Brethren, I will speak today on the gospel of John, the sixteenth chapter, verse 24. Jesus said, “Ask and you will receive.” As the National Day of Prayer approaches (May 5, 2016), this verse is both relevant and unambiguous.
But perhaps it’s too unambiguous. Apologists like to water down this verse (and others that declare prayer’s effectiveness) to say that they don’t mean what they obviously mean, so let’s be sure we have this right. Here is this verse in context. Jesus said,

I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete (John 16:23–4).

A few verses later, we read,

Then Jesus’s disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech” (16:29).

Clearly, we are given no choice but to consider it at face value. “Ask and you will receive” means just what you’d think it means.
National Day of Prayer
The National Day of Prayer task force (“Transforming our Nation Through Prayer!”) is eager to harness this power. It says

[The 2016 National Day of Prayer] is an unprecedented opportunity to see the Lord’s healing and renewing power made manifest as we call on citizens to humbly come before His throne.

Is this just feel-good handwaving, or are you making specific, testable predictions?

This recitation will create a huge wave of prayer, flowing from one coast to the other, illustrating the unity of God’s people and acknowledging His dominion over the circumstances facing us. Source

I’ve always wondered why many prayers are more powerful than one or why we even need to pray at all. Doesn’t God understand the problems and the best solutions already? Or is he not paying attention? Is he deaf?
What specifically does the task force imagine will happen with the Day of Prayer (besides strengthening the Christian brand, I mean)? I understand that there may be a benefit to the person praying. Prayer can be beneficial in the same way that meditation can. But when you’re praying for someone else, that’s not the point. The idea behind person A praying for person B isn’t for person A to feel better, it’s for something specific to happen to person B! Give me evidence that this happens.

At this crucial time for our nation, we can do nothing more important than pray.

Did prayer gives us cell phones, GPS, or the internet? Antibiotics, anesthesia, or vaccines? Modern farming techniques? Did it eliminate smallpox or predict hurricanes? Maybe they’re thinking of science and technology. Prayer is easy, quick, free, and lets you pretend that you did something useful. But if you actually want to improve society, you need to stand on your own two feet and do something about it. God obviously won’t.
Last year’s message had an obligatory but meaningless applause line:

[We emphasize] the need for individuals, corporately and individually, to place their faith in the unfailing character of their Creator, who is sovereign over all governments, authorities, and men.

Not in the U.S., pal. Religion operates as it does because, and only because, it is permitted to by the Constitution. You can pretend to elevate your deity above government, but let’s be clear that it’s the Constitution, not the Bible, that actually governs this country.
This year’s national prayer also makes some factual blunders.

The very ideals upon which this country was founded were based on biblical truths, no matter how some try to rewrite history to deny that very fact today.

Wrong again. Read the U.S. Constitution—it’s one hundred percent secular. And that’s a good thing, since fallible Man has created far more moral institutions than the barbaric attempts by the god of the Old Testament.
In America, the buck stops with the Constitution, not the Bible. Why is this hard to understand? It’s simply unpatriotic to push society in a way prohibited by the Constitution (more here and here).
The prayer also gives a nice hug to God, who’s apparently going through a rough time:

Our hearts are … broken over how You continue to be marginalized and dismissed by both our people and our institutions.

Poor baby! Yahweh is able to create all matter and space, but he just can’t seem to make friends. I picture him standing alone in the playground while the other kids call him names like “Yah-wimp.” Maybe it would help if he actually existed and didn’t need apologists like this group standing up for him.

[Help us] publicly declare and live out Your truth in a spirit of love so that You feel welcome in our country once again.

Who knew humans could be so powerful? We couldn’t hurt Superman, but we can shut out the omnipotent creator of the universe.
I can’t leave this topic without pointing out one conspicuous contradiction. At the National Day of Prayer’s web site, they give its history:

The National Day of Prayer is an annual observance held on the first Thursday of May [since 1952], inviting people of all faiths to pray for our nation.

