It’s the Thought that Counts

A week ago, a group of ministers supported by the Alliance Defense Fund (which, by the way, is every bit as idiotic as the vagueness of its name would imply) made political endorsements in their sermons as part of the “Pulpit Initiative”.  This is something they’re not allowed to do under the regulations that come with their tax-exempt status.  The goal is to create a test case with the standing to challenge the constitutionality of that regulation.

I should say, first of all, that they have a legitimate argument, and I don’t believe the lawyers involved should be punished.  Yes, the lawyers told their clients to break the law, but with standing requirements what they are, this kind of thing is common in the US when people want to challenge laws.  That’s maybe unfortunate, but as long as the lawyers made very clear to these pastors what it was they were getting themselves into, I have no ethical complaint against them.

That said, it’s pretty clear to me that there is no ground for their suit.  Churches are in no way required to have tax exempt status.  It would actually be a constitutional violation to single them out for it, as it would be government sponsorship of religious activities.  The law ignores whether a given organization is religious.  What it does pay attention to is whether it’s a non-profit.  Non-profits, because society has decided they are worth encouraging, are given tax-exempt status, and donations to them are tax-deductible.

Non-profits in general, not just churches, are required to live by certain regulations if they want tax-exempt status.  One of these is a lack of overt campaign activities and endorsements.  (They’re allowed to talk about specific political issues, advocate for a bill, and a variety of other related things.)  The main reason for this is that making an organization tax-exempt costs the government money, and the country has decided it doesn’t want to subsidize these activities.  Also, allowing this would create a loophole a mile wide in campaign finance reform laws.  (And any attempt to add the regulations necessary to prevent that would subject churches to a huge amount of additional regulation.)

So what about free speech?  Don’t they have a right to make political endorsements?  The individuals do, and the clergy are free to engage in politics in their own time.  The organizations also do, but they don’t have a right to tax-exempt status.  When the government gives favors, it can attach strings.  There are limits of course, but this one is reasonable.

The real point here is a larger one.  When religious organizations get favors from the government, they get entangled with the government.  The separation of church and state is as much about protecting the church from the state as it is the reverse.  As soon as a religious organization becomes accustomed to government favors of some kind, it loses its independence.  The government can attach conditions to these favors that it would never be able to impose on the churches directly.  Even without the formal conditions, the religious groups have to be wary of doing politically unpopular things, since part of the backlash could be the removal of those favors.  If you think it’s important that government not dictate limitations on religious practices, then you should also think it’s important the religious groups get no special favors.  And those religious organizations that are so unhappy about the endorsement rules should think twice about demanding a faith-based initiative that allows the government to directly fund may of their activities.

Tags: free speech, law, politics, religion, religious freedom