Speaker 1: In a surprising move, the IRS has effectively weakened the
Speaker 1: Johnson Amendment by stating that religious organizations can now speak
Speaker 1: about electoral politics from the pulpit without jeopardizing their tax
Speaker 1: exempt status, so long as it's done in good faith
Speaker 1: and within customary religious communication. The Johnson Amendment, in place
Speaker 1: since nineteen fifty four, prohibits nonprofits, including churches, from endorsing
Speaker 1: political candidates. Although rarely enforced, only one church has ever
Speaker 1: lost its tax exempt status. Religious conservatives have long sought
Speaker 1: its removal, arguing is restrict free speech. A legal settlement
Speaker 1: now exact exempts sorry two Texas churches from the rule entirely.
Speaker 1: Critics argue the shift could transform houses of worship into
Speaker 1: political action committees, fueling dark money into elections. Most Americans,
Speaker 1: including major religious groups, oppose pulpit endorsements. Civil rights groups
Speaker 1: warn this decision undermines both the integrity of religious institutions
Speaker 1: and the foundation separation of church and state. The story
Speaker 1: is from NPR, published on July eighth, twenty twenty five. Okay, so,
Speaker 1: first off, before we get started, I would like to
Speaker 1: welcome our brand new guest hosts, Filaba guested. Hello, flabagasted.
Speaker 1: How are you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing so well. Thank you very much for having
Speaker 2: me here.
Speaker 1: It is our pleasure indeed. And also may I please
Speaker 1: say hello to Eli? How art thou nice?
Speaker 3: Cynthia? Well, how's ever ready?
Speaker 1: Oh? I think that we're all Peter King jellybean in
Speaker 1: the place that we are to be nonprofiting, So, you know, flabbergasted.
Speaker 1: Since you are our first guest that's here, I would
Speaker 1: like to know what are your thoughts on this particular
Speaker 1: decision from the IRS.
Speaker 2: Ooh. I think in a way it doesn't really change
Speaker 2: a lot in practice, but I think it does kind
Speaker 2: of start eroding some of the foundations that we have
Speaker 2: set up as a society to ensure that our government
Speaker 2: and religious institutions are separate from each other, which is
Speaker 2: effectively what this nation was founded upon. And that's my
Speaker 2: biggest concern. Like, in practice, it doesn't mean much necessarily,
Speaker 2: it could. I could be totally wrong that there's some
Speaker 2: people talking about like greater concerns when it becomes of
Speaker 2: finances and money and stuff. But when we talk about
Speaker 2: it in practice, I don't know if it's going to
Speaker 2: change much, but it is an erosion of foundations that
Speaker 2: really concern you on it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I think that is very factual to
Speaker 1: be concerned about the erosions that could be taking place
Speaker 1: just because now you have faith based organizations that can
Speaker 1: actually involve themselves in electioneering, which is a no no
Speaker 1: for all of us who happen to be part of
Speaker 1: secular organizations. Right, the ACA just not electioneer. We like
Speaker 1: people to come up with their own thoughts. The only
Speaker 1: thing that we do is like present the news. But
Speaker 1: at the same time, we do understand that there's a
Speaker 1: double standard when it comes to religious and faith based organizations. So, Eli,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go ahead and put my next question
Speaker 1: to you. So, can you see or do you know,
Speaker 1: what are the potential consequences for a democracy and civil
Speaker 1: society for allowing tax exempt religious institutions to endorse political candidates.
Speaker 3: I think the consequences, I mean, we're kind of seeing
Speaker 3: this already. I think this is nothing new, Like, churches
Speaker 3: have been doing this for decades. The only time that
Speaker 3: Johnson Amendment was ever enforced, it was mentioned in the article,
Speaker 3: was in nineteen ninety two. So like if if that
Speaker 3: was before April that year, that didn't even happen. In
Speaker 3: my lifetime. So this change isn't really it's just cementing
Speaker 3: what's already been de facto for like a long time
Speaker 3: in my view. But I think as far as the
Speaker 3: consequence is, what we're going to see is that because
Speaker 3: this bareness boundary is no longer there, this line is
Speaker 3: no longer there, now they have the freedom to find
Speaker 3: the next line and start crossing that and like just
Speaker 3: do that little by little until that becomes a norm,
Speaker 3: and then that restriction gets lifted and now there's one
Speaker 3: less boundary because like churches are no stranger to like
Speaker 3: crossing lines like ethically or morally illegally. Hi, the Vatican,
Speaker 3: I'm looking at you, so like it's not that's kind
Speaker 3: of what I think. It's sort of like there're just
Speaker 3: this I called it like religious quantum tunneling, where like
Speaker 3: there's a boundary there, but the religious movement has just
Speaker 3: enough like momentum or energy that just a little bit
Speaker 3: of that is crossing that boundary and we're just like, Yep,
Speaker 3: that's normal, no problem.
