One of the central issues in Abilene’s recent City Council election, and certainly the most controversial, involved the relationship between religion and government.
Ryan Goodwin, James Sargent and Scott Beard received open support from several local churches. Both they and their supporters frequently sought to frame the opposition as those who believe our government should be completely free from Christian influence on the basis of the separation of church and state.
As someone who opposed all three candidates, I find this characterization misleading.
As a principle, the separation of church and state serves primarily to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.
The phrase, as it was first used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, referred to the First Amendment prohibition against Congress establishing a state religion or inhibiting the free exercise of religion. I do not believe the separation of church and state should be used to keep Christians, or the adherents of any other religion for that matter, from seeking office.
I also believe that once in office, they are free to follow their faith as long as they refrain from using government authority to impose their religious beliefs on others. It never was intended to keep the church, or Christians, from having an influence on our government.
However, churches still have to follow laws.
The separation of church and state does not prevent the government from regulating church activity as long as it does not restrict the free exercise of religion. One such regulation is the Johnson Amendment, passed in 1954.
Although it doesn’t specifically target churches, the Johnson Amendment prohibits tax-exempt organizations from engaging in political activity. It is not merely a “rule,” as some have suggested, nor is it “a fiction of the law,” as Ryan Goodwin has declared. It is a law passed by Congress and enacted in the Internal Revenue Code. Churches that enjoy tax-exempt status while engaging in political activity are claiming a benefit for which they do not qualify, which is a form of tax fraud.
It would be the same as someone claiming the tax benefit from having a dozen children, when in fact they had none.
Another of these regulations is the prohibition on corporations making political donations to individual candidates, found in the Texas Election Code. Like the Johnson Amendment, the Texas Election Code does not specifically target churches. Both policies are intended to protect our society from the corruption that inevitably would result if individuals could make unreported, tax-free political donations or if corporations were allowed to deploy their considerable resources to elect candidates of their choosing into office.
Neither of these measures violates the constitutional protection of free speech.
Churches could easily escape these restraints by organizing as taxable organizations (other than a corporation). Under those conditions, churches are free to openly support any candidates running for any office. However, they would lose the financial and legal benefits associated with being a nonprofit corporation. Churches can be free to engage in political activity, or free from the burden of paying taxes, but they can’t be both.
In a recent Texas Tribune article, James Sargent stated, “Some individuals would prefer the ‘church'/church people to be silent.” This is a straw man argument.
I support Christians playing a role in politics and government. In fact, I wantChristians to be involved in government, in the same way I want them to be involved in education, the arts, medicine, business and finance. However, when Christians engage in secular activities, particularly in a way that showcases their Christianity, I expect them to do so with the love, compassion and excellence that attracts others – not with a prideful arrogance and disregard for the law that repels others.
They should far exceed society’s minimum standards -- among which I would include complying with the law.
People who believe the Johnson Amendment or the Texas Election Code treats churches unjustly should work to change them. Persuade me that there is a way to relax these restrictions without introducing more corruption into our politics. I am willing to listen, and only ask that in return you listen to and address my actual position – not make-believe arguments based on trying to silence “church people” or a flawed magnification of the separation between church and state.
Michael Bob Starr is the former commander of Dyess Air Force Base and the former director of Global Samaritan Resources. He lives in Taylor County.
https://www.reporternews.com/story/opinion/contributors/2023/05/20/x/70232284007/
