Churches and other non-profits can now endorse political candidates

[JLW]

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service reinterpreted the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, saying for the first time that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit. The change, which came via a legal settlement, functionally nullifies a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years. Their ultimate goal is still to totally eliminate the law, through Congress or the Supreme Court, removing all its limits on their political activities.

“Now churches are free,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been working to challenge the law for years. “The leash is gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html

Though the Johnson Rule has been in place for 70 years, we knew for instance where evangelicals, stood politically. They were just prohibited from saying so from the pulpit or advertising for a particular candidate.

The question is regardless of the repeal of the Johnson rule is it a good idea for Churches to start spouting politics from the pulpit and turning surmons into stump speeches for political candidates.

Will it turn off congregants? Will it just segregate people more as you seek churches that support your candidate?

What do you think?

 

[WorldWatcher]

How can the "administration" interpret the law and just change it.

Aren't they supposed to follow the law?

(Not commenting on whether the laws is "good" or "bad", just Administration ignoring the law. Isn't that what we didn't like about Biden?)

WW

 

[martybegan]

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service reinterpreted the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, saying for the first time that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit. The change, which came via a legal settlement, functionally nullifies a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years. Their ultimate goal is still to totally eliminate the law, through Congress or the Supreme Court, removing all its limits on their political activities.

“Now churches are free,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been working to challenge the law for years. “The leash is gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html

Though the Johnson Rule has been in place for 70 years, we knew for instance where evangelicals, stood politically. They were just prohibited from saying so from the pulpit or advertising for a particular candidate.

The question is regardless of the repeal of the Johnson rule is it a good idea for Churches to start spouting politics from the pulpit and turning surmons into stump speeches for political candidates.

Will it turn off congregants? Will it just segregate people more as you seek churches that support your candidate?

What do you think?

You do realize the origins of the ban was to prevent black churches during the civil rights era from vocalizing their opinions on civil rights legislation, right?

 

[pknopp]

Politics has done great harm to religion and this will only further erode it.

 

[JLW]

You do realize the origins of the ban was to prevent black churches during the civil rights era from vocalizing their opinions on civil rights legislation, right?

Actually, the Johnson Amendment was named after Lyndon Johnson when he was a Senator to bar non-profits from endorsing rival candidates.

 

[1srelluc]

You do realize the origins of the ban was to prevent black churches during the civil rights era from vocalizing their opinions on civil rights legislation, right?

Didn't seem to work....Black churches in Norfolk, Virginia hold Saturday morning services then load-up on a church bus and go vote.

Good to see the playing field leveled.

 

[JLW]

Politics has done great harm to religion and this will only further erode it.

That is my view as well.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, the Johnson Amendment was named after Lyndon Johnson when he was a Senator to bar non-profits from endorsing rival candidates.

LOL, that was the stated reason.

The black churches were the forefront of the civil rights movement. Isn't is curious that a ban on churches endorsing candidates or going over politics from the pulpit happened RIGH WHEN said black churches were heavily involved in Civil Rights activities?

 

[martybegan]

Politics has done great harm to religion and this will only further erode it.

Yes, because being able to fight back against the leftist anti-Christian/Jewish agenda is crippling to the religious.....

 

[martybegan]

That is my view as well.

You are just mad they will be able to more effectively fight back.

 

[JGalt]

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service reinterpreted the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, saying for the first time that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit. The change, which came via a legal settlement, functionally nullifies a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years. Their ultimate goal is still to totally eliminate the law, through Congress or the Supreme Court, removing all its limits on their political activities.

“Now churches are free,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been working to challenge the law for years. “The leash is gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html

Though the Johnson Rule has been in place for 70 years, we knew for instance where evangelicals, stood politically. They were just prohibited from saying so from the pulpit or advertising for a particular candidate.

The question is regardless of the repeal of the Johnson rule is it a good idea for Churches to start spouting politics from the pulpit and turning surmons into stump speeches for political candidates.

Will it turn off congregants? Will it just segregate people more as you seek churches that support your candidate?

What do you think?

If you didn't know that Christian churches have been politically-active, you've been living in a cave for the last six years.



FlashPoint

 

[JLW]

You are just mad they will be able to more effectively fight back.

So, I will put you as a yes that when you go to your church, mosque, synagogue or whatever that you are fine with politics being discussed from the pulpit. To each his own.

 

[JLW]

If you didn't know that Christian churches have been politically-active, you've been living in a cave for the last six years.



FlashPoint

Duh. I guess you missed that part of the OP where I said that. It just wasn’t from the pulpit. Now when you go to your church you can hear your preacher compare Trump to Jesus. Give me a hallelujah!

 

[martybegan]

So, I will put you as a. yes that when you go to your church, mosque, synagogue or whatever that you are fine with politics being discussed from the pulpit. To each his own.

Like the lefty offshoots of Churches don't do that already.

Also, the change doesn't say they have to, it just says they now can without being threatened by the IRS.

You don't think politics are discussed in Mosques?

 

[Votto]

Politics has done great harm to religion and this will only further erode it.

Politics has done this to everything dolt, or had you not noticed?

 

[justoffal]

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service reinterpreted the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, saying for the first time that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit. The change, which came via a legal settlement, functionally nullifies a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years. Their ultimate goal is still to totally eliminate the law, through Congress or the Supreme Court, removing all its limits on their political activities.

“Now churches are free,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been working to challenge the law for years. “The leash is gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html

Though the Johnson Rule has been in place for 70 years, we knew for instance where evangelicals, stood politically. They were just prohibited from saying so from the pulpit or advertising for a particular candidate.

The question is regardless of the repeal of the Johnson rule is it a good idea for Churches to start spouting politics from the pulpit and turning surmons into stump speeches for political candidates.

Will it turn off congregants? Will it just segregate people more as you seek churches that support your candidate?

What do you think?

Letting politics into the church, any church is a surefire method to destroy the church.

 

[ReinyDays]

Now lobbying groups can register as churches and not pay taxes ...

 

[JLW]

Like the lefty offshoots of Churches don't do that already.

Also, the change doesn't say they have to, it just says they now can without being threatened by the IRS.

You don't think politics are discussed in Mosques?

In every church I have heard any minister endorse a candidate from the pulpit though I knew where they stood politically.

My OP is simply asking the question is it a good idea to discuss politics in the pulpit. That is not to hard to understand is it?

 

[justoffal]

Now lobbying groups can register as churches and not pay taxes ...

It's been happening for years..... A large percentage of these updtart congregations that file as religious organizations are really nothing more than political clubs or ethnic clubs disguised for tax avoidance.

 

[Crepitus]

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service reinterpreted the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, saying for the first time that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit. The change, which came via a legal settlement, functionally nullifies a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years. Their ultimate goal is still to totally eliminate the law, through Congress or the Supreme Court, removing all its limits on their political activities.

“Now churches are free,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been working to challenge the law for years. “The leash is gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html

Though the Johnson Rule has been in place for 70 years, we knew for instance where evangelicals, stood politically. They were just prohibited from saying so from the pulpit or advertising for a particular candidate.

The question is regardless of the repeal of the Johnson rule is it a good idea for Churches to start spouting politics from the pulpit and turning surmons into stump speeches for political candidates.

Will it turn off congregants? Will it just segregate people more as you seek churches that support your candidate?

What do you think?

Bad idea all the way around. I support the Johnson Rule even though it was originally proposed to prevent Black churches from endorsing candidates and campaigning for them. Religion and politics shouldn't be mixed.