No politics in the pulpit — IRS rule change will ruin reverence
The root of the ban extends back to 1954. Then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson of Texas was running for re-election and faced a primary challenge from a wealthy rancher and oilman.
A nonprofit conservative group published materials that recommended voters support Johnson's challenger. In what many believed to be retribution, Johnson introduced an amendment to Section 501 (c)(3) of the IRS code, prohibiting organizations that are tax-exempt from trying to influence political campaigns.
Many took this as an attempt to muzzle preachers. But the measure was rarely, if ever, enforced.
Many liberal preachers, both black and white, invited mostly Democratic candidates to their services close to elections, giving them tacit, if not outright, endorsements.
Their tax-exempt status was never canceled, whether they preached against the Vietnam War or in favor of civil rights.
On one level, this is a freedom-of-speech issue, but not all freedoms are necessarily worth exercising.
The larger question is: who benefits the most and least from the IRS ruling?
Some politicians will benefit, but churches that see this as an opportunity to jump into political waters will be harmed as they will dilute their primary mission.
Besides, many churches have members who hold different political views.
For the pastor to engage in partisan politics runs the risk of having some of them leave. I would.
There has always been a presumption among those advocating for more political involvement by churches that members are ignorant about politics and can't form their own opinions without instructions from their preacher.
Organizations — liberal, but mostly conservative — have raised a lot of money promoting a fusion between church and state.
I don't attend church services to hear about politics.
Neither do I wish to hear theological pronouncements from politicians, many of whom misquote Scripture or take it out of context to fit their political agendas.
The mostly defunct Shakey's pizza restaurants used to have a sign on the wall that read: 'Shakey's has made a deal with the bank. The bank doesn't make pizzas and Shakey's doesn't cash checks.'
That's how I feel about politics in the pulpit: Politicians and preachers should mostly stay in their own lanes.
Where Scripture speaks clearly to a contemporary issue, including marriage, gender, abortion, and the wisdom found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, I'm ready to listen.
But don't let me hear who the pastor prefers in the next election.
I am not without information, and neither is anyone else if they take the time to do research.
Religious people have an absolute right — indeed, the country needs them — to express their views in the public square.
Many of our Founders exercised that right, and the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and other documents reflected their worldview.
And yes, colonial preachers frequently based their sermons on politics, praising or denouncing politicians.
But that exception shouldn't create a rule.
One of the reasons cited for the decline in church attendance in America is that many, especially young people, believe churches are already too political and identified with the Republican Party.
For those who disagree, I quote the ultimate church-state moment. When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, He said: 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36).
That ought to be good enough for everyone to put their priorities in the right order.
Cal Thomas is a veteran political commentator, columnist and author.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Some Democrats Panicked Over Mamdani. Obama Called Him.
In the days after it became clear Zohran Mamdani had won New York City's June mayoral primary, much of the Democratic establishment began to panic. Former President Barack Obama, the last Democrat to captivate the party's base, got on the phone. In a lengthy call in June, Mr. Obama congratulated Mr. Mamdani, offered him advice about governing and discussed the importance of giving people hope in a dark time, according to people with knowledge of the conversation. Others in Mr. Obama's orbit have also shown a keen interest in Mr. Mamdani and his campaign. Jon Favreau, who served as Mr. Obama's speechwriter, and Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser, have been in communication with the Democratic strategist Morris Katz, among Mr. Mamdani's closest aides. David Axelrod, who served as Mr. Obama's chief campaign strategist and senior adviser, was also curious. Last month, he stopped by Mr. Mamdani's campaign headquarters, then in the Flatiron neighborhood of Manhattan, to meet the candidate and his staff, and see things for himself. 'What I found when I went over to that office was a familiar spirit that I hadn't seen in a while of just determined, upbeat idealism,' Mr. Axelrod told me. 'You may not agree with every answer he's giving, or every idea he has, but he's certainly asking the right questions, which is how do we make the country work for working people?' He said Mr. Mamdani's ability to inspire young Americans, who feel economic uncertainty acutely, was critical and something the party at large needed to reckon with. Mr. Axelrod was introduced to Mr. Mamdani by Patrick Gaspard, another Obama insider. Mr. Gaspard — Mr. Obama's 2008 national political director, and later the U.S. ambassador to South Africa — has been serving as an informal adviser to Mr. Mamdani. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Chicago Tribune
