Important to Talk About but Not to Mix:

Religion and the Political Process

Introduction

From a very young age most of us are told that two of the topics that we shouldn’t discuss

with people are politics and religion. This could be because the various opinions and emotional

factors that go into these topics could make the discussions more heated than most others. This

could also be because of a lack of understanding of the complex nuances in these fields causes

people that may agree on the ultimate issue, to disagree on how something is labeled. But as we

grow older, we as Americans seem to love mixing politics and religion, let alone simply

discussing them. Some are upset whenever politicians reference religion too infrequently,

whereas others would be upset that the politician is referencing another religion. Going to

church1 and hearing the preacher speak about supporting a certain political viewpoint would be

joyous to some and horrendous to others. So, what are the rules? What should our politicians and

churches really be saying, or not saying?

The first part of this paper will be focused on politicians officially using religion. Section

A will discuss the history and purpose of the law governing such uses. Section B will focus on

when elected officials use religion during elections. Section C will focus on when elected

officials use religion while in official capacity in office. Section D will look at what should be

done moving forward. The Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution2 gives some guidance

as to what politicians can do once they are in office, such as whether or not they can pass

legislation that does not have a secular purpose3; but does not give any guidance on whether or

not this type of religious/political mix can be used to get elected.

1
Throughout this paper the term church will be used to represent any religious equivalent of a church such as a
temple, mosque, pagoda, etc. This rule applies to the term preacher, pastor, etc. as well.
2
U.S. Const. amend. I.
3
See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
 The second part of this paper will be focused on tax-exempt churches participating in

politics. Section A will discuss the history and purpose of the law governing such participation.

Section B will highlight the tax-exempt status of churches and the effect that it has on their

participation. Section C will look at how these organizations should be monitored to balance all

appropriate rights, and what can be done moving forward. This will raise questions as to which

constitutional right is outweighed by the other, religious freedom or freedom of speech4, when it

comes to churches and politics and how administrative rules, such as the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS) limiting political advocacy5, can have a great effect not only on churches

themselves, but also on the entire political process.

Religious freedom is a vague term that should also be defined at the beginning of this

paper. Religious freedom is a vague right granted by the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution and broken into two specific clauses, the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the

government from creating an official religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which allows the

citizens of the United States to openly and freely practice their religion without government

interference. Also in this paper, religious freedom is used to strike a balance between one citizen

practicing their religion and another avoiding religion altogether or another citizen practicing a

different religion. In the end, this paper proposes a definition of religious freedom as all citizens

being free to practice their religion without interference by the government so long as the

practice of said religion does not interfere with the rights of another citizen.

With that definition, this paper also adopts a Separationist theory of the Establishment

Clause. There are three major theories related to this topic, the first, Accommodationist, presents

the idea that “[g]overnment can accommodate and encourage religion in general but the ‘First
4
U.S. Const. amend. I.
5
Exemptions from Tax on Corporations, Certain Trusts, Etc., 26 U.S.C.S. § 501(c)(3) (1954).
Amendment was intended merely to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or

the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status.’”6 The second, Neutrality,

presents the idea that “the government should not treat religion any better or any worse than

other kinds of activities protected by the Bill of Rights.”7 Lastly, Separationism, which presents

the idea that “’religion and government function best if each remains independent of the other’

and the ‘advancement of a church [should] come only from the voluntary support [of] its

followers and not from the political support of the state.”8 Religion is important to who we are as

Americans, but because of that, it must be separated from the government so that America can

continue to grow and function effectively in a modern society.

Politicians should be elected for their policy considerations, not which religion they

support, or don’t support. When passing or endorsing legislation, these politicians should focus

on what’s best for the Nation, not what would satisfy a religious (or non-religious) group. These

dangerous mixes of politics and religion could cause a great divide not only between religious

and non-religious Americans, but also between different religions, and different sects of the same

religion. It must come from both sides, however. Churches should focus on the spirituality and

faith of their followers, instead of the positions of elected officials. Guiding adherents to which

position on a topic most fits within their moral code may be completely acceptable but having a

veto power over which laws get passed in their community9 would be too much of a mix from

this side of the issue.

6
Kathleen M. Sullivan & Gerald Gunther, First Amendment Law 3rd Edition, 508 (2007).
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
See Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 459 U.S. 116 (1982).
 The United States is a country without an official religion, a melting pot of the wide

variety of religious and non-religious views that make up humanity today. Our elected officials,

citizens, and churches should not forget this.

1. Politicians Officially Using Religion

Throughout the history of the United States, there are many examples of politicians using

their religion as a reason to pass certain legislation, or even to get themselves elected. This paper

begins with a history and reasoning of the laws passed to prevent such behavior. Then, it will

highlight examples of using religion in elections and then using religion once elected. Finally, an

overview will be given, along with a plan forward.

A. History and Reasoning of the Law

“To many, the idea of government endorsement of religion is not only acceptable, but

also a desirable way to promote public morality and strengthen community bonds.” 10 This quote

goes against the very ideas that this country was found upon: religious (or lack thereof) freedom.

We the People on occasion ignore this founding principle when it best suits us. Laws are passed

preventing non-Christian ideas, and politicians are encouraged or required to profess a belief in a

certain deity. Since the founding of this country, the role of religion and how it relates to the

government has been a matter of intense debate.11

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, three of the United States’

first four Presidents, all held different views on what the Establishment Clause of the

10
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Obama, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1048-49 (W.D. Wis. 2010).
11
Id. at 1041.
Constitution meant.12 However, “even ‘leaders who have drafted and voted for a text are

eminently capable of violating their own rules.’” 13 And even today, “many people look to the

President as the moral leader and sometimes even the spiritual leader [of the Nation].” 14 This can

be seen with the National Day of Prayer,15 with a short history provided below.

