Allen 1

Brady Allen

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1104

05 April 2017

God, America and Silence: Do the Churches Need to Shut Up?

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

This quote was said by one of the most respected peacemakers is history, Nobel Peace Prize

winner and South African civil rights leader, Mahatma Gandhi. For centuries, it has been highly

debated what the exact role religion plays in society, especially in the highly controversial realm

of politics. The constitution of the United States says under the first Amendment that Congress

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof. While the constitution of America grants to its citizens the free practice of religion,

many individuals feel that there is a fine line to be drawn as to how far that line goes. There is a

very diverse set of opinions regarding his issue. There are some who claim, as Gandhi did, that

religion and politics coincide, there are some who believe they should be totally separate, and

there are others who believe that religion has some role in politics, but the limit as to how much

involvement that they have must be established. The question must be answered: should religious

institutions have free involvement within politics?

Why is Religion currently not allowed within politics in America?

Separation of Church and state has overwhelmed American culture with continued layers

of policies, laws, as well as social and cultural changes that restrict the role that religion plays

within our society. The concept of separation of church and state originated in 1801 in a letter

written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. Jefferson said I
 Allen 2

contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that

their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. This is the

very first instance in which a government official used the term separation of church and state.

Jefferson felt that if congress were to begin making laws in regards to religion that the

government would impede on the peoples free will to exercise their right to religion freely,

while many people today actually believe that the intended purpose behind the creation of

separation of church and state was to protect the government from the church. They do not

realize that the actual purpose of this concept was to prevent government from interfering within

the church.

Gradually ever since the birth of separation of church and state further laws have been

established over time to restrict the churchs involvement within government, rather than the

governments involvement within churches, which is the actual intent Thomas Jefferson had for

the concept of separation of church and state. A famous example of legal restriction placed upon

religion came in 1962 in the Supreme Court case of Engel vs. Vitale that ended in the ban of

open prayer within public school of America. The most restricting American law that has been

placed over religion is The Johnson Amendment. The Johnson Amendment was proposed by

Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 and later passed by the senate that year. The Johnson Amendment is

a part of the United States tax code that prevents churches or other religious institutions from

claiming tax-exempt status if they choose to partake in political dialogue or support. This law has

effected the freedom of religious institutions to act freely within their country more than ever

before since as charitable organization it would cripple most and eliminate many churches

financially if they cross the border too far politically and are then forced to begin paying taxes on
 Allen 3

all their income. This is the essential reason as to why churches and other religious institutions

cannot have political involvement or dialogue in American politics.

Does Religion really have anything important to say anyway?

One may ask the question, What the heck can religion say or do to make a difference in

politics anyway? The answer to that question is yes. There are a wide variety of issues within

American politics that religious institutions have answers to and those answers come directly

from their belief systems. Such issues as these that religious institutions have answers for and

want to voice their opinions within are major hot topics such as abortion, gay rights, and even the

distribution of taxation among wealth classes. Even while these religious bodies have opinions to

offer on highly debated topics, they still have dialogue to voice regarding smaller issue to and

many of them have the strong desire to do so, but have fear of being punished if they choose to

take that course of action. Religious individuals often consider their faith in their belief system to

justify or discover how they feel on certain political topic, however they find conflict in the fact

that they are not allowed to use their belief system as justification publicly for their beliefs due to

The Johnson Amendment and what separation of church and state has become.

The issue that many nonreligious Americans have with religious institutions or

individuals voicing their belief based opinions within politics is that not everyone shares in that

same belief system, and due to that fact, they believe that religion should have no ground for

discussion within politics. However, many other individuals ponder as to whether restricting

religion out of political discussions is a disruption of both freedom of speech and freedom of

exercise of religion to those individuals and religious institutions who wish to voice their

religious beliefs as ground support for their political beliefs. Both of those rights are guaranteed

by the first amendment, but some argue that that rights listed in the 1st amendment can only be

taken so far legally, due to elastic clause that is also listed in the constitution.
 Allen 4

Is it ethical to restrict freedom of speech of those who want to have religious conversation
in politics?
The constitution of the United States was established and exists to protect every

inhabitant of the United States. Justly everyone within the United States should have full,

unbiased exercise of all the rights given to them by the United States constitution. This includes

all the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights, including the 1st amendment, which lists that all

Americans are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom to exercise their religion freely. This

may lead us to ask questions regarding how far can we take religious government restrictions

before they become unethical and unconstitutional without society realizing it.

Laws that are passed such as The Johnson Amendment and court cases that set precedents

that restrict religious involvement within government, such as Engel vs. Vitale have been argued

for decades now that they have surpassed ethical boundaries that were established whenever the

founding fathers of the United States passed the constitution into law. The constitution has been

largely a definition for what is ethical and that is not ethical to have in place in regards to human

rights. While we know that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of free

exercise of their religious preferences, it can be concluded that constitutionally it is unethical for

congress or any other government official to create laws or set judicial precedents that restricts

anyone or any group of peoples political dialogue or involvement merely because their actions

are religiously motivated. While this is being done through a continued unraveling of laws that

restrict religious personas and institutions there seems to be nothing that those who are suffering

from this unnoticed, unethical freedom depravity can do.