Speaker 1: Well, first, Eli, I like to mention that you mentioned
Speaker 1: that nineteen ninety two wasn't even in your lifetime. Fuck you. Secondly,
Speaker 1: let me clarify it.
Speaker 3: So I was, so, I was more then April of
Speaker 3: ninety two, right.
Speaker 2: So and so kids these days, I don't know when.
Speaker 3: Depends on when when that actual event took.
Speaker 1: Place, but sure, sure, yeah, you know, well whatever, good
Speaker 1: you flabbergasted. We're going to keep this road on the show.
Speaker 1: What are the arguments behind the idea of the Johnson Amendment.
Speaker 2: The idea behind the Johnson Amendment is effectively that if
Speaker 2: you make it where religious institutions or nonprofit organizations in
Speaker 2: general are getting federal benefits but they're also politicking effectively,
Speaker 2: then they're able to engage in politics while also receiving
Speaker 2: benefits from politicking. Right, So it's effectively this circle that
Speaker 2: is a circle of corruption that you want to avoid.
Speaker 2: If you're giving people a tax cut and then you're
Speaker 2: giving them an ability to engage in politics to get
Speaker 2: further tax cuts or do other things with the tax
Speaker 2: cuts that they're receiving, then you're creating, effectively in a
Speaker 2: corrupt system.
Speaker 1: Indeed, I yeah, I bet, I bet, I bet that
Speaker 1: we can all think of certain policies that have come
Speaker 1: out since we've been having issues with some of dark
Speaker 1: money that has been involved with politics, right, and yeah,
Speaker 1: just this a couple but we are still experiencing the
Speaker 1: backlash of it, right because you know, now we have
Speaker 1: and like I said, I think they look alike of
Speaker 1: a lot of us have seen, you know, churches and
Speaker 1: faith based leadership have like dared the I R s
Speaker 1: to take away the taxes and status. I can even
Speaker 1: think of what's his name, greg A Lott, who's like,
Speaker 1: I don't care about the Johnson A Mendment take away
Speaker 1: my taxes in status. I gotta speak the truth. I
Speaker 1: gotta you know, lift the bear.
Speaker 3: God.
Speaker 1: Yeah he has to you know, wave a sword and
Speaker 1: things of that nature. Who knows.
Speaker 3: But by the baseball bat in the Barbie house.
Speaker 1: Right, yes, yes, yes, And I was like very upset
Speaker 1: because I always wanted a Barbie dream house. How dare
Speaker 1: you destroy that? But you know reasons. But I want
Speaker 1: to know, I Eli, because you mentioned something specifically that
Speaker 1: you were surprised to learn about. Can you talk a
Speaker 1: little bit more about that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, and it was kind of based off of
Speaker 3: a little bit of your notes.
Speaker 4: But I was, uh uh, well, and I'll say this
Speaker 4: this this here was like this was the first step
Speaker 4: in like like preventing like religion running away in government, right,
Speaker 4: Like in principle, it remains true that like they're not allowed.
Speaker 3: To financially contribute to like electoral campaigns or political campaigns
Speaker 3: as a church organizations, as a charitable organization, but that
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that they can't like now they can encourage
Speaker 3: their congregants to do so, or they can't collect tithings.
Speaker 3: And then just like after they pay them themselves their salary,
Speaker 3: make a personal donation, which they could have done all along,
Speaker 3: I guess anyway, but it just kind of opens the door.
Speaker 3: It's like, that's just that next line that I was
Speaker 3: talking about a little bit ago, like since they're financial
Speaker 3: if they're a most churches or a five oh one
Speaker 3: C four or to have that designation rather than five
Speaker 3: oh one C three, And one of the differences there
Speaker 3: is that they don't have to make their their financial
Speaker 3: books public, so they can basically it's just that next
Speaker 3: line that they can easily get away with crossing because
Speaker 3: who's going to stop them? And it's you know now
Speaker 3: that they don't have to worry about catching a fade
Speaker 3: from the I R S for supporting uh, like you know,
Speaker 3: speaking in support of any given you know, system or
Speaker 3: candidate and now they can just do the next thing.