This official acknowledgement (and arguable endorsement of Judeo-Christian religions)

began back in 1952. Evangelist Billy Graham led a campaign in Washington, D.C. that ended in

a speech on the Capitol steps that called for a National Day of Prayer, “What a thrilling, glorious

thing it would be to see the leaders of our country today kneeling before Almighty God in

prayer,” Graham said.16 A bill was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives shortly

thereafter, with a Representative stating “I hope that all denominations, Catholics, Jewish, and

Protestants, [sic] will join us in this day of prayer.”17 Congress passed the bill on April 17,

1952.18 In 1988, the law was changed to a steady date each year. 19 In Section 1C of this paper we

will discuss how the Seventh Circuit declared this law constitutional.20

Those Americans that support the above statement that the President is sometimes even

the spiritual leader of the Nation, have tried to prevent people that may not share even the most

general of religious views from becoming an elected (or appointed) official. In Torcaso v.

Watkins,21 “Torcaso was appointed to the office of Notary Public by the Governor of Maryland

12
Freedom from Religion Found., 705 F. Supp 2d at 1041.
13
Freedom from Religion Found., 705 F. Supp 2d at 1063 (quoting Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 726 (2005)
(Souter, J., dissenting)).
14
Id. at 1049.
15
National Day of Prayer, 36 U.S.C.S. § 119 (1998).
16
Freedom from Religion Found., 705 F. Supp. 2d at 1043.
17
Id.
18
National Day of Prayer, Pub. L. No. 82-324, 66 Stat. 64.
19
Pub. L. No. 100-307, 102 Stat. 456.
20
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Obama, 641 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2011).
21
367 U.S. 488 (1961).
but was refused a commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God.” 22

Although this would not be an elected official using religion to be elected, this would be other

elected officials not allowing those that do not believe as they do to become an elected official.

The court here stated that the only purpose or effect of this requirement was to “set up a religious

test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in

God from holding public office of profit or trust in Maryland.” 23 Even when the U.S.

Constitution explicitly states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to

any Office or public Trust under the United States,” 24 we the people and our elected officials still

try to ignore this founding principle on occasion to pass laws like this, 25 which are a direct

affront to not only the Establishment Clause, by limiting which religion can hold public office,

but also to the Free Exercise Clause by punishing those that follow a different religion from the

majority by not allowing them to hold public office.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that neither the State nor the Federal government could

“force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion,” nor could they “impose

requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers” or “aid those religions based on a

belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” 26 In the

same line of balancing separation of church and state as Torcaso, the states may not prevent

clergy from holding elected office. Seven of the original States 27 as well as Tennessee’s 1796

Constitution disqualified ministers from legislative office. 28 “The purpose of the several States in
22
Id. at 489.
23
Id. at 489-90.
24
Id. at 491 (quoting U.S. Const. art. VI).
25
The argument was made that the provision of the Constitution prohibiting a religious test only applies to
positions of the United States and not to positions of the states themselves. The Court held that this constitutional
provision applies to both federal and state positions. Id. at 489n.1.
26
Id. at 495.
27
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New York, and Delaware. L. Pfeffer, Church, State,
and Freedom 118 (Rev. ed. 1967).
28
McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 621 (1978).
providing for disqualification was primarily to assure the success of a new political experiment,

the separation of church and state.”29 Over time, the various states removed said restrictions

because a fundamental principle of liberty would not be punishing a person in a religious

profession by prohibiting them from participation in a civil right. Most states acknowledge the

right of adult citizens generally to seek and hold public office and the freedom to pursue

employment in a religious field. However, the above restrictions would prevent someone from

exercising both rights simultaneously.

Only two States still disqualified clergy from holding legislative office by the beginning

of the 1900s, Maryland and Tennessee.30 In McDaniel v. Paty, Tennessee claimed the reason for

this restriction was that “[ministers,] if elected to public office they will necessarily exercise their

powers and influence to promote the interests of one sect or thwart the interests of another, thus

pitting one against the others, contrary to the anti-establishment principle with its command of

neutrality.”31 The court stated that this rule was merely similar to the one in Torcaso, and

violated the Free Exercise Clause by instead of barring office seekers because of not just their

belief in religion, but because of their commitment to persuade or lead others to accept that belief

and that “[o]ne’s religious belief surely does not cease to enjoy the protection of the First

Amendment when held with such depth of sincerity as to impel one to join the ministry.” 32

Although this rule was ultimately struck down, it raises questions outside the scope of this paper;

such as how would a clergy member running for office affect their tax-exempt status?

29
Id. at 622.
30
Id. at 625. Maryland’s rule was struck down as unconstitutional in 1974. See Kirkley v. Maryland, 381 F. Supp. 327
(D. Md. 1974).
31
McDaniel, 435 U.S. at 628-29.
32
Id. at 635 (Brennan, J., concurring).
 As seen above, there have been and still are a variety of restrictions for who can run for

public office and what they can do to aid religion (or lack thereof) once they have been elected.

However, there are not many restrictions for how one could advertise their religion in order to

help them win office. And, as we’ve seen, even with these restrictions there are examples of

politicians passing laws in order to advance their beliefs, regardless of what the restrictions say,

to the benefit of some and the detriment of others because they are not “bright-line” restrictions

and are open to interpretation of the three different theories outlined in the Introduction. These

next two sections will go deeper into politicians using religion to get elected and examples of

politicians using religion once in office.

B. Politicians Using Religion to Get Elected

This Nation’s history has provided a large body of jurisprudence related to what the

government can do when it relates to religion. One area that is lacking, however, is what political

candidates can do relating to religion whenever they are running for public office. As discussed

in Section 1A, there have been bright-line rules33 that have prevented candidates from holding

office because of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. In this section, some restrictions open

for interpretation are presented.

