization's position on a specific candidate or slate of candidates." In other words, suppose a certain candidate is well known to be in favor of unlimited abortion, homosexual marriage, or anti-Semitism. If a pastor in an election year chooses to address such moral issues, is that an implicit rejection of the candidate and therefore a "political statement?" It can be, if the IRS so decides.

Religious organizations deserve the clarity of knowing exactly what political activity is acceptable and allowed by law. It should not be left up to some bureaucrat to interpret the law and determine if a religious institution is in violation, thus losing their tax exempt status. We believe that either the Crane or the Jones bill will remove confusion from sanctioned and unsanctioned activities by establishing a clear set of standards and bringing proper enforcement. It is important that congressmen hear from their constituents concerning this critical issue of freedom of speech. The law created by one Senator more than thirty years ago to help him keep his office should not become codified law, further destroying the intent of our founding fathers.