Speaker 1: You know, I just think about, like, while I was
Speaker 1: listening to you about when it comes to enforcing Ceartain
Speaker 1: guardrails that are placed up in order for you know,
Speaker 1: certain constitutional laws to be adhered to, and how slowly
Speaker 1: but surely we're eroding them. It makes me just think about, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: so what is going to be the guardrail is going
Speaker 1: to be put up right in order to keep people
Speaker 1: from actually going too far? You know, we have in
Speaker 1: like federal government, you know, regulators, right, we have inspector
Speaker 1: generals what we used to to actually say what you
Speaker 1: could and could not do and actually like you know,
Speaker 1: step in and investigate certain things that may be happening
Speaker 1: from the top level on down that would say, hey,
Speaker 1: you can't do this because the law says blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: But when you get rid of that guardrail, what does
Speaker 1: that say? What does that say to the institution, What
Speaker 1: does that say to how to protect you know, people
Speaker 1: from being propagandized by faith based leaders and how they're
Speaker 1: going to be led when it comes to their politics. Right,
Speaker 1: and even like we're always seeing and we've been seeing
Speaker 1: this chipping away of the church state separation. I would
Speaker 1: say for the past like fifty to sixty years right
Speaker 1: where we are constantly blurring the lines about what can
Speaker 1: be said, what can't be said, what can be done,
Speaker 1: what can't be done, and to the point where we're
Speaker 1: just looking at just like I said, article said to
Speaker 1: turn you know, churches into packs right five one, one
Speaker 1: c fours instead of being like five o' one to
Speaker 1: ce threes where they can give money to candidates, where
Speaker 1: they can like invite what they which a lot of
Speaker 1: them already do, invite candidates for them to go ahead
Speaker 1: and to talk to their congregations about you know, what
Speaker 1: they want to do if you send them into whatever
Speaker 1: seats that they're going to be occupying at that time.
Speaker 1: And we even did a story, you know, I would
Speaker 1: say like a few years not like a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: where a pastor openly admitted that they received a ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars donation just because they were open about their
Speaker 1: political leanings. And that was and I mean like it
Speaker 1: was on tape and everything, and like nothing happened to
Speaker 1: this person. He used to still run around like ain't
Speaker 1: nothing wrong, you know what I'm saying, so he's like,
Speaker 1: da da da da da, send me more money. I'm
Speaker 1: going to tell I'm going to say more things that
Speaker 1: you are going to like, and you know, and and
Speaker 1: in the meantime, I can go ahead and just get
Speaker 1: enriched by, you know, doing this thing. So all of
Speaker 1: it is like so problematic. But you know, fiber guests,
Speaker 1: did I want to ask you, if the Johnson Amendment
Speaker 1: is no longer meaningful and meaningfully enforced, what safeguards, if any,
Speaker 1: should exist to prevent tax exempt churches from becoming political
Speaker 1: powers centers.
Speaker 2: I think the best approach to addressing this as a
Speaker 2: problem is to not have a rule on the books
Speaker 2: that people can wave away with a stroke of a
Speaker 2: pen as the way that we're drawing a line between
Speaker 2: what we should and shouldn't be allowed to do as
Speaker 2: nonprofit organizations or as churches who are getting nonprofit benefits, right,
Speaker 2: And that's Congress needs to step up and create legislation
Speaker 2: that can't be removed with that penstroke, because aside from
Speaker 2: removing this Johnson Amendment, there are no other guardrails. There
Speaker 2: is nothing else holding any of any of them accountable. None,
Speaker 2: And so there's not a solution and we could just
Speaker 2: put this back, but then it never had teeth in
Speaker 2: the first place. And if we just put it back
Speaker 2: into place, then it's going to be ignored even more
Speaker 2: than it was in the past, because the fact that
Speaker 2: it could just be removed under someone's whim means it's pointless.
Speaker 2: And so we need actual legislation we needed, and we
Speaker 2: need it actually enforced. If anything, anything that's actually put
Speaker 2: back on the books needs to be enforced meaningfully. And
Speaker 2: that's what we need to be doing if we're going
Speaker 2: to be having this clear cut line between church and
Speaker 2: the state in the meaningful way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I hear you. What about you, Eli, same question
Speaker 1: to you.
