The Wild Hunt (https://wildhunt.org/tag/johnson-amendment)
At its final hearing, the Religious Liberty Commission revealed deep divisions over the meaning of religious freedom, with supporters warning of cultural threats and critics arguing the body advances a narrow vision favoring conservative Christian perspectives.
A federal judge dismissed a high-profile challenge to the Johnson Amendment, rejecting a proposed settlement that could have allowed political endorsements in churches. The ruling preserves current law while leaving unresolved questions about enforcement and religious political speech.
A proposed IRS settlement would allow churches to engage in political speech during services without losing tax-exempt status, sparking concern from advocates who warn it undermines church-state separation and invites partisan influence.
TWH – Now that the season has turned and we are nearing the end of the 2017, we look back, one last time, to review this historic year. What happened? What didn’t happen? What events shaped our thoughts and guided our actions? In our collective worlds, both big and small, what were the major discussions?
WASHINGTON — Leave the Johnson Amendment intact was the message sent to Congress by American religious leaders from around the country. Jointly organized by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), a recent protest letter and petition garnered over 4,000 signatures in support of keeping the IRS nonprofit tax code provisions and restrictions. The joint action followed two other similar but separate letters sent in April – one by “99 national and state religious groups” and then another by “4,500 nonprofit organizations.” As we reported in March, the Johnson Amendment is part of the IRS’ tax code that “prohibits political campaign activity” by nonprofit 501(c)(3) charities and churches. Since launching his bid for the presidency and well into his elected term, Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to “repeal that language” or “completely destroy” that code in order to “protect free speech for all Americans.”