Ohio bill would require a state-approved historical document in every classroom
The proposed list of documents within Senate Bill 34 includes: The Mayflower Compact; the Declaration of Independence; the Northwest Ordinance; the mottoes of the United States and of Ohio; the Magna Carta; the Bill of Rights; the United States Constitution; or the Articles of Confederation; and, controversially, the Ten Commandments.
A school district would get to choose whichever document it wants, however, S.B. 34 would require a written explanation of the document's historical importance to accompany each display.
"The reason for this bill is to expose our students to the documents which have, in America, served as the backbone of our legal and moral tradition, as a people," bill sponsor Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, told the committee in February, framing each of the documents as foundational to American government.
The bill sponsor called it "inexcusable" that public schools haven't placed more focus on these documents and argued that it has denied students "the vital legal and moral essence that our children need to thrive as good American citizens."
On Tuesday, opponents to the bill offered a different perspective, including ACLU of Ohio Chief Lobbyist Gary Daniels, who said S.B. 34's inclusion of the Ten Commandments made the bill a "plainly obvious attempt to impose explicit religious beliefs and practices on young, captive audiences in our public schools."
"There is no way to secularize or dilute this language to strip it of its religious significance," said Daniels, who told the committee that the ACLU of Ohio would not oppose the bill if the Ten Commandments were taken off the list.
Andrea Pagoda, a Jewish resident of Delaware County who testified in opposition to the bill, raised the question of which Ten Commandments school boards could pick, given that there are slight variations in Catholic, Protestant and Jewish renditions.
"Posting the Ten Commandments favors one particular religious tradition as a source of inspiration and guidance in violation of the separation of church and state," she argued.
Proponents of the bill — of which all have so far been religious — argued that the Ten Commandments are indeed central to the founding fathers.
"The Ten Commandments are important to our religious and legal systems because they serve as a moral and ethical foundation," said Monty Lobb, executive director of the Christian Business Partnership, a division of the Center for Christian Virtue.
"Obviously, they guide millions who practice Judaism and Christianity in their relationship with God and others. But let's not lose sight of or downplay the Ten Commandments' significant role in influencing a moral framework that has established fundamental principles of virtue like honesty, respect, and justice that appeal to many cultures."
Monuments
Outside of the display requirement, S.B. 34 would also grant schools the authority to erect a monument inscribed with "one or more of the documents on any school ground or premises," according to a nonpartisan analysis.
Logistically, some of these documents would be easier to inscribe than others.
Shortest on the list is America's and Ohio's mottoes — "In God We Trust" and "With God, All Things Are Possible," respectively. The Ten Commandments and the Mayflower Compact have about 200 words apiece, while the Bill of Rights has about 460 words. All other listed documents have more than 1,000 words.
Who pays for it?
Both the in-class displays and the monuments could be paid for under S.B. 34 by community organizations willing to donate funds. Those same organizations could donate the displays or monuments themselves, which Daniels argued would open the door widest for churches.
"You see, passage of S.B. 34 is only the first step for many S.B. 34 supporters. Pass this bill, and they will focus their energy and resources on school districts across Ohio, demanding they choose the Ten Commandments as one of the documents for display, or perhaps the only one," Daniels said.
Johnson, meanwhile, told the committee that the bill was written that way because "it is essential that the displays are funded and promoted by the communities themselves, having a say in what gets displayed in their schools."