At the beginning of this section it is important to note that there is a debate between

political theorists as to whether religion should mix with politics. This section is dedicated to

only a legal argument about this debate. Legally, our politicians’ statements about religion are

protected under Free Exercise and Free Speech. However, this section proposes that laws be

made to limit this expression for the betterment of our Nation. Similar to the restrictions placed

on churches’ Free Speech related to participation in politics, our politicians should be limited to

33
See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) and McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978), supra.
official statements about religion. Although statements made by politicians during the election

cycle are not state action and therefore are not under the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Establishment

Clause, if the politician cannot separate their own religion from their campaign, what would

make them be able to separate their religion from their time in office? This would require a

balance between when the politician is acting in an official capacity of their campaign and

whenever they are acting as a private citizen with factors adjusted from the IRS’s Tax Guide for

Churches & Religious Organizations.34 The speeches from campaigns below sheds a better light

on this issue.

As religion seeps into the political realm more, questions unrelated to the official position

but related to religious affiliation have become prevalent. In Lloyd v. Birkman,35 a new constable

was being appointed until the next general election. “During the interviews, the candidates

received questions on their positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, their political

affiliations, the churches that they attended, and their political ideology.” 36 During the interview,

the candidate had received disapproving glances after his answer about abortion and was told “he

would need to come up with a better answer” after his answer to same-sex marriage.37 During the

trial, the Commissioners conducting the interview stated that “it is very unlikely that a candidate

whose answers are not consistent with the Republican platform could be elected in [the county],”

and that they had asked those questions to make sure that person would have been able to win

had there been an election.38

34
Infra.
35
127 F. Supp. 3d 725 (W.D. Tex. 2015).
36
Id. at 737.
37
Id.
38
Id. at 741.
 This raises a dangerous precedent, and not only for temporarily appointed positions.

Questions relating to same-sex marriage and/or abortion have nothing to do with the position of

constable, so why ask them other than to bring religiously charged questions into an otherwise

non-religious interview? A candidate’s religion should not be a topic of discussion for why they

should or should not hold a public office. To hold otherwise would be to return to the religious-

affirmation requirement we saw in Torcaso or McDaniel, in violation of the Establishment

Clause and/or the Free Exercise Clause. The court in Lloyd went further into issues unrelated to

this paper, such as employment law, in order to solve the case. The question of whether these

questions were acceptable for a position that has no legislative ability went unanswered. 39

This is but just one example. A better-known example of a candidate’s faith being used to

help or harm them in the election process is John F. Kennedy’s speech on his religion.40 Then-

presidential candidate, he gave a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, which is

a group of Protestant ministers.41 “At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s

Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as [P]resident

independent of the church.”42 This is already reminiscent of the argument Tennessee used against

McDaniel,43 which although came nearly a decade later, was struck down by the U.S. Supreme

Court. Although facing this issue, Kennedy embraced an idea of religious freedom that this

country (now, as well as then) has forgotten. Kennedy stated that he “believe[s] in an America

where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the

39
The court did find that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that a candidate’s position on the questions
at issue would affect their eligibility. Id. The court here also greatly overstepped bounds to compare how
conservative one religious service was compared to other Christian denominations. See Id. at 743.
40
National Public Radio, Transcript: JFK’s Speech on His Religion (Dec. 5, 2007, 12:48 PM),
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
Supra.
President (should he be Catholic) how to act [. . .] and where no man is denied public office

merely because his religion differs from the [P]resident who might appoint him or the people

who might elect him.”44 This appointment argument speaks directly to the questions presented in

the above paragraph about Lloyd. Lloyd took place in 2015, fifty-five years after this speech.

Kennedy’s words were not heard effectively enough to create change.

Kennedy stated that “no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public

policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source[.]” 45

Although discussed in Section 2 below, this rule46 had already been in effect in order for

churches to keep their tax-exempt status. This did not deter politicians from taking public policy

considerations from Billy Graham to support the National Day of Prayer just eight years before

this speech took place, however.47 Near the end of this speech, Kennedy said “[w]hatever issue

may come before me as [P]resident- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other

subject- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my

conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures

or dictates.”48 Presently, this may be a fatal quote if said by any state or local politician in the

Southern United States.

Similar speeches were given by both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. In Romney’s

speech,49 which was focused on how faith would inform his presidency, he openly admitted to

being a Mormon and stated that “As governor, [. . .] I did not confuse the particular teachings of

44
National Public Radio, JFK’s Speech on His Religion, supra.
45
Id.
46
See 26 U.S.C.S. § 501(c)(3) (1954), infra.
47
Freedom from Religion Found., 705 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, supra.
48
National Public Radio, JFK’s Speech on His Religion, supra.
49
National Public Radio, Transcript: Mitt Romney’s Faith Speech (Dec. 6, 2007, 12:02 PM),
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16969460
my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution.”50 His speech was also

riddled with statements where he openly preferred religion, as a whole, to non-religion including

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom” and “No candidate should become

the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of

all faiths.”51

Obama’s speech was similar, but he had one major difference; his opponent had used

religiously charged advertisements against him. Quoting these advertisements, Obama stated

“Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama

because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

[. . .] I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator

of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.”52 Obama followed the lines of Kennedy in calling for

the end of religion as a political tool in stating “Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a

Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu

nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,” and “No matter how religious they may or may not be,

people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don’t want faith used to belittle or

to divide.”53 But Obama also used this speech to gain points with the religious voting bloc in

stating “So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their

bibles.”54

The examples could go on and on. But in the same speech where these Presidential

hopefuls claim that religion as a political tool should stop, they still use religion as a political

50
Id.
51
Id.
52
The New York Times, Obama’s 2006 Speech on Faith and Politics, (June 28, 2006),
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/us/politics/2006obamaspeech.html
53
Id.
54
Id.
tool. The question remains unanswered, why, in a country founded on religious freedom, do

some of ‘we the people’ demand candidates answer questions about their religion? Or hold their

suspected religion against them? Many will remember President Barack Obama’s election. There

were many claims being made against him during the campaign, some of the more prevalent

ones were whether President Obama is a Muslim,55 whether Jesus Christ would have voted for

him,56 or that he was even the Antichrist.57 The Antichrist theory aside, why should it matter if a

candidate was a Muslim, or Hindu, or non-religious?