People of all faiths? That sounds pretty inclusive. But poke around a bit, and it’s clear that this is an exclusively Christian event, from Bible verses to voter registration appeals aimed exclusively at Christians.
Does prayer work?
In Matthew, Jesus says, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” In Mark, Jesus says, “Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” In John, Jesus says, “He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do.”
The New Testament unambiguously claims that prayer works, but we all know that that’s wrong, or, said charitably, prayer doesn’t work that way. Apologists handwave that prayer works … for the person doing the praying. Or we’re told that prayers are always answered, but “not yet” or “maybe” are valid answers. This reinterpretation of reality is worthy of North Korea or Animal Farm.
It’s like Harriett Hall’s Blue Dot cure, where the doctor paints a blue dot on the patient’s nose. Suppose the patient gets better. Great—the blue dot worked! Or suppose the patient gets worse. Ah, the doctor says, you should’ve come to me sooner. Or suppose the condition is unchanged. The doctor recommends continued treatment (and it’s lucky we caught it when we did)!
No outcome will make this imaginary doctor reconsider the treatment. Reality is redefined so that the doctor is immune to evidence that shakes his preconception that the cure works.
If the roles were reversed and it was Christians critiquing the supernatural claim of someone else’s religion, I imagine they’d be as skeptical as me. The simple explanation is that there is no God to answer (or not) your prayers. Prayer is simply talking to yourself. There’s no one on the other end of the phone. (More on prayer here and here.)
I’ll close with the wisdom of Mr. Deity:

Mr. Deity: Prayer is not for me, okay? I mean, I like it and everything, I think it’s sweet that people think of me, but I’ve got a plan, and I’m staying the course. But it’s great for them, it gets them focused on what’s important, it’s meditative, I hear it does wonders for the blood pressure. Plus it’s a chance to connect to me. How’s that not going to be good? You should know.
Jesus: Oh yeah, yeah. So what you’re saying here, sir, is that you never answer any prayers?
Mr. Deity: Not really, no. There’s just no incentive. I mean, look—if somebody prays to me and things go well, who gets the credit? Me, right? But if they pray to me and things don’t go well, who gets the blame? Not me! So it’s all good. I’m going to mess with that by stepping in? Putting my nose where it doesn’t belong?

Thus endeth the lesson for today.
See also: “National Day of Actually DOING Something” 

Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day; 
give him a religion, and he’ll starve to death while praying for a fish. 
— Anonymous

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/1/13.)
Image credit: Wikimedia

The local story about Bremerton High football coach Joe Kennedy, who for years has been praying with his players on the field after games, is now national.

Coach Kennedy ignored the local school district’s directive from a month ago to discontinue the practice, and he was put on paid administrative leave yesterday. Nevertheless, the Seattle chapter of The Satanic Temple, of which I’m a member, has been invited by members of the Bremerton High community. It is planning on attending tonight’s football game, ready with an invocation of its own.

The Satanic Temple (TST) has pushed for church-state separation in a number of instances, most notably in their move to get the Oklahoma legislature to either remove a Ten Commandments monument from public grounds or allow access by other religions. The Ten Commandments monument was removed a few weeks ago.

Coach Kennedy, victim?

Coach Kennedy, represented by the Liberty Institute (Kim Davis’s counsel), is trying to spin the issue as if he’s both the good guy in this story and the victim: “This is the land of opportunity, and I’m seeing it all stripped away because I’m an employee.”

This isn’t hard, coach. You’re not acting as an individual citizen when you’re an agent of the government. When in a position of governmental authority, you can’t say and do everything you can when you’re only acting as a private citizen.

For him to force his students to listen to a Muslim or Hindu sermon would obviously be a violation. Even the Liberty Institute would agree. Make it a Christian sermon instead, and the problem remains. Make it “voluntary,” and the problem still remains: a coach is a government employee in a position of authority, able to punish players with tougher practice, less game time, or even an inferred “I’m disappointed in you, son.”