Speaker 3: I think that kind of goes right back to what
Speaker 3: I was saying earlier, like this, this was it. This
Speaker 3: was the one that was like supposed to stop, you know,
Speaker 3: people from doing that. Now that don't have that to
Speaker 3: worry about, you know, they can just casually contribute here
Speaker 3: and there and wait and eventually it'll just be the
Speaker 3: way of the world. I think that I think that
Speaker 3: it makes sense for people's religious views to influence their
Speaker 3: to be careful to the decisions they make politically. Right,
Speaker 3: So I they're going to listen to their religious leaders
Speaker 3: when it comes to forming those opinions that form their
Speaker 3: their voting decisions. So I think that it makes sense.
Speaker 3: But like if if they're going to go, if they're
Speaker 3: going to get advice to form those decisions from that clergy,
Speaker 3: from those religious leaders, I think that should be like
Speaker 3: a private conversation. I think that's and and and and
Speaker 3: it it goes so deep, and it doesn't really like
Speaker 3: what the thought I have there doesn't really answer your question.
Speaker 3: I don't have. I don't know what else it should
Speaker 3: be that this was the one thing that was in
Speaker 3: place to stop that from happening, and it's not there.
Speaker 3: So it makes me nervous, and I hope that there
Speaker 3: will be I'm going to stop that thought, but in
Speaker 3: the interest of our organization. But I think in a
Speaker 3: truly free society, there would be a time in which
Speaker 3: this Johnson Amendment is adequately enforced and there is a
Speaker 3: lot less relious influence in governance.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I was just thinking as he was
Speaker 1: talking about how I've recently had a conversation with the theist,
Speaker 1: and I was alluded to how a lot of us
Speaker 1: have watched debates over time where apologists will make a
Speaker 1: mistake and say that there is an atheist world view,
Speaker 1: like there is a specific atheist world view, and that
Speaker 1: always makes me go insane because atheists are varying when
Speaker 1: it comes to their world views, and being an atheist
Speaker 1: is not a worldview in itself. It's just a position.
Speaker 1: Do you believe in a God or God's answer?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Right, So, but I can say personally that, you know,
Speaker 1: being secular, being a non believer, does influence some of
Speaker 1: my worldview, but there are going to be other factors
Speaker 1: that are more predominant in my life that's going to
Speaker 1: definitely influence how I think and how I how I
Speaker 1: proceed in life, and including how I look at the
Speaker 1: world and even how I look at the nation and
Speaker 1: I and I know that if I had like some
Speaker 1: what let's just like you know, as we always say,
Speaker 1: if we had like some flying spaghetti monster that was
Speaker 1: constantly talking to the atheists and say you vote this way,
Speaker 1: you do this, you do that, I think that we
Speaker 1: would balk at that, right. We would definitely be like,
Speaker 1: you know, shut up, fine spaghetti monster, get on my plate,
Speaker 1: give me some marinaire sauce. And then also I want
Speaker 1: all the parmesan in the world, right, you know, went
Speaker 1: a little fennel. But regardless of that now making myself hungry.
Speaker 1: But you know, but that's where that stops, right, you know,
Speaker 1: because like I think that, like all of us have
Speaker 1: had conversations with other people who happen to be atheists
Speaker 1: who were from a very different spectrum when when it
Speaker 1: comes to like how we lean politically. But one of
Speaker 1: the things that I felt was important, and this is
Speaker 1: something that you know, we do and highly influence and
Speaker 1: highly respect in our religion. In our particular UH organization
Speaker 1: at the Atheist Community of Austin is making sure that
Speaker 1: we have a way for us to be able to
Speaker 1: talk about certain things without electioneering, without jeopardizing our positions
Speaker 1: when it comes to to A five and one C three.