This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom and as stated above, any

rules or regulations about a candidate’s religion have been declared unconstitutional. This does

not dissuade voters from caring greatly about what church (or lack thereof) a candidate adheres

to. In fact, in all of United States history, every President has been from some branch of

Christianity, even if they (somewhat) left the church later.58 How much time must go by before

the unspoken and unwritten requirement of being Christian is removed from the requirements to

become President?

C. Politicians Using Religion While in Office

If and when a candidate makes it through the election process, with or without their

religion becoming a hot discussion topic, what about while they are in office? Can they use their

religion to pass legislation, or simply not do part of their job because they claim their religion

forbids it? One of the more famous examples appeared after same sex marriage was legalized

55
Andrew Kaczynski, Chris Massie, and Nathan McDermott, Republican congressional candidate called Obama a
secret terrorist-supporting Muslim, CNN (Sept. 12, 2018, 10:03 AM),
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/kfile-donnelly/index.html
56
The New York Times, Obama’s 2006 Speech on Faith and Politics, supra.
57
Paul Harris, One in four Americans think Obama may be the antichrist, survey says, The Guardian (Apr. 2, 2013,
6:10 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/02/americans-obama-anti-christ-conspiracy-theories
58
David Masci, Almost all U.S. presidents, including Trump, have been Christians, Pew Research Center (Jan. 20,
2017), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/almost-all-presidents-have-been-christians/
throughout the entire Nation.59 In Rowan County, Kentucky, the clerk refused marriage licenses

to any couples in an effort for the clerk to not have to issue marriage licenses to same sex

couples while also not discriminating.60 The clerk held a sincere religious objection to same-sex

marriage.61 Before taken to court, a deputy clerk had offered to issue the licenses but the clerk

still objected because her name would be affixed to the license.62 After Obergefell, the Governor

of Kentucky issued a directive that “[The clerks] can continue to have [their] own personal

beliefs but, you’re also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law” and that if their

personal convictions told them that they cannot fulfill the duties that they needed to resign and

let someone else step-in.63

The court found that the Governor’s directive did not substantially burden Davis’

sincerely held religious beliefs.64 For one reason, the right to marry as stated in Obergefell was a

compelling state interest and Davis was refusing to allow anyone to marry.65 For another reason,

the licensing process “simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is

accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.”66 Davis, in her elected

position, was not asked to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds nor was she

restricted from engaging in any religious activity she wished.67 Davis was ordered by the court to

start issuing marriage licenses to all legally qualified couples.

The court here did not prevent Davis from living and believing however she wanted to,

just that she carries out her job. Although cheered on by some, this could have set a very
59
See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).
60
Miller v. Davis, 123 F. Supp. 3d 924 (E.D. Ky. 2015).
61
Id. at 929.
62
Id. at 932.
63
Id.
64
Id. at 940.
65
Id.
66
Id. at 941.
67
Id. at 944.
dangerous precedent in religious freedom. Not a test as to who can hold or run for office but

instead a religion forcing their views upon the populace by simply holding the office and

instilling their own policy of who can receive benefits (in this case, marriage licenses) from the

government. This has raised a very delicate balancing test between an individuals Free Exercise

of religion when doing their job, especially a government job, and another individuals freedom

from religion.

Politicians that have legislative ability can take us even further from religious freedom

than an elected official just simply not doing a part of their job, as seen above. In Alabama, a law

was enacted in 1978 that authorized a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools “for

meditation.”68 This law was then changed twice, once in 198169 and once in 1982.70 The first

change in the law added “or voluntary prayer” to the end of “for meditation,” the second change

“authorized teachers to lead ‘willing students’ in a prescribed prayer to ‘Almighty God . . . the

Creator and Supreme Judge of the world.’”71 Although the ultimate constitutionality of the

statute would be subject to the Lemon test,72 the actions of the sponsoring politician were wildly

inappropriate in the eyes of religious freedom in the United States. The sponsor of the 1981

amendment to the law stated in the legislative record, without dissent, that this change was “an

‘effort to return voluntary prayer’ to the public schools.”73 After the passing of the bill he was

asked to confirm if that was his purpose and he stated “No, I did not have no other [sic] purpose

in mind.”74

68
Alabama Code § 16-1-20 (Supp. 1984).
69
Alabama Code § 16-1-20.1 (Supp. 1984).
70
Alabama Code § 16-1-20.2 (Supp. 1984).
71
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 40 (1985).
72
See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
73
Wallace, 472 U.S. at 57.
74
Id.
 If the sponsor wanted to merely protect every students’ right to engage in voluntary

prayer during a moment of silence, no change needed to be made to the 1978 law. However, by

stating in the record the purpose was “to return prayer to the public schools,”75 this crosses the

line of pushing the elected official’s religion on the populace and not maintaining a neutrality

towards religion as required by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Because this

1985 decision ruled that specifically adding voluntary prayer into the public schools was

unconstitutional, how is the National Day of Prayer76 still good law?

The history of the National Day of Prayer has been laid out in Section 1A, supra, the

statute itself was challenged by the Freedom from Religion Foundation on the grounds that “the

statute is unconstitutional because it endorses prayer and encourages citizens to engage in that

particular religious exercise.”77 Defendants argued that “the statute is simply an

‘acknowledgement of the role of religion in American life.’”78 As seen above in Wallace though,

by codifying prayer, the government officials are no longer neutral towards religion. The District

Court agreed with my analysis, arguing that prayer received special status through this statute.

