Allen 1

Formatted: Right

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 AfricanIndian civil rights leader, Mahatma Gandhi (Gandhis View on

Religion and Politics). 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 Ffirst 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 (Gandhis View on Religion and

Politics 2), that religion and politics coincide, while there are some who believe they should be

totally separate., and Tthere are also a moderate group of 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? After all, this question concerns not only the society that everyone lives in, but

the rights that everyone share.

Why How is does law currently Religion currently not allow Religioned within politics in

America?
 Allen 2
Formatted: Right

Separation of Church and state has overwhelmed American culture with continued layers Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

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

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. (Dreisbach).

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 toin regard to

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

practice religiontheir religion freely (Dreisbach 2), 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 thanA

restriction of the governments involvement within churches, which is was 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 schools of America ("Engel v. Vitale"). 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
 Allen 3
Formatted: Right

churches or other religious institutions from claiming tax-exempt status if they choose to partake

in political dialogue or support (Finch). 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 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 Does religion actually have anything

significant to say or do to make a difference inwithin 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 many religious institutions think they 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 wealth among wealth social classes. Even while these religious bodies have opinions

to offer on highly debated topics, such as the ones just listed, 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
 Allen 4
Formatted: Right

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

discussion within politics (Hanson). 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 these rights are

guaranteed by the Ffirst Aamendment, 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 (First

Amendment - U.S. Constitution.). The elastic clause is a cause within the constitution that

allows congress to pass any law that is deemed necessary and proper for the execution of the

laws within the constitution. Because of the elastic clause, these individuals claims that it is

necessary and proper to restrict religious provisions within politics (Elastic Clause -

Definition, Examples, Cases.).

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.

When the founding fathers of the US legalized he US constitutions, they were

establishing essential boundaries that define that is ethical or unethical. Laws that are passed

such as The Johnson Amendment and court cases that set precedents that restrict religious
 Allen 5
Formatted: Right

involvement within government, such as Engel vs. Vitale, the Supreme Court case that

prohibited open prayer within public schools, 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 all peoples

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 often

unnoticed, unethical freedom depravity can do constraint that is depriving citizens of their

religious and free speech freedoms.

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

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
 Allen 6
Formatted: Right

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 Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

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

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

if they so desire (Zauzmer).

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 (Charities, Churches and Politics). 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
 Allen 7
Formatted: Right

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

What can be done to restore religious freedom within politics?

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 8
Formatted: Right

Works Cited
Blumenfeld, Warren, et al. Further Demolishing the Wall Separating Church and State -. The Formatted: Font: Italic

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

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

Charities, Churches and Politics IRS, 12 July 2007, www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and- Formatted: Font: Italic
Field Code Changed
politics. Accessed 1 Mar. 2017.

Dreisbach, Daniel. "The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt,
Not Bold, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear
ChurchState Law, Policy, and Discourse." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 23 July 2006.

Web. 23 Apr. 2017.

Elastic Clause - Definition, Examples, Cases. Legal Dictionary, 19 Apr. 2017, Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt,
Not Bold, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear
legaldictionary.net/elastic-clause/. Accessed 23 Apr. 2017.

"Engel v. Vitale" Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468. Accessed 23 Apr. 2017. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt,
Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear
Finch, Brooke. "Religion Feature: Pastors Weigh in on Pulpit Politics." Clovis News Journal, Formatted: Font: Italic

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.

First Amendment - U.S. Constitution. Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017. Formatted: Font: Italic

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 Formatted: Font: Italic

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

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

 Allen 9
Formatted: Right

Gandhis View on Religion and Politics. Mahatma Ghandi's Writings, Philosophy, Audio,
Video, and Photographs, www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap18.htm. Accessed 23 Apr.
2017.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt,
Not Bold, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt,
Not Bold, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear

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, Formatted: Font: Italic

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.

"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.

 Allen 10
Formatted: Right

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.