------
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
14 minutes ago
- Black America Web
From George Floyd to Jacques Beauregard: America's Racist Rebound
Source: Win McNamee / Getty Come, go back with me to the summer of 2020. Millions of people from all backgrounds flooded America's streets demanding justice for George Floyd and the long-dead victims of American racism. During this period of racial reckoning, something extraordinary happened: old statues fell. Confederate generals were pulled from their pedestals. Slaveholders were toppled from marble thrones. Base names, school plaques, and public memorials were reexamined and, at last, rejected. Even Aunt Jemima got fired. It was extraordinary not just because these relics had stood for so long, but because they were never supposed to fall. These monuments had been carefully built to last, not just in stone, but in story. They were erected not in the immediate aftermath of war or glory, but decades later during Reconstruction and Jim Crow, as part of a larger campaign to rewrite history and reassert white supremacy. For generations, they stood unchallenged, unexamined, normalized. They didn't just commemorate the past; they distorted it, insisting that the Confederacy was honorable, that slavery was an unfortunate 'necessary evil' or just a 'dark chapter' in American history, and that white dominance was eternal. So, when those statues fell, they didn't just crack concrete; they ruptured a national mythology. They forced this country to ask: What kind of stories have we been telling ourselves? Whose version of history have we honored? And who has been erased, silenced, or trampled in the process? And then, the backlash came swiftly. Politicians, pundits, and self-anointed defenders of the 'real America' started foaming at the mouth and sprinting to pass legislation. They accused activists of erasing history, even though what had actually been toppled was propaganda. School boards started banning books. Governors began defunding diversity programs. The phrase 'Critical Race Theory' became a scare tactic. All of it—the removals, the debates, the bans—revealed just how fragile the American memory really is when forced to confront the truth. Because these weren't just arguments over monuments. They were battles over meaning. They exposed the deepest fault lines in this nation's relationship to its own past and made clear that history in America isn't just taught. It's fought. Now, flash forward to this week in Louisiana. While the rest of us are out here trying to survive climate collapse, student loan debt, and whatever new judicial hell the Supreme Court has cooked up, Governor Jeff Landry decided the real emergency was… a military base not being named after a Confederate family. With full-throated arrogance, he announced that the Louisiana National Guard Training Center in Pineville will once again be called 'Camp Beauregard,' a name previously stripped for its ties to the Confederacy and white supremacy. Beauregard was one of several Confederate figures, along with Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, whose monuments were targeted for removal or recontextualization in New Orleans. But Landry, ever the political illusionist, insists this isn't about honoring General P.G.T. Beauregard. No, no—it's about honoring his father , Jacques Toutant Beauregard, a sugar planter and enslaver whose name never once graced a military base until now. What makes this move so brazen is that Landry didn't just resurrect a Confederate name; he found a new way to venerate the same old system. He skipped the general who fired the first shot of the Civil War and went straight for the man who owned people and passed that legacy down. Jacques Beauregard wasn't a national military hero. He didn't lead any major campaigns. His only enduring historical significance is the fact that he enslaved Black people and raised a son who fought to keep them that way. That's who Gov. Landry wants Louisiana to remember with pride. That's who he's asking soldiers, including Black soldiers, to salute. This isn't about history or reverence. It's about spite. It's about power. It's about turning back the clock on racial reckoning and reminding Black people exactly where we stand in the state's racial hierarchy: underfoot, beneath the boot, behind the name etched into government signage. Landry's stunt is not isolated. It's the latest chapter in the white nationalist scrapbook of American memory. Under Trump's influence, politicians like Landry are waging a full-blown war on the historical record. It's not just about books or bases. It's about declaring that the Confederacy never really lost. That even when the statues fall, the spirit behind them can still be revived through policy, propaganda, and PR. This is about Making America Great Again, and that requires restoring the myths that once held America together, even if they were built on bondage, theft, and mass murder. Landry's move to rename the base isn't some quirky homage to his state's past; it's part of the MAGA mandate to resuscitate the lost cause under a new name. It's about putting a fresh coat of patriotism on the same old plantation logic. They're not even hiding it. Landry paired his announcement with a gravestone meme reading 'WOKEISM.' He wrote in a Facebook post: Today, we will return the name of the Louisiana National Guard Training Center in Pineville to Camp Beauregard. In Louisiana, we honor courage, not cancel it. Let this be a lesson that we should always give reverence to history and not be quick to so easily condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations.' As if restoring the name of a plantation-owning family is some brave act of historical preservation instead of a petty, ahistorical tantrum against progress. Nobody erased the dead. We just stopped pretending they were heroes. We stopped letting traitors to the United States, defenders of slavery, and men who fought to keep Black people in chains stand unchallenged on our public pedestals and government signs. That's not cancel culture, that's called accountability. That's a long-overdue course correction in a country that's spent centuries gaslighting its victims. And that line about how we shouldn't be 'so quick to condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations?? Please. Chile, I'm a whole historian and I am absolutely here to condemn colonizers, rapists, enslavers, lynchers, and every power-drunk architect of racial violence who thought Black life was disposable. That's called ethical clarity. The Confederacy wasn't misunderstood. It wasn't unfairly maligned. It was a violent, racist rebellion whose leaders chose war to preserve slavery. I get so tired of people who argue, 'But we can't judge men of their time,' as if our enslaved ancestors weren't judging them in real time. You think they were sitting on cotton bales thinking, 'You know, Master really needs a DEI training and maybe he'll stop whipping us and give us our freedom.' These weren't confused or misguided men. They made deliberate , violent choices to dominate, exploit, and brutalize. And they built systems that still haunt us. Refusing to condemn that isn't neutrality, it's complicity. Judgment is how we learn. It's how we draw moral lines. If we can't say that enslaving people was evil, regardless of what century it happened in, then we have no business calling ourselves civilized. You want reverence? Give it to the ones who resisted. Give it to the ones who survived. The rest can stay condemned and thrown into the dustbin of history. The irony, of course, is that if Jeff Landry had actually read a history book, or even skimmed past the plantation chapter, he'd know that General P.G.T. Beauregard, the very Confederate his office