“The National Day of Prayer is one of a select few days on the calendar that Congress has

officially recognized in a statute. The other days are directly related to patriotism, public health,

family, or a celebrated historical figure.”79

The legislative history of this statute may have not been as obvious, with sponsors stating

the purpose of the bill was to “protect against ‘the corrosive forces of communism.’”80 The

District Court stated that those comments “contribute to a sense of disparagement by associating

75
Id. at 59.
76
36 U.S.C.S. § 119.
77
Freedom from Religion Found., 705 F. Supp. 2d at 1041.
78
Id. at 1042.
79
Id. at 1051 (original citations removed).
80
Id. at 1054.
communism with people who do not pray” and “if you do not believe in the power of prayer, you

are not a true American.”81

This statute is of course different than Presidents praying themselves. The balance of

when the President is in their official capacity and when they may practice their religion as a

private citizen is outside the scope of this paper. The proclamation that all Americans should join

in prayer on a specific day is not the private practice of religion, but a call to join in a religious

practice as a Nation. This statute is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause.

This day has also been hijacked by many areas with events purposefully excluding any

who are not Christian. The events are not led by government officials but by local private groups

in public buildings. “In Victorville, California, local residents complained that ‘Hindus,

Buddhists, Muslims, and Sikhs are being excluded’ from the National Day of Prayer event at the

town hall. The organizer responded, ‘this entire nation was founded on Christian faith. The

reason we are a great country is because we’re Christian. In the Muslim countries, you can get

shot if you’re Christian.”82 These private organizers are not only being openly hostile towards

other religions, but are making claims, under the guise of government approval, that this is a

Christian nation. Interactions such as this also take place all over the country on this day.83

Unfortunately, only the District Court saw the similarities between this statute and the

statute in Wallace. The Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statute and stated that “although this

proclamation speaks to all citizens, no one is obliged to pray. [. . .] The President has made a

request; he has not issued a command.”84 The Court of Appeals claimed that this statute was

analogous to speeches given by Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, hundreds of years ago.
81
Id.
82
Id. at 1067.
83
See Id. at 1066-67.
84
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Obama, 641 F.3d 803, 806 (7th Cir. 2011).
However, the similarities between the National Day of Prayer and the addition of voluntary

prayer to the Alabama statute are glaring this country’s religious freedom jurisprudence in the

face.

In recent history, another law has been upheld that goes against religious freedom as

much as the National Day of Prayer. In Trump v. Hawaii,85 plaintiffs contended that two

Executive Orders86 implemented by the Trump administration single out and disfavor Muslims in

the immigration process.87 The reason for this claim is statements made by then-candidate

Donald Trump “call[ing] for a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United

States.’”88 Immediately after the President’s inauguration, the first Executive Order89 was issued;

President Trump called it a “Muslim Ban.”90 The majority upheld the order claiming that the

statements issued by the President cannot override the national security interest that those orders

claim to protect.91 This decision on national security is immediately put to the side with the

Justice Breyer’s dissent. Justice Breyer states that within this “security-ban” there is a waiver

system in place that is already discriminatory to Muslims, which makes the term “Muslim ban”

significantly stronger than the now-accepted “security-ban.”92

The other dissenting opinion, however, points this decision out for what it is: “a ‘total and

complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’” masquerading “behind a façade of

national-security concerns.”93 This dissenting opinion recognizes that the majority ignored what

was generally considered whenever a government policy or law was challenged under the
85
138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018).
86
See 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (2017) and 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (2017).
87
Trump, 138 S. Ct. at 2417.
88
Id.
89
82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (2017).
90
Trump, 138 S. Ct. at 2417.
91
Id. at 2422-23.
92
Id. at 2430-31 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
93
Id. at 2433 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
Establishment Clause, which is “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the

specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative

or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by the decision maker.” 94

This dissenting opinion then goes through an extensive list of statements made by the

then-Presidential candidate throughout the campaign including “if elected [Trump] would ban

Muslims from entering the United States,”95 comparing his ban on Muslims entering the country

to what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the internment of Japanese Americans during World

War II,96 and even telling “an apocryphal story about United States General John J. Pershing

killing a large group of Muslim insurgents in the Philippines with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood in

the early 1900s,”97 among many others. The dissent correctly analyzed that all of these

statements should have had an effect on the constitutionality of the Executive Orders. “Taking all

the relevant evidence together, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was

driven primarily by anti-Muslim animus, rather than by the Government’s asserted national-

security justifications.”98

Trump v. Hawaii raises an interesting Establishment Clause issue. Although this

proclamation would not be stating that the government of the United States was specifically a

certain religion, it would, however, state that the United States government was not officially

Muslim-friendly. In the past, both in Wallace v. Jaffree and Freedom from Religion Found., Inc.

v. Obama, the law, on its face, was not a violation of the Establishment Clause but whenever the

94
Id. at 2435 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (quoting Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520
(1993)).
95
Trump, 138 S. Ct. at 2435 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
96
Id.
97
Id. at 2436.
98
Id. at 2438.
Court99 looked into the stated or perceived reasoning for these laws being established, they were

struck down. Trump also seems legal on its face under the façade of national security, but

whenever all of the statements are taken into account like the precedent says they should, there is

no way a reasonable observer100 would believe that the President’s statements were not in

violation of the Establishment Clause.

All of the cases above are examples of politicians using their position to force their views

either for or against a certain religion. Despite the Lemon or any other test adopted by the

Supreme Court to strike down statutes that are not neutral towards religion, both Presidents

Obama and Trump have had otherwise evidently unconstitutional laws upheld. This sets a very

dangerous downhill slope towards a country that was founded on religious freedom becoming

officially a Christian Nation.101

D. Moving Forward- Politicians

As shown above, this country has laws in place to have our political process be neutral

towards religion. But from the very beginning, these laws have been entirely ignored or

interpreted in varying ways. Progress has been made, however. There are no longer the obvious

and unconstitutional official religious tests to hold public office as discussed in Torcaso and

McDaniel, although those tests never should have been in place originally. We the People

founded a Nation on religious freedom. Then as years went by, we instituted religious tests under

the guise of moral grounding. Even today, in Lloyd, a constable was asked questions about their

religion in an effort to see whether or not they would be able to be elected.