Speaker 1: I mean, like we believe in actually I don't know,
Speaker 1: following the rules of the law. That's why, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: I was like, you know, so when you say, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm was going to stop right here, I was like,
Speaker 1: I feel you because like I was doing that like
Speaker 1: the whole time that I was actually just keeping coming
Speaker 1: up with my notes. But I think that like what
Speaker 1: can be said about all of this is that it's
Speaker 1: it's if I want to speak for myself, it's incredibly
Speaker 1: unfair for there to be a standard that's different from
Speaker 1: you know, faith based organizations versus like, you know, organizations
Speaker 1: like us when it comes to you know, how we
Speaker 1: proceed with you know, political thought. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: you know, it would make more sense for a lot
Speaker 1: of us to be like, you know what, even though
Speaker 1: that may be something that the irs decided to do,
Speaker 1: we're still going to follow those So with that being said,
Speaker 1: I like to give both of you a chance to
Speaker 1: get out your final thoughts. Flabberg A said, I'm going
Speaker 1: to start with you, and then I'm went to round
Speaker 1: up with mister Eli.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. I think what you touched on there
Speaker 2: is really important in regards to the two things. One
Speaker 2: the fact that this rule only seems to be applying
Speaker 2: for religious institutions, not all nonprofits. So the entire justification
Speaker 2: that they put out for this as a problem was
Speaker 2: that it was an infringement on free speech. But apparently
Speaker 2: free speech now only applies to religious institutions and not
Speaker 2: all nonprofits, and so it's completely contradicting the basis for
Speaker 2: their argument. It also shows that where the bias actually
Speaker 2: is in this case. They're not trying to give people
Speaker 2: more opportunities to engage in politics or not be curtailed
Speaker 2: in their speech in any meaningful way, which is also
Speaker 2: a misunderstanding what free speech actually means. But they're trying
Speaker 2: to give effectively more power to people who they think
Speaker 2: are going to be supporting them on these topics. And
Speaker 2: it's a very biased approach to it. But I think
Speaker 2: the other thing that's really important that we all need
Speaker 2: to be aware of is this is not an atheist
Speaker 2: versus religious issue. This is not a This is a
Speaker 2: issue of secularism, which is beneficial to all types of
Speaker 2: religious beliefs across the spectrum, right because once you allow
Speaker 2: one religion and we all know there's a particular version
Speaker 2: of religiosity that's going to be advantaged in this much
Speaker 2: more than any other religion that you can't guess which
Speaker 2: one that is. It's not Buddhism, my friend, that it's
Speaker 2: going to negatively affect all of these Everyone, everyone across
Speaker 2: the spectrum is being negatively influenced, not just religious believers,
Speaker 2: different versions of Christianity that don't agree with the type
Speaker 2: of Christians that are going to be taking advantage of
Speaker 2: this new rule set are going to be disadvantaged by
Speaker 2: this as well. So it's clear favoritism towards not just
Speaker 2: religions in general, but particular versions of religion that tend
Speaker 2: to engage in this far more than others, because the
Speaker 2: other ones value, generally speaking, this idea of a secular
Speaker 2: society because that is how you have a society with
Speaker 2: multiple religions existing and thriving, which they should be allowed
Speaker 2: to do.
Speaker 1: And certainly, Yeah, so.
Speaker 3: One of the I don't have the name in front
Speaker 3: of me right now, but one of the people that
Speaker 3: was sort of like involved with overturning this was coryas
Speaker 3: saying or comparing churches talking about political views more like
Speaker 3: a They said, it's more like a family discussion. And
Speaker 3: for a second I was like, I didn't really think
Speaker 3: that that was I was like, honestly, I kind of
Speaker 3: can keep behind that a little bit. But then I realized,
Speaker 3: like that would be the case if there weren't so
Speaker 3: much like coercion and blackmail basically just like baked into
Speaker 3: the whole concept. If the pass, then we're getting up
Speaker 3: in the pulpit and saying like I think this person
Speaker 3: is good because they represent these things, and that's how
Speaker 3: I interpret, you know, what God is saying to me
Speaker 3: when I read the Bible. I encourage you to make
Speaker 3: sure that you understand what God is saying to you
Speaker 3: when you read the Bible, and make decisions that align
Speaker 3: with what God is saying to you. If that's what
Speaker 3: they were doing, like that's one thing. That's religious guidance,
Speaker 3: you know, for political views, but that's not what's happening.
Speaker 3: They're saying like if you don't, you know, behave, if
Speaker 3: you don't make this choice, then you're going to go
Speaker 3: to hell because this person is God's chosen politician. And
Speaker 3: that's coercion, that's black mail. Like there are people that
Speaker 3: are actually genuinely terrified of what they consider or perceive
Speaker 3: to be a very real possibility of going to hell
Speaker 3: for violating what God wants. So that's not how you
Speaker 3: treat your family or in diesel. But it's it's violent,
Speaker 3: it's coercive, it's it's extortive, and it's exploitative. I guess
Speaker 3: extortive maybe also, but that's not what I meant.
Speaker 1: Well, all right, well, you know, I'd just like to
Speaker 1: say this like. As secular humanists, we should ask if fairness, plurism,
Speaker 1: plurism pluralism that is the word, and evidence based policies
Speaker 1: are our goals, what do we lose when religion gains
Speaker 1: unchecked political access. Tax three