Weekend Unanswered Question 3: On Churches and Politics

Why can’t ministers speak out on moral issues without fear of intimidation from the courts or the IRS?

In his Friday OpinionJournal.com column, Brendan Miniter wrote on the IRS fight the pastoral leaders of the Ohio Restoration Project are in. This is a fight where the tax-exempt status of the churches run by Russell Johnson and Rod Parsley is at stake, and has troubling implications for anyone who believes in freedom of speech and religion:

Both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Parsley are fighting back, arguing that they’ve done nothing wrong by speaking out on what they see as moral, not just political, issues. If the IRS agrees with their accusers, however, the World Harvest Church and the Fairfield Christian Church could lose their tax-exempt status. It would be unusual for the IRS to mete out this kind of punishment, but as gay marriage, abortion and the war in Iraq increasingly draw religious leaders into politics, such complaints may become more common.

Just a few weeks after the pastors filed their grievance, the IRS released a report on the outcome of 132 similar anonymous filings against nonprofit organizations during the course of the 2004 presidential campaign, 63 of which are churches. The allegations against the churches include: inviting candidates to speak, donating money to politicians, endorsing individual candidates and publishing voter guides. Some of the cases were thrown out immediately, but 37 of the 47 churches that were investigated further were deemed to have run afoul of the tax code.

….. And for what purpose? Not surprisingly, a political one. Since this process is driven by citizen complaints, many of the churches to come under the tax microscope are in swing states (since the stakes will be higher). The outcome of the IRS’s action–intended or not–could have far-reaching effects on local, state and national elections. And though many of the churches that have been investigated favor conservatives, liberal pastors have found the IRS pounding on their doors as well.

But help may be on the way:

In response to this scourge, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty–a Washington, D.C., public-interest law firm representing all faiths–has sent to every house of worship they could find a letter promising to defend these institutions (free of charge) if they are targeted by the IRS for political speech.

So far the agency has issued letters of reprimand rather than actual fines, an indication, perhaps, that even tax officials aren’t sure about this little-explored corner of tax law. In fact, the letters are usually enough. Most churches will be easily intimidated, not having the resources to drag the IRS into court. But now, with the help of the Becket Fund, they can.

Telling pastors what topics they may and may not address from the pulpit would seem to be a violation of the First Amendment, but IRS lawyers say that the churches implicitly accept such limitations in exchange for being tax exempt. Becket Fund spokesman Jared Leland argues that pastors cannot be forced to give up their right to free speech.

….. Mr. Parsley has no such intention though. He is incensed at the idea that anyone would “deny clergy the right to be heard simply because they may not agree with our values.” In a reaction to the IRS that’s not unusual this time of year, Mr. Parsley sighs: “It’s un-American.”

He’s right. In fact, churches have a duty to specifically encourage their members to live their values. Part of living one’s values is voting for people whose positions are consistent with those values. Where it is known, consistent with the duty just mentioned, ministers should be able to indicate that those values are either favored by or opposed by specific candidates. And of course, this being a free country, congregation members are free to ignore the clerical counsel.

As far as I (and the Constitution) are concerned, clerics can stop just short of saying “vote for him/her” or “don’t vote for him/her.” Hopefully, The Becket Fund will be willing to defend any minister who does not cross that last line.