Know When To Shut Up

The line between church and state, though often debated, is not a hazy one in the context of federal tax law. It is clearly marked by the Johnson Amendment, a provision of the Internal Revenue Code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. This provision is neither an affront to religious liberty nor a government overreach. Rather, it is a prudent and necessary safeguard to preserve the integrity of both our political system and our houses of worship.

The United States has long held that the government should not entangle itself in religious matters, just as churches should not entangle themselves in partisan political activity. This principle is rooted in a dual commitment: to protect religious freedom and to preserve a democratic process that is free from institutional coercion or distortion. The Johnson Amendment does not silence clergy or restrict the expression of personal political beliefs. What it does prohibit is the use of the pulpit, and the institutional power and tax-exempt privilege that accompany it, to sway electoral outcomes.

Some argue that this is an impermissible restriction on the freedom of speech. That argument, while superficially appealing, misapprehends the nature of the law. Churches are not being compelled to remain silent. They are simply asked to choose: if they wish to remain tax-exempt as charitable organizations, they must refrain from engaging in partisan politics. If they choose instead to become political actors, the law permits that too, but not on the taxpayer’s dime.

The wisdom of this separation becomes clearer when one considers the consequences of its erosion. Imagine a nation where candidates curry favor from pastors for endorsements, where political contributions flow through churches under the guise of donations, and where worship services become indistinguishable from campaign rallies. This is not a defense of liberty; it is the politicization of the pulpit, and it would undermine the moral authority of religious institutions by aligning them with temporal, partisan interests.

Religious leaders possess immense influence. With that influence comes a responsibility not to compromise their sacred calling by entering the realm of political partisanship. Their congregants come to them for spiritual guidance, not electoral instruction. When the church becomes an agent of campaign politics, it risks alienating members, fracturing communities, and reducing complex moral teachings to the slogans of the day.

The Johnson Amendment should be enforced not to muzzle voices of conscience, but to preserve the essential independence of religious institutions and ensure a level playing field in our political process. The framers of our Constitution did not seek to banish religion from public life; they sought to protect both religion and politics from the corruption that results when one dominates the other.

In these polarized times, it is tempting to discard long-standing guardrails in the name of expedience. But doing so would be short-sighted. The genius of our system lies not in its capacity to amplify every voice in every forum, but in its discipline, its careful calibration of roles and responsibilities. Let the church be the church. Let the campaign be the campaign. And let the law, in its modest but vital role, preserve the distinction.