What can be done about this issue?

After gaining an understanding of the rights that all Americans should be constitutionally

guaranteed regarding freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, one may be challenged to
 Allen 5

wonder if there is anything that can be done to further allow religious individuals and religious

institutions to have their full voice in the realm of American politics, as it is believed to be

guaranteed by the United States constitution, and wonder if there is hope left for the issue.

Considering recent political events, there is hope for the issue. The Johnson Amendment has had

a spotlight in recent news media due to the campaign and election of President Donald Trump.

Trump took notice to the Johnson Amendment during his campaign while many pastors and

evangelical Christians showed vast support for him on the road of his campaign and while he

spoke to them in-person, however these same individuals were silent within their religious

institutions and within the public regarding their political support for Trump. After noticing their

actions, Trump confronted some of them and asked them why they were silent about their

support for him. They responded that they were afraid of having their churchs or religious

institutions tax exempt status revoked per punishment that comes from The Johnson

Amendment when a religious institution becomes too politically involved.

After learning this information on his campaign trail, President Trump has made it a part

of his platform to repeal The Johnson Amendment. Trump believes it to be unethical that the

government does not allow a religious institution or persons employed by religious instructions

to be outspoken politically since our constitution promises those same people groups to have

both freedom of speech and freedom to exercise their religion. On February 2, 2017 during a

speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with some of the nations top evangelical leaders, Trump

again brought attention to his disapproval of The Johnson Amendment and vowed to totally

destroy The Johnson Amendment. Although Trump has not since mentioned his intent or course

of action he plans to for The Johnson Amendment, we do know that it is on his platform to repeal
 Allen 6

it because he believes any religious institution should have their full freedom to speak politically

if they so desire.

A repeal of the Johnson Amendment is not solely left up to the President. Since the

Johnson Amendment is a part of the IRS tax code and therefore if a repeal is made on this law,

then it would have to go through a senate approval. For those individuals of whom want to act to

have The Johnson Amendment repealed, they can see that there is hope since we currently have a

President that desires to have the law repealed as well. Actions that those individuals can take to

bring attention back to this issue are to call their state senators and law makers and give their

opinions regarding the issue as well as take to social media to inform more individuals of the

issue. The more attention that is publicly brought to the issue, the more likes that action will be

taken against it.

Conclusion

Society has struggled for centuries to figure out where religion belongs in the public

spotlight. Some believe that religion should be left alone and not upheld within the open public

government. Others say that religion should can display itself with the public and have

government involvement if its members so desire. In America, if one examines the ethical

guidelines and rights established by the United States constitution, one can discover that while

religious institutions are forbidden to have governmental or political involvement, it is unethical

for them to have this restriction. After all, separation of church and state was originally intended

to protect the church from the government, and not protect the government from the church. If

one feels strongly about this issue, then they should make it known publicly and contact their

local government leaders to make known their desire for repeals of laws that restrict religious

involvement within politics and government.

 Allen 7

Works Cited
"First Amendment - U.S. Constitution." Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

Charities, Churches and Politics. Charities, Churches and Politics, IRS, 12 July 2007,

www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics. Accessed 1 Mar. 2017.

Blumenfeld, Warren, et al. Further Demolishing the Wall Separating Church and State -. The

Good Men Project, 21 Feb. 2017, goodmenproject.com/politics-2/further-demolishing-

the-wall-separating-church-and-state-wcz/. Accessed 5 Apr. 2017.

Finch, Brooke. "Religion Feature: Pastors Weigh in on Pulpit Politics." Clovis News Journal, the

(NM), 06 Oct. 2016. EBSCOhost,

librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=p

wh&AN=2W63103322566&site=pov-live.

Greenberg, Anne. The Church and the Revitalization of Politics and Community. Political

Science Quarterly, vol. 115, no. 3, Sept. 2000, pp. 377394., Accessed 13 Mar. 2017.

Hansen, Dale. Yes There Is a Constitutional Separation of Church and State. The Huffington

Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Sept. 2015, www.huffingtonpost.com/dale-hansen/yes-

there-is-a-constituti_b_8171550.html. Accessed 5 Apr. 2017.

Zauzmer, Julie. Trump said hell 'Totally destroy' the Johnson Amendment. What is it and why

should people care? The Washington Post, WP Company, 2 Feb. 2017,

www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/02/trump-said-hell-totally-

destroy-the-johnson-amendment-what-is-it-and-why-do-people-

care/?utm_term=.d829d09ada50. Accessed 5 Apr. 2017.