Even Jesus has made clear that Coach Kennedy is doing it wrong. Jesus put this kind of public prayer off limits (and how much more public could it be, now that it’s a national story?).

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:5–6)

Joe Kennedy may be at the game tonight—he’s free to do so. The TST members have an invocation of their own planned, but the organization’s policy (as I understand it—I speak for myself and not for the TST or its Seattle chapter) is to become involved only in response to an environment that appears to give government authority to a single religion. It’s all or nothing. If there are no public prayers, then we’ll just enjoy the game.

To the good citizens of Bremerton who don’t like members of The Satanic Temple attending tonight’s football game, I say: thank the Liberty Institute.

Legal issues

For more background, I’ve summarized the two sets of tests the Supreme Court has established for analyzing a potential violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause in schools (the Lemon test) and a potential violation of the Free Exercise Clause (the Sherbert test) here.

The Bremerton School District has answered a number of questions about their actions and the legal precedents they’re bound by. For an individual new to this debate, Kennedy’s point may sound reasonable, but this is settled law. Here are a few excerpts.

About precedents that make this kind of prayer illegal:

In Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the [Supreme] Court held that a school district’s practice of simply allowing its facilities to be used for religious expression during a district-sponsored football game violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because of the reasonable perception by students and attendees of district endorsement of religion. That decision makes clear that students can pray on their own; but it is a constitutional violation of students’ rights for a District employee, acting as such, to initiate prayers with students.

The school district understands that not complying with the law wastes public education money:

The District cannot put scarce funds needed for the District’s basic educational mandate (which our State Supreme Court has already determined to be constitutionally inadequate) at such risk.

Response to the question, “Isn’t Kennedy off duty after the game ends, and free to do what he wants?”

No. All paid coaches in District athletic programs are required to remain with the program, performing duties as assigned, following athletic contests. These events clearly do not end upon the blowing of the final whistle.

About the coercive character of the prayers:

It is very likely that over the years, players have joined in these activities because to do otherwise would mean potentially alienating themselves from their team, and possibly their coaches. The District has a fundamental obligation to protect the rights of all of its students.

About the likelihood that the TST will be allowed to perform its invocation tonight:

The football field is not a public forum when it is in use for a District-sponsored athletic event. Thus, no group will be approved to use it for their own purposes while these events are occurring, and the District will take steps to enforce the closure of the field to non-participants while it is still in use for the District event.

[UPDATE 10/30/15: At the last minute, I wasn’t able to attend last night’s football game. However, a Seattle Times video shows the Satanists at the game, some “We love Jesus” taunts as well as some support by local folks, and Joe Kennedy praying in the stands after the game with some players. My guess is that, acting as a private citizen, this crosses no line.]

Image credit: The Satanic Temple

Kim Davis is the county clerk in Kentucky who prohibited her office from issuing any marriage licenses because, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage [that is, straight marriage], with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”

That seems odd, because as a candidate she never admitted that she’d pick and choose the laws she’d follow. In fact, she promised to “follow the statutes of this office to the letter.”

Davis justified her reversal by arguing that the “So help me, God” tacked on to her oath of office meant that acting on her Christian beliefs was obligatory and trumped the laws she was promising to uphold. There are two small problems with this: that phrase is not part of the official oath (nor is the Bible you might put your hand on), and if she swore to God to uphold the law, she’s now breaking that oath. (A thoughtful analysis of this is by Noah Feldman.)

An easy solution leaps to mind: if you can no longer perform your job, quit. You could even make a bold statement by saying that a government job that pays $80,000 per year isn’t worth compromising one’s principles. But no, she wants it both ways. She imagines that she gets to apply her personal interpretation of Christianity to her job. So presumably every other government official gets to apply their individual religious interpretations to their jobs?

At least Sharia law isn’t quite so chaotic.

I wonder how deeply Davis has thought this through. The Bible says all sorts of crazy stuff in favor of slavery, genocide, and polygamy. Since she picks and chooses which secular laws to follow, I suppose she feels comfortable doing the same with God’s laws. Jesus himself said, “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32). Before her current grandstanding, did she enforce that rule, too?