99
The District Court specifically in the case of Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Obama. The appellate court
disagreed as shown supra.
100
See County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 620 (1989).
101
See Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).
 There may be no more official religious tests, but the voters demand an unofficial

religious test. Whenever a constable runs for office, why should it matter their stance on

abortion? Their position has nothing to do with legislative power or abortion. Whenever a

President runs for office, why is their religion so scrutinized whenever we live in a pluralistic

society? As seen above, from JFK to President Obama, and many more, have spoken about their

religion on the campaign trail. This is not to say that the constable or the President is not allowed

to have a religion or to profess a religion; however, a balance needs to be found. If JFK is called

before a meeting of Protestant ministers who worry that he will take his direction from the Pope,

how is that any different from Tennessee not allowing a minister to be a representative in their

constitutional convention? The Supreme Court made it very clear that discrimination of that sort

is unconstitutional, yet we do it during every election. There should not be a problem with

Barack Obama writing a book102 while he was Senator that has religious connotations because it

was not a part of his campaign. That same precedent would follow in Miller. Kim Davis was

certainly allowed to do whatever she wished outside of her job when it came to her religion.

However, opinions on same sex marriage aside, she had to issue licenses as part of her job.

Running for political office is part of the job of holding said public office, and just like Davis

was not allowed to use her religion in the public work place in Miller, candidates for office

should not be allowed to use their religion to further their campaign.

If candidates have a view on same sex marriage, abortion, or any other topic, that does

not have to mean they are associated with one religion or another. In the modern age there are

many Christians that support same sex marriage or abortion, yet the term “Christian” is usually

used to only describe Republicans, or even more dangerously, the term is used to group together

one’s political opponents. Once these candidates make it into office, they need to be held more
102
Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (2006).
accountable to our religious freedom laws. In Wallace, there was nothing preventing students

from praying during the silent meditation period during the school day. Or, there was nothing

preventing the legislature from passing the original statute including the sentence about prayer.

The problem became whenever the legislator specifically stated that the purpose was to include

religion.

That precedent was eliminated in favor of politics when it comes to Trump, however. If

the statements in Wallace were enough to make the statute unconstitutional, then the statements

in Trump were significantly more than enough to strike down the executive order. Open

animosity towards a religion or open support of a religion are supposed to be the foundation of

the Establishment Clause. As candidates continue to run on religious grounds and laws like the

National Day of Prayer or the Muslim Ban are upheld, the foundation of religious freedom in this

country wears down. During the Cold War, the argument of national security was used to defeat

the “godless communists” whenever religion was added to our daily lives. Now the argument of

national security is being used to keep out those who hold a different religious opinion than us.

The National Day of Prayer has been used to make those who do not agree religiously from

participating in what is, essentially, a national holiday. The ballot box and the public debate are

being used to prevent those that are not Christian enough, or those that are too Christian,

depending on what side of the aisle, from holding public office.

New laws need to be enacted to prevent religion as a political weapon. Old laws need to

be held for what they are, glaringly unconstitutional or vastly under-applied. Otherwise, We the

People, a multicultural pluralistic society, will become a land ruled by one religion, where if

you’re not that religion you can’t come in, hold office, or participate in national holidays.

2. Churches Participating in Politics

 Churches in the United States are automatically tax-exempt. This tax-exempt status

prevents them from participating in the political realm. As with Section 1, the laws are

completely ignored and the balance between religion and politics has been skewed to where

churches, just as politicians, operate unchecked. A history and purpose of the law will be given,

followed by churches that have been participating in politics, and finally, how these

organizations should be monitored moving forward.

A. History and Purpose of the Law

Churches have been officially tax-exempt since as early as 1894, provided that they

operated for charitable purposes.103 Currently, churches have their tax exemption codified as part

of the 501(c)(3) tax code.104 The code states: “Corporations, and any [. . .] foundation, organized

and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, [. . .] or education purposes, [. . .] no

substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to

influence legislation [. . .], and which does not participate in, or intervene in, (including the

publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition

to) any candidate for public office.”105 “The legislative purpose of the [tax-exempt status] is

[that] New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist

in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its ‘moral or mental

improvement,’ should not be inhibited in their activities by [. . .] taxation or the hazard of loss of

those properties for nonpayment of taxes.”106

103
Paul Arnsberger, Melissa Ludlum, Margaret Riley, and Mark Stanton, A History of the Tax-Exempt Sector: An SOI
Perspective, Statistics of Income Bulletin, 106 (Winter 2008).
104
26 U.S.C.S § 501(c)(3) (1954).
105
Id.
106
Walz v. Tax Comm’n. Of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 673 (1970).
 “Both the courts and the Internal Revenue Service have long recognized that the statutory

requirement of being ‘organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, . . . or

educational purposes’ was intended to express the basic common law concept of ‘charity’. . . .

All charitable trusts, educational or otherwise, are subject to the requirement that the purpose of

the trust may not be illegal or contrary to public policy.”107 Therefore, all churches in order to

maintain their tax-exempt status must be charitable and must not influence legislation,

propaganda, or political campaigns. “’Charity’ in its legal sense comprises four principal

divisions: trusts for the relief of poverty; trusts for the advancement of education; trusts for the

advancement of religion; and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community.”108 The

question of whether an institution is charitable is different from whether or not that institution is

obeying the rules set out for tax-exempt status in § 501(c)(3).

The reason for these tax-exemptions is that churches provide social welfare such as

family counseling, aid to the elderly, aid to children.109 “Churches vary substantially in the scope

of such services; programs expand or contract according to resources or need.”110 Churches as a

whole have changed greatly since this tax-exemption was created. Mega-churches, churches that

are widely known for their political activism, churches that openly attempt to influence

legislation as shown above with the history of the National Day of Prayer. How have these laws

and restrictions been applied over time to these ever-changing institutions?

