 |
| FRC's Tony Perkins |
According to the
anti-lgbt hate group the Family Research Council, the two and half weeks with Trump in power have been wonderful. And it would be even more wonderful if he would repeal The Johnson Amendment, thereby allowing churches to publicly endorse or oppose political candidates without losing tax exempt status. The
following is from FRC president Tony Perkins:
President Trump didn't waste any time proving his critics wrong.
People who doubted whether the Republican would make good on his
promises learned pretty quickly that there's nothing empty about this
president's word. From the unborn to immigration, the new White House
has been working its way through a long list of priorities -- which, we
know from last week's National Prayer Breakfast, includes the Johnson
Amendment. From almost the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has
highlighted this 1954 law as one of the worst abusers of free speech in
America.
And plenty of conservatives agree. After eight years of the Obama IRS
breathing down the necks of nonprofits and churches, threatening to
take away their tax exempt status, the Johnson Amendment has become just
another way for liberals to crackdown on pastors' ability to speak
openly about political issues and candidates. That changes now, say
conservatives like Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.), House Majority Whip
Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), who together
introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act to stop the government from
muting pastors who apply God's laws to today's debates. They, like
President Trump, think it's time to put an end to this culture of
intimidation -- especially since that wasn't the purpose of the measure
to begin with! In a joint op-ed for the Washington Post, the trio talks about their new bill and what it would mean for the pulpits of America.
"Specifically, our legislation would ensure that all 501(c)(3)
organizations, including nonprofits, charities, and houses of worship
are legally able to make comments about a political issue within the
scope of their normal activities. An environmental nonprofit that sends
out an e-newsletter educating its readers about the climate positions of
candidates wouldn't have to fear an audit. A church employee who
distributes election voter guides (for which her church did not incur
any cost for distribution) could not be punished by the IRS."
As I said on CNN over the weekend, this has nothing to do with money
being expended on political campaigns. And it certainly doesn't mean
that churches will become the new arm of the Republican Party -- or
either party. As Lankford, Scalise, and Hice pointed out, "Every
American should be able to speak freely about their conscience and
convictions -- no matter what their job is."
The truth of the matter is Americans are able to speak freely about their conscience and convictions. That is not the point. The point is should certain organizations be allowed to endorse or oppose political candidates without losing their nonprofit status? And let's not play games here. The organizations in question are in fact churches. Perkins can dodge all he likes, but we are in fact talking about churches, which is a main source of a lot of FRC's power and influence. Perkins seeks to distract people with jingoistic or religious words like "freedom," "conscience," and "convictions" because he has yet to make a concise defense on why should churches meddle deep into politics without losing their tax-exempt status.
And my guess is that Perkins doesn't have one. Giving churches unfettered access to political power is a dangerous game to play, but it only underscores what I have said about the religious right's relationship with Trump. They don't care to act as his moral conscience. They are only acting as his alibi so that he gives them what they want.