Davis began her job in January, 2015, when she knew that same-sex marriage might become legal within months, but she swore her oath of office anyway. She’s like the pacifist who willingly joins the infantry, knowing that killing the enemy was a possibility. And now that her unit has been deployed to a war zone, this pacifist decides that she won’t do her job.

(Davis had been in jail for contempt, but she was released 9/8/15 with the constraint that she can’t interfere in her deputy clerks’ jobs of issuing marriage licenses.)

We’ve seen this before with JFK

John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960. Some Americans were concerned that JFK, as a Catholic, would answer to the pope if elected president rather than the Constitution or the American people. One radio evangelist of the time said, “Each person has the right to their own religious belief [but] the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical system demands the first allegiance of every true member and says in a conflict between church and state, the church must prevail.”

In other words, how do we know that JFK won’t do a Kim Davis?

JFK famous responded:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; [and] where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials. …

I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

JFK explicitly rejected what Kim Davis has embraced.

The U.S. Constitution calls the tune

Here’s the bottom line. God isn’t the chief executive—the president of the United States is. The Bible isn’t the supreme law of the land—the Constitution is.

Be not confused: the United States doesn’t exist and run because God said so; instead, Christians can preach and worship because the Constitution says so. If the law offends you, you can argue that it’s unjust, you can work to have it changed, or you can leave. We have a 100% secular constitution that defines a 100% secular means for making, changing, and upholding laws.

I hear Pakistan puts God first in their law—maybe you’d like that better.

“The sky is falling!”

Conservatives are quick to tell us that this incident is the beginning of overt Christian persecution. A Christian Post columnist said, “For years now I and others have been warning that committed Christians could soon face jail time in America for holding to our convictions.”

Not really. Christian county clerks can object to same-sex marriages, Christian pharmacists can object to emergency contraceptives, Muslim flight attendants can object to serving alcohol, Christian bakers and photographers can object to same-sex weddings, but do your job. Don’t sign up and then imagine oppression. If you discover a moral dilemma down the road, quit.

To anticipate some jobs that a devout Christian might belatedly realize conflict with biblical principles, HuffPo has a list of jobs to avoid. You wouldn’t want to be a clerk selling mixed fabrics (prohibited), fishing for shellfish (prohibited), or teaching as a woman (prohibited). Are these examples ridiculous? Then ditto a clerk who objects to same-sex marriage (not explicitly prohibited) but has no problem with marrying divorced people (prohibited).

Another Christian Post columnist said, “Every serious biblical Christian will have to consider what to do now—whether a baker being asked to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage against her conscience, a county clerk faced with issuing a marriage license to a homosexual couple, or a pastor being requested to perform a wedding between two women or two men.” Let me answer that for you: the baker is obliged to follow public accommodation laws that prohibit discrimination, county clerks must do their jobs, and the U.S. has laws protecting pastors.

This last one is always on the list, even though pastors are protected, both by the First Amendment and by Supreme Court precedent. Remember Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that made mixed-race marriage legal? That is binding only on governments, not pastors. Pastors can and do refuse to perform mixed-race marriages. The same is true for same-sex marriages. Even the Family Research Council (a Christian organization) agrees. Hysteria about constraints on the clergy is popular because it rallies the troops, not because it’s realistic.

This reminds me of Glenn Beck’s hysteria on the eve of the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage. He declared that there were upwards of 10,000 pastors “that I think will walk through a wall of fire, you know, and possible death.”

Who did he imagine on the other side with the flaming torches?

Kim Davis: another Rosa Parks?

Rosa Parks was the African-American woman who refused to sit in the back of the bus in 1955. One of Kim Davis’s supporters finds much similarity between the two women. If Rosa Parks shouldn’t have to get off the bus, why should Kim Davis? He asks, “Will Kim Davis be the Rosa Parks of the movement?”