20 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump pledged to move homeless people from Washington. What we know and don't know about his plans
President Donald Trump says homeless people in the nation's capital will be moved far from the city as part of his federal takeover of policing in the District of Columbia and crackdown on crime. With his exact plans unclear, there is concern among advocates and others who say there are better ways to address the issue of homelessness than clearing encampments, as the Republican administration has pledged to do. Washington's status as a congressionally established federal district gives Trump the opportunity to push his tough-on-crime agenda, though he has not proposed solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime. Here's a look at what we know and what questions remain about how Trump's actions will affect the city's homeless population: It is difficult to obtain accurate counts of homeless populations. On one day at the end of each January, municipal agencies across the United States perform what is called a 'point-in-time' count aimed at capturing the total number of people in emergency shelters, transitional housing or without any housing. The 2025 count in the district put the total at 5,138 adults and children, a 9% decrease compared with the year before, according to Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser. It's not entirely clear. Trump wrote on his social media site before Monday's news conference announcing the takeover that 'The homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital.' Asked during a media briefing at the White House on Tuesday where homeless people would be relocated, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said local police and federal agencies would 'enforce the laws that are already on the books,' which, she said, 'have been completely ignored.' Citing a city regulation that she said gives local police 'the authority to take action when it comes to homeless encampments,' Leavitt said homeless people 'will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services.' Those who refuse 'will be susceptible to fines or to jail time.' In the past five months, the U.S. Park Police has removed 70 homeless encampments, giving the people living in them the same options, she said. As of Tuesday, Leavitt said only two homeless encampments remained in district parks maintained by the National Park Service and would be removed this week. District officials said Tuesday they were making additional shelter space available after Trump said federal agents would remove homeless people in the city. Kevin Donahue, the city administrator, said outreach workers were visiting homeless encampments and that the city has a building available that could house as many as 200 people, if needed. Donahue made the comments during a conversation with community advocates and Bowser. The conversation was broadcast on X. He said the outreach would continue through the week with a 'greater level of urgency.' Bowser said that when Trump sees homeless encampments in the city it 'triggers something in him that has him believing our very beautiful city is dirty, which it is not.' Washington residents emphasized reductions in crime in recent years and concerns over the removal of homeless encampments in interviews Tuesday criticizing the federal takeover of the city's police department. Jeraod Tyre, who has lived in the city for 15 years, said 'crime has been slowing down lately' and argued that federal troops would only escalate tensions because they do not have 'relationships with the people in the community' like local police do. Sheiena Taylor, 36, said she is more fearful as a result of the presence of federal forces in the city where she was born and raised. Taylor said she has seen federal officers around her home and on the subway and worries about their targeting of young people and people experiencing homelessness. 'Being homeless isn't a crime,' she said, emphasizing the need for solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime rather than policing. It's not exactly clear what agents specifically will be tasked with moving homeless people to areas outside the city. There also hasn't been detailed information about how the people will be housed or provided for in new locations. Some advocates have raised constitutional questions about the legality of forcibly removing homeless people from the city.
