Rep. Lamborn/Gazette say

currently illegal campaign electioneering

should be legal for churches

Formal Freethinkers of Colorado Springs response to Gazette GUEST COLUMN of November 15

Representative Doug Lamborn seems intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. He recently did a Bible reading on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and then, in an Op-Ed in the November 15th Gazette, “Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Preach,” he announced that he is introducing a bill to Congress, H.R. 6086, the “Protect Religious Expression Against Censorship and Harassment,” or “PREACH” Act. Rep. Lamborn wrote that the bill would “repeal the harmful provisions in the Johnson Amendment that impede the free speech rights of religious organizations.”

The Johnson Amendment was a change in the U.S. tax code, made in 1954, giving 501(c)3 tax exempt status to churches and other nonprofit organizations. The amendment was sponsored by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, hence its name. In exchange for accepting this tax exemption, the churches and organizations agreed to remain non-partisan. Certain activities, such as voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) were allowed as long as they were not done on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for elective office.

501(c)3 organizations can potentially lose their tax-exempt status by promoting the election or defeat of political candidates. But does this ever actually happen? Rep. Lamborn’s essay gives one the impression that the I.R.S. regularly harasses churches over this issue, but are you aware of one instance of the I.R.S. revoking a church’s tax exempt status for violating the terms of this agreement? Quite the opposite — the I.R.S. have been giving preferential treatment to churches, customarily “looking the other way” and ignoring infractions.

Rep. Lamborn argues that this agreement is an infringement of religious organizations’ freedom of speech. However, those organizations happily accepted these terms in exchange for the tax exemption — churches don’t have to pay a penny in taxes on all the money they raise or on the trillions of dollars of property they own, and all they have to do is remain politically neutral. Pretty sweet deal.

There’s actually a very good reason for this deal: the separation of church and state. Our Founding Fathers felt that both the church and the nation would benefit from operating without interference from each other. In the words of our fourth president, James Madison, “The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.” So the Johnson Amendment works well for both parties: churches and religious organizations can operate without government interference and they get a pass on paying taxes, while the government can conduct its business without religious interference.

Over the past sixty-plus years, the I.R.S have held up their end of the bargain — churches and religious organizations haven’t had to pay taxes. But apparently some of them are no longer happy with this arrangement. It allows them considerable input into the political process, but they want even more, and they’d like to get it without relinquishing their tax exempt status. Rep. Lamborn is trying to help them accomplish this with the “PREACH” Act. His rationale seems to be that churches should retain their tax exempt status in spite of increased involvement in politics because they “have provided vital charitable services.”

But aren’t businesses and individuals charitable as well? Countless people donate to charities every month, yet are still required to pay taxes. Some individuals, who donate many millions of dollars to worthy causes, still must pay taxes. Many businesses are similarly generous, but they, too, still pay taxes. So why should churches be given a special privilege and be exempt from taxation for their charitable endeavors? (And, by the way, their tax exempt status, and the tax exemption afforded to their donors, means all of us must pay higher taxes to make up for what they’re not paying. So, in a way, we all support churches indirectly by picking up the slack.)

Rep. Lamborn’s efforts to promote this “PREACH” legislation are without justification. Maintaining a town, a state, a country, a civilization is a team effort — everyone should chip in. Paying taxes is a necessity; it is one’s duty. And if a person or an organization wants a place in the political arena, taxes are the admission price they pay to enter that arena. Churches already have a great deal of input into the political process; they can do pretty much everything except endorse or oppose candidates, but they crave even more influence. If that’s what they want, then they should pay the admission fee — the rest of us have to.

Note: 
The Gazette twice failed to facilitate to the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs request to provide an "alternative viewpoint" to Representative Lamborn's advancement of HR 6086 and the Gazette's apparent decision to support its legalization of currently illegal election campaign activities.

Published January 3, 2016 in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.

"Opposing views will be included always."

Colorado Springs Gazette journalism standards, Vince Bzdek, December 25, 2016

Freethinkers of Colorado Springs December 8, 2016 email to Gazette opinion.com.

Hello,

The Freethinkers of Colorado Springs would be grateful if you would please consider the following essay for publication in the Gazette. It is a reply to recent (November 15th) Op-Ed by Rep. Doug Lamborn. In the interest of fairness, we believe an alternative viewpoint should be presented to your readers.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Regards,

Freethinkers of Colorado Springs