B. Churches Openly Engaging in Politics

107
Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 579 (1983).
108
Id. at 589 (quoting Commissioners v. Pemsel, [1891] AC 531).
109
Walz, 397 U.S. at 674.
110
Id.
 The rules about what churches can talk about in order to keep their tax-exempt status111

seem clear enough. However, the IRS has also published a Tax Guide for Churches & Religious

Organizations.112 In this publication the IRS states that “churches that meet the requirements of

[§ 501(c)(3)] are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and

obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.”113 This publication also defines

specifically what activities could jeopardize the churches’ status. Under substantial lobbying

activity, it states that “legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local

council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items, . . . or

by the public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar

procedure. . . . A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence

legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative

body for the purpose of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation. . . . Churches . . . may,

however, involve themselves in issues of public policy with the activity being considered

lobbying.”114

The publication lists similar rules for political campaign activity.115 Churches can invite

candidates to speak at functions and even hold voter education drives. The IRS is supposed to

determine whether or not a church has crossed the line on a case by case basis and looks at

factors such as: whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office,

whether the communication makes reference to candidates or voting in specific elections,

whether equal opportunity is given to all candidates to speak at an event, and whether the voter

111
§ 501(c)(3).
112
Internal Revenue Service, Tax Guide for Churches & Religious Organizations, Publication 1828 (Rev. 8-2015).
113
Id. at 2.
114
Id. at 6.
115
Id. at 7.
education would be the issues in comparison to the organizations positions on that issue.116

Congress has specifically outlined examples of when official church communication would cross

the line.117

The various courts have struggled to enforce these rules which has resulted in very large

churches that are not charitable but keep their tax-exempt status and very politically active

churches that also keep their tax-exempt status. A question was raised out of New York, what if

the dogma of the church is to be politically active? The Holy Spirit Association for the

Unification of World Christianity require their followers to a course of political activism. 118

Specifically, the church “believes that the physical world consisting of science and economics as

well as the spiritual world consisting of religion have developed in accordance with ‘God’s

providence’ and that ‘religion and economy relate to social life through politics’, that ‘it is

petitioner’s religious tenet that the republican form of government is a Satanic principle and that

these three governmental branches under the present political system must be brought under a

single controlling force as a condition for the second coming of the Messiah.”119 When starting

their analysis the court claimed that “In determining whether a particular ecclesiastical body has

been organized and is conducted exclusively for religious purposes, the courts may not inquire

into or classify the content of the doctrine, dogmas, and teachings held by that body to be

integral to its religion but must accept that body’s characterization of its own beliefs and

activities and those of its adherents, so long as that characterization is made in good faith and is

not sham.”120 The court does not state where this test came from and it ultimately held that

“religious and nonreligious themes are inextricably intertwined in the doctrine and that therefore,
116
Id. at 9-15.
117
The Bishops and Single-Issue Politics, 134 Cong. Rec. E 2853 (Sept. 8, 1988).
118
Holy Spirit Ass’n for the Unification of World Christianity v. Tax Comm’n of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 512, 525 (1982).
119
Id.
120
Id. at 518.
despite the religious content of the doctrine, and the leitmotif of religion with which the eclectic

teachings are tinged, the doctrine, to the extent that it analyzes and instructs on politics and

economics has substantial secular elements.”121

If the court in New York ruled that the above church’s doctrine is so intertwined with

their religious beliefs, where would that leave our test for tax-exempt status? Recently, a court in

Kansas heard a very similar argument from a better-known religious organization, the Westboro

Baptist Church. The Westboro Baptist Church claimed that the new truck they had bought should

be tax-exempt because it was being used for religious activities.122 Similar to the church in New

York, “[Westboro Baptist Church] members believe that they are God’s messengers on earth,

and it is their duty to publish the message that God has punished and will continue to punish the

United States because of the country’s willingness to condone homosexuality.”123 The Kansas

court ultimately held that the Westboro Baptist Church’s “activities had a significant political

component, which made it ineligible for the [tax] exemption.”124 The reason was that although

the Westboro Baptist Church claims that it is a significant and intertwined part of their dogma,

that the “members . . . have chosen to do this politically by warning the public about allegedly

ungodly public and elected officials and advocating the election of godly officials to office. In

advocating the reform of local, state, and national government by their message, the [Westboro

Baptist Church]’s members are engaged in a secular activity.”125

Although the New York court did not outline what activities their church was

participating in, it did hold that the preaching at the pulpit could be politically motivated if the

121
Id. at 526 (internal quotation marks excluded).
122
In re Westboro Baptist Church, 40 Kan. App. 2d 27, 29 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
123
Id. at 30.
124
Id. at 49.
125
Id. at 54.
political motives were intertwined with the religious dogma. Kansas however, focused more on

the activities of the church, regardless of the claim for intertwined religious dogma. Westboro

Baptist Church’s activities are extremely politically charged.126 More than 20 years had passed

between the New York decision and the Kansas decision, with the ever-changing public view of

religion, the New York court would hopefully hold differently today instead of creating a means

for churches to claim intertwined dogmas simply to evade tax laws. This inequality however,

already shows some problems for whenever the churches dogma is factored into the Free

Exercise debate.

In addition to some churches openly participating in politics, whether or not they are

allowed, churches have also been able to influence legislation, sometimes going as far as having

a veto power for zoning regulations. In Massachusetts, a statute was in effect that gave “churches

and schools the power effectively to veto applications for liquor licenses within a 500-foot radius

of the church or school.”127 The statute stated: “Premises . . . located within a radius of five

hundred feet of a church or school shall not be licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages if the

governing body of such church or school files written objection thereto.”128 The statute was

ultimately struck down because “[t]hat power may therefore be used by churches to promote

goals beyond insulating the church from undesirable neighbors; it could be employed for

explicitly religious goals, for example, favoring liquor licenses for members of that congregation

or adherents of that faith.”129 However, none of the churches, including the one who used this

veto power, had their tax-exempt status jeopardized regardless of it being a blatant violation of §

501(c)(3).