NBC News
21 minutes ago
- NBC News
Democrats who fled Texas to block the GOP's redistricting plan weigh their exit strategy
With Texas expected to end its first special legislative session Friday and immediately begin a new one, the dozens of Democratic legislators who fled the state to block Republicans' redistricting proposal are hammering out a plan for their return home. Texas Democrats met late into the night Tuesday then again Wednesday, including breaking into smaller groups, to discuss their next steps and what their ultimate exit strategy looked like after spending the last 10 days out of the state, according to four sources close to the discussions. But those sources said the lawmakers do not yet have full consensus on an exit plan. 'It's hard to get folks on the same page,' said one of the sources, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal party strategy. Still, there does appear to be agreement on one point — the Democrats won't come back to Austin until Republicans officially bring the first special session to a close. They're beginning to describe their ability to block Republicans from passing their new map that could net the party as many as five seats in the U.S. House during the first special session as proof of victory. Republican leaders in Texas have promised to call ' special session after special session,' and they need just a handful of Democrats to relent in order to achieve a quorum so they can move forward with their redistricting plan. In a sign of Democrats' limited option, the GOP-led state Senate was still able to pass the plan this week because Senate Democrats couldn't get their entire 11-member delegation to break quorum. So while it appears likely Democrats will succeed in delaying the process enough to force a second special session, there is an acknowledgement among the caucus that their protest will need to come to an end some point soon. 'From the get go, they knew they were never going to stay out of Texas forever. People didn't expect them to. The goal that the smartest among them set was: We need to bring national attention to this issue so other states are ready to counter if Republicans really do this,' one aide to a Texas House Democrat breaking quorum told NBC News. 'They've done that. That's as much as anyone could expect — they are a minority in a legislature, but the entire country turned their attention to this issue. And the fact that California and New York are now considering redrawing their maps [in response to Texas] is a win,' continued the aide. The aide added that while it's 'hard' to strike a victorious message if Republicans ultimately enact the new maps, as expected, it's incumbent on Democrats across the country to drive the point home. 'This is a communications battle. When you're in the minority, what you have is a bullhorn and an ability to draw attention to issues. Eventually, the majority will vote. That's democracy,' the aide said. More than 50 Texas Democratic lawmakers have been out of the state since the beginning of August, depriving state Republicans of the minimum number of lawmakers needed to consider legislation. Republicans have been clear that their plan is strictly about politics. State Sen. Phil King, a Fort Worth-area Republican who helms the chamber's special redistricting committee, said Tuesday before the Senate passed the plan that while his first objective for a new map is 'that it be legal, the second objective is to support a plan that, simply put, elects more Republicans to the U.S. Congress.' President Donald Trump has been similarly blunt, telling CNBC last week that his party is 'entitled to five more seats.' Democrats have pointed to those comments to justify their decision to abscond, arguing that the plan is a naked power grab that will also harm the representation of minority communities. As the quorum break has stretched on, lawmakers and their aides have begun to telegraph that they're considering an off ramp — and setting the stage for what a victory lap might look like. The state House Democratic delegation released a statement Tuesday that lacked specifics, but acknowledged an exit plan is being discussed. A new statement Wednesday revealed how Democrats are defining victory: 'In keeping with our original promise to Texans, the First Called Special session will never make quorum again,' state Democratic Caucus Chairman Gene Wu declared, before applauding how 'blue states nationwide are mobilized and ready to act if Abbott moves forward.' 'Texas House Democrats will issue our demands for a second special session on Friday. Abbott can choose to govern for Texas families, or he can keep serving Trump and face the consequences we've unleashed nationwide,' Wu added. Republicans have pointed out that the state legislature has not been able to consider any legislation without enough Democrats present, including a relief package for the July 4 floods outside of San Antonio that killed 130 people. 'Every hour you remain away is time stolen from those Texans in need. Each one of you knows that eventually you will come back, and we will pass the priorities of the special session,' House Speaker Dustin Burrows said last Friday. 'But with each passing day, the political cost of your absence is rising, and it will be paid in full.' But Democrats have criticized Republicans for prioritizing the redistricting legislation. They argue that GOP Gov. Greg Abbott could narrowly focus a special session on flood relief before turning to redistricting or could even take action unilaterally. Texas Democratic strategist Luke Warford told NBC News in an interview shortly before the quorum break began that the true measure of success for Democrats will be about forcing Republicans to pay political consequences since they are in control of the legislature. 'The job of Democrats is to tell the story to people about what is happening, about how craven the Republican actions are, and about how they are trying to rig the system,' said Warford, who started a group called the Agave Democratic Infrastructure Fund to help fund the party's ecosystem in the state. 'Our job here is to slow things down, and make it hurt, and to tell the story to Texas voters,' he added.
