This is my reply to an email sent to me by a friend. In short, some lady that survived the Holocaust has written religious books that resemble the "Left Behind" series, as I understand it. The author says that we have lost religious freedom because if you speak out politically, you lose Tax Exempt Status:
<quote>
In America priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative pastors or they will lose their tax exempt status.
<endquote>
This is my reply. I got a bit aggressive at the end, as this lady has a tendency to send my responses back to the originators :) My reply:
I am glad that you brought this to my attention: I am studying Church Law as a specialty, and am actively working on many matters of Religious Law versus Secular Law.
An important question is brought to light here: the writer claims that it is illegal to speak out in a Church and that we have lost Religious Freedom. That point has to do with Tax Exempt Status.
I disagree:
Religious Freedom has NOT been reduced. However, it seems that way due to a misunderstanding of its history, and that gives us the distorted point of view that Churches should be funded by the state by giving them a Tax Exemption Status. Frankly that has never been legal, as it is unconstitutional for the State to fund a church in the first place.The Tax Exempt Status is a strange compromise. Its very existence hinges on the recipient being NON POLITICAL.
I reiterate: THIS WAS NEVER SUCH A RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Tax Exempt Status is the government sticking its neck out into possible unconstitutional action. In return, the recipient must certify to being NON-POLITICAL.
Churches are free to say whatever they like: but they will not speak out politically or make controversial or inflammatory statements ON TAXPAYER MONEY. This is the fundamental theory of law from the founding fathers onward.
Religious Freedom does not DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING: SUCH FUNDING IS ILLEGAL AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
Money taken from the government by Churches has STRINGS ATTACHED. That string is DO NOT ENTER THE POLITICAL ARENA.
I am going to quote the Establishment Clause here; unfortunately, this invokes the "Establishment Clause lecture" [its been done before]:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."
The Free Exercise Clause, ("...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"),
is essentially the second phrase of the same sentence. Both are found in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
These two clauses seem to be at odds with each other, but they really aren't. However, they do create a very difficult tightrope for the government.
The author/writer here is grossly misinformed and ignorant of Legal theory, American history, and very specifically the history of American Law. The history of American Law is esoteric and ignorance of that is very common.
But the other two issues are more common, especially American history. Civics studies will generally touch on the Religious Freedom issue sufficiently.
I note that the author seems to be a naturalized foreigner. I believe this accounts for some of the ignorance displayed.
What has happened in this situation is:
1) the government offered money;
2) the money had/has the necessary strings to keep the government from violating the constitution;
3) the churches took the money, overlooked the conditions or rationalized their impact to the point to where they were negligible;
4) either through no violations occurring or lax enforcement, the government did not do anything for a long period of time;
5) then events happened and the government had to enforce its requirements;
6) now ignorant people are yelling "religious freedom suppressed".
So again, there never was such a freedom in the first place. Churches are free to say what ever they like, but they can't do it on
PUBLIC MONEY . If they want to make controversial pronouncements, they will have to do it on their own funding.This is an instance of an entitlement being taken for granted.
I'm not finished with this. This would make a whole chapter in my studies of Church Law. I will be reviewing, rewriting and adding to this. Plus, my book on Constitutional Decisions by the Supreme Court has at least ten pertinent cases. That's a lot of reading. It could change the overall picture at the detail level, but I have outlined the basic theory as the overall view stands now.
I am neither an expert nor a lawyer, but I do LEGAL READING and am actively searching for precedents for individuals and the paralegal that I trade favors with. This pushes me to view things as lawyers and judges do and see them with a legalistic view.
In the meantime, anybody spouting this argument, needs a good laxative. I will be happy to confront them face on and set them straight.
I am adding as to politics: if you dance, you have to pay the piper; get over it. You took the governments money and ignored the fine print.
Mustang