126
Westboro Baptist Church specifically targets the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. See id. at 32.
127
Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 459 U.S. 116, 117 (1982).
128
Id. (citing Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 138, § 16C (1974)).
129
Larkin, 459 U.S. at 125.
 Only one church has ever actually had its tax-exempt status revoked. “On October 30,

1992, four days before the presidential election, the Church placed full-page advertisements in

USA Today and the Washington Times. Each bore the headline ‘Christians Beware’ and asserted

that then-Governor Clinton’s positions concerning abortion, homosexuality, and the distribution

of condoms to teenagers in schools violated Biblical precepts.”130 At the bottom of the

advertisements there was a statement listing the churches sponsoring the advertisement and an

address in which to send tax-deductible donations.131 The IRS requested information from the

church, which it did not provide, and began a church tax examination which resulted in “the IRS

revok[ing] the Church’s § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status on January 19, 1995, citing the newspaper

advertisements as prohibited intervention in a political campaign.”132 The church fought the

revocation arguing that by removing their tax-exempt status, it would threaten the church’s

existence and be an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of religion.133 The court

ultimately held, however, that the IRS has full rights to revoke tax-exempt status from churches

for violating the political intervention rules. This is because “if the [c]hurch does not intervene in

future political campaigns, it may hold itself out as a 501(c)(3) organization and receive all the

benefits of that status”134 and “[t]he restrictions imposed by § 501(c)(3) are viewpoint neutral;

they prohibit intervention in favor of all candidates for public office by all tax-exempt

organizations, regardless of candidate, party, or viewpoint.”135 This revocation of the tax-exempt

status was focused on the free-speech and tax elements of the newspaper advertisements. The

political participation prohibition is arguably already an affront to the Free Exercise Clause but

130
Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137, 140 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
131
Id.
132
Id.
133
Id. at 142.
134
Id.
135
Id. at 144.
in today’s American society, which is a melting pot of various religions big and small, the tax

laws are one of the few ways to balance the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion.

Despite the rules here we have seen examples of churches being allowed to participate in

the legislative process with no punishments, and churches involved in politics that have lost their

tax-exempt status for the year. So what should the IRS be doing to prevent religion from

becoming involved in politics?

C. Moving Forward- Churches

The IRS has the ability to revoke the tax-exempt status that churches hold. Churches, in

order to keep that tax-exempt status, need to not be involved in the legislative process nor in

political campaigns. However, neither of these are happening.

“Over the last eight years or so, the Alliance Defending Freedom has sponsored an

annual event it calls Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in which pastors preach a sermon that expressly

violates the prohibition, then send a copy of their sermon to the IRS. Of the possibly thousands

of churches that participated over the years, none have lost their exemptions.”136 The IRS should

simply start revoking the tax-exempt statuses of these churches.

If the church wishes to participate, they must pay taxes for the year, like everyone else. If

they don’t wish to, as the IRS starts enforcing their own rules, the churches can simply adhere to

them. As stated in Rossotti, the tax-exempt status will be reinstated during a time whenever the

136
Sam Brunson, Stuck in the Middle With . . . the IRS?!?, The Surly Subgroup (May 3, 2016),
https://surlysubgroup.com/2016/05/03/stuck-in-the-middle-with-the-irs/
church does not participate in politics thus allowing churches to have the full flex of their First

Amendment rights, but not giving them the added advantage of a tax-exempt status.

This gives churches the right to choose how to move forward. Rossotti can publish the

advertisements, Westboro Baptist can picket, and Unification of World Christianity can preach as

they wish at the altar, but on their own dime. The IRS would also have the leeway needed to only

enforce the provisions as necessary to maintain the balance between free exercise of religion and

free speech. Thus, if the pulpit speeches only discuss certain moral codes, such as in Unification

of World Christianity, it would fall within the IRS’s own published guidelines in their Tax Guide

for Churches & Religious Organizations.137

“[M]any American churchgoers [are] hearing at least some discussion of social and

political issues from the pulpits at their houses of worship.”138 Some members of those churches

believe that their religion requires them to be politically active in the name of the church. In an

effort to balance the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, and modern politics, the

IRS needs to enforce the no political involvement provision of the tax-exempt status, giving all

members the right to decide if and how they want to be involved in politics.

Conclusion

Politics and religion have an interesting relationship. They are two topics that Americans

try and avoid discussing to prevent fights, yet they’re also often intertwined whenever policy is

introduced. Rules need to be put into place to prevent candidates for public office from using

their religion, or their opponent’s religion, to get ahead. It shouldn’t matter what religion, or lack

thereof, a candidate is, as long as they’re not using that religion as a reason to pass or reject laws.
137
Supra.
138
Pew Research Center, Many Americans Hear Politics From the Pulpit (Aug. 8, 2016)
https://www.pewforum.org/2016/08/08/many-americans-hear-politics-from-the-pulpit/
Once one of those candidates is in office, the laws currently on the books need to be enforced.

Religion should not be the motivating factor for passing or rejecting legislation, nor should laws

be passed and upheld that favor the ‘popular’ religion.

On the other side of the religion and political divide, churches should retain their tax-

exempt status, provided they follow the rules. If they want to participate, they should pay taxes.

Churches should not lobby for laws to be changed in the name of their religion over others, such

as what happened in the National Day of Prayer; nor should they openly claim similarities

between one candidate and their Supreme Being. A Separationist approach best protects these

rights that we as Americans hold so dearly. Our fellow citizens, judges, churches, and politicians

should seek to protect the rights of all Americans and not just those that adhere to the same

religion as they do.

This Nation is a Nation of many religions and many people. The laws that are in place,

many of which have been for a long time, need to be enforced, and as the makeup of the Nation

changes, new laws need to be put in place to protect all of the various religions that now call this

country home. Americans should discuss religion and politics; they just shouldn’t mix them.