The difference, of course, is that Rosa Parks had her civil rights infringed upon, while Kim Davis is trying to infringe on the civil rights of others. If Kim Davis feels that the Bible has something to say about Obergefell, she can express that view, and every atheist I can think of will support her right to free speech. What she can’t do is impose that outside the law.

Will Kim Davis be the Rosa Parks of the conservative anti-same-sex marriage movement? A three-times-divorced person setting herself up as the arbiter of marriage might indeed be an appropriate saint for this ridiculous up-is-down and Ignorance-is-Strength movement.

Related post: “Being on the Wrong Side of History on Same-Sex Marriage? Worse than You Think.”

If you have to explain,
“I’m doing this out of love,”
it ain’t love.
— seen on the internet

Image credit: Wikimedia

Some atheist friends and I have a ritual that we follow when we meet for dinner. We deface our money.

On the back of U.S. paper money (technically, Federal Reserve notes) are the words “In God We Trust.” But I don’t trust in a god that I don’t believe exists; why should I be forced to promote a concept I don’t accept to conduct commerce? Does the American government have no obligation to its citizens who are atheists, agnostics, or non-Christian who feel excluded by this?

Consider the second beast from Revelation 13:16–18 that forced all people “to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.” Would the Christians eager for the imposition of “In God We Trust” as a national motto be just as happy if the money were printed with the Beast’s 666? Or what if it instead professed trust in Shiva or Allah or Xenu?

Civil disobedience

Our dinner ritual is to practice a little civil disobedience and change the slogan. Some cross out the entire motto, some cross out just “God,” and some change “God” to “FSM.” You could replace it with E Pluribus Unum or the text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Let’s take a closeup of the middle anarchist. I’m pretty sure that’s a blue “RELIGION: Together we can find a cure” t-shirt. Oh—and a defaced $20 Federal Reserve Note.

Give it a try at your next gathering of freethinkers or advocates for the separation of church and state.

But is it illegal?

What’s illegal is a national motto that spits on the First Amendment. And it should’ve been a crime to replace the motto E Pluribus Unum—“Out of many, one,” which is the story of an America built by immigrants—with a colorless motto could easily fit fifty countries.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code has several relevant sections about changes to currency.

• Section 333 says that mutilating or defacing a Federal Reserve note is illegal, but only if done “with intent to render such [note] unfit to be reissued.”
• Section 471 says you can’t alter money with intent to defraud.
• Section 472 says you can’t possess or pass on money with intent to defraud.
• Section 475 says you can’t put advertisements on money. (This got the Where’s George? bank note tracking project into trouble.)

It sure looks to me like this project is okay, but if you like, imagine a cloud of doubt to make it more exciting.

Add some spice. Cross out “God” in front of who you’re paying, or replace the slogan with “Atheist Money.” Get your Christian friends to join in—government meddling in religion can’t be good for them, either.

And ask yourself how weak the Christian argument is if its proponents must try to steal the prestige of the U.S. government to bolster it.

668—the neighbor of the beast.

About a month ago, I attended a public meeting in Vancouver, Washington. The Clark County Board of Councilors had decided that, among their many pressing matters of business, priority should be given to the question of whether “In God We Trust” should go up on the wall in their public hearing room. Public testimony took half a day.

The motion didn’t pass that day, but it was raised again and passed later that month (at a meeting with fewer citizens and less press, I’m guessing). One local paper said that hundreds of staff hours were also consumed by this project.

You might say that it’s not my business to criticize the wishes of the good people of Clark County, but that’s not who was behind this. This proposal wasn’t in response to a groundswell of public demand. Rather, one council member thought that it made sense to push this motion—whether for the good of the county or as his own personal posturing I can’t say.

I won’t go into details of this process since it has been nicely handled by the Ask an Atheist podcast and the Friendly Atheist blog (1, 2, 3). Instead, I’d like to summarize a few problems with this popular initiative and suggest a better way out.

Why “In God We Trust” in public buildings is a stupid idea

The public meetings made clear why this was a bad idea. Emotions ran high, with citizen speakers on both sides drawing applause from their partisans. This is a divisive issue.

