The Relationship of the Church and the State

The argument over the relationship of the Church and the State is an old one. Churches across this country have become the target of harassment by governmental agencies at an increasing rate in the past few years. Why? Why is the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of religion" no longer protecting our churches? Who is responsible and how can we stop the trend?

The basis for most of the argument is the "no establishment" language of the US Constitution. Let's look there first.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
(Third article of the Bill of Rights)

What does it say?

It says Congress cannot make a law requiring religion as part of the American life. It is often said that this phrase prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but that is not precisely the case. The second phrase, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is dependent on the first phrase, and would not make sense in the limited context of a state religion. While it would outlaw a state religion, that is only part of its scope. It allows freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion. State religions do not allow abstinence, so this section cannot be dealing only with a state church.

The article goes on to protect the right of free speech, the right of the press and the right to peaceably assemble. Are these separate or joined ideologies? They are certainly joined. Congress cannot establish any law that limits religious assembly or the religious message in that assembly under any circumstances. In fact Congress is obligated by the oath of office to protect and defend every aspect of this article.

What about "freedom of the press"? Doesn't that broaden the scope of this article to include secular aspects of free speech? Again, don't try to separate dependent phrases.

"Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

The religious message is protected both in speech and in print. "The press" is referring to the printing press, not the news agency. Congress shall not prohibit the printing and distribution of religious literature as was the policy of European governments. Remember that the Bill of Rights was written to defend against the abuses practiced in the homelands of the founding fathers. They did not want to see Bible burnings on this side of the Atlantic like they had seen on the other side.

The founding fathers saw no instance where persecuting religion would be necessary or profitable. Listen to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #1.

Persecution of the church through restriction of speech or the right to assemble is characterized by Hamilton as "ill-judged" and "absurd".

If churches have all of these constitutionally guaranteed rights, why do we have limits on political activity? Why are churches under the thumb of the IRS and the DOJ if they pass out candidate information? Actually there is no prohibition of church involvement in politics in the Constitution; in fact it is unlawful to prohibit the church from any otherwise lawful act. Any such prohibition is a clear contradiction to the article we have been looking at.

Why is it unlawful then for a pastor to endorse a political candidate? This is a product of IRS regulations that seem to be in direct opposition to the US Constitution, but are they?

When one party enters into a contract to gain certain benefits from another party, it is accepted that the second party will ask for concessions for its benefit as well. When a church enters into a contract with the IRS in order obtain tax deductibility for contributions it receives, it has to waive certain rights including political activity. This is the case in all 501(c)3 corporations.

(c) List of exempt organizations
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), 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.

By contractual law, the 501c3 church may not:

• preach politically incorrect sermons (propaganda)
  
• influence legislation
  
• participate in political action
  
• endorse candidates
  
• oppose candidates
  
• publish or distribute political positions

The only way that a church can rely on the US Constitution for protection of its right to assemble and preach the whole counsel of God is to NOT incorporate under 501(c)3, or any other provision that requires it to cede constitutional protection.

Summary

The US Constitution provides a wide umbrella of protection for churches of all faiths. They are protected in the rights to assemble, preach and print any message they deem appropriate. The only way that this protection can be lost is if the US Constitution is modified or it is given away through voluntary forfeiture in a contractual agreement.

Now the real question

What pastor, minister or board has the right to place 501(c)3 limitations on Christ's church?

~~ Doc

Agree? Disagree? Let me know. tccn@wilderness-cry.net

To be removed from this mailing list you can unsubscribe through the homepage
or send your request to Unsub-tccn@wilderness-cry.net