In God We Trust-America, the California organization that is pushing for “In God We Trust” displays in local government buildings nationwide, says that this is “To promote patriotism.” What then are they saying about people who dislike “In God We Trust” glaring down at them from the wall behind their elected representatives? Apparently, those citizens aren’t patriotic. In Clark County, only Christians and perhaps Jews can be patriotic. And does “In God We Trust” behind the Board of Councilors mean that the Christian god is the final arbiter for all their decisions?

More than just atheists are left out. The baggage behind this slogan makes clear that this “God” is the Christian god—so too bad for believers of other faiths—and many Christians are outraged at this kind of hijacking of their religion by politicians.

I would’ve thought that the Board would want every citizen to feel included. Not a high priority, I guess.

You just gotta put something patriotic up on the wall? Here’s a better idea.

If you’re going to do anything in this department, put up the previous motto, E Pluribus Unum. “In God We Trust” is a shapeless religious platitude that could fit 50 countries, but E Pluribus Unum—that is, “Out of Many, One”—captures the essence of the people of the United States coming from all parts of the globe to forge a single great country.

E Pluribus Unum is precisely the opposite of an exclusionary slogan, and the Seattle Chapter of the Satanic Temple has a nice way to showcase the plurality and the unity. Click their proposed image below to read more on their Facebook page.

You have confused a War on Religion
with not getting everything you want.
— Jon Stewart

Image credit: Wikipedia

It’s another dreaded election year, and Pulpit Freedom Sunday, where pastors violate the law and critique candidates for political office, is around the corner (October 5, 2014).

The leaders of many religious organizations somehow feel imposed upon by the IRS because they can’t politick from the pulpit, as if that somehow comes along when preaching the gospel. But why? They can speak out all they want on social issues. No one forced tax-exempt donations on them—in fact, they took them willingly—so it’s surprising that they’re now chafing at the regulations that come along for the ride. The solution is easy: if nonprofit status is a deal with the devil, then don’t accept nonprofit status.

The Internal Revenue Service makes clear that churches and pastors may organize non-partisan voter education activities, voter registration, and get-out-the-vote drives (with an emphasis on non-partisan). Religious leaders speaking for themselves can say whatever they want, and they can speak “about important issues of public policy.”

However, all nonprofit organizations, including religious organizations

are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. … Religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. …

[Nonprofits] must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.

But some pastors can’t accept this. I don’t know if they honestly think that it’s unfair or if they figure that they’ve already tipped the playing field so much in their favor that they’ll try their luck for even more, but the Alliance Defense Fund has organized the annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday. On this day:

The pastors will exercise their First Amendment right to preach on the subject [of the moral qualifications of candidates seeking public office], despite federal tax regulations that prohibit intervening or participating in a political campaign. …

The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple: the IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status. We need to get the government out of the pulpit.

Wow—strange thinking. Tax-exempt status is granted by the government. It’s a contract, not a right, and it comes with strings attached. If we the public will be subsidizing an organization, we are entitled to limit its actions. No one’s strong-arming the church, and they can drop both the nonprofit status and the strings attached any time they want.

The motivation seems clear. Conservative politicians know that churches will in general tip the balance in their favor, so they do what they can to whip up anger about an imagined injustice.

The head of the IRS addressed this conflict of tax-exempt status and freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech and religious liberty are essential elements of our democracy. But the Supreme Court has in essence held that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right, stating, “Congress has not violated [an organization’s] First Amendment rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.”

If the IRS constraints against speaking out on political issues are a problem, then don’t enter into a contract with the IRS. Drop your nonprofit status, tell church members that they can no longer deduct donations, and then you can give your opinion about any candidate or issue.

But to keep your nonprofit status, you must follow the rules.

See also: “What Do Churches Have to Hide?”

No man ever believes that the bible means what it says;
he is always convinced that it says what he means
— George Bernard Shaw

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/11/12.)

Photo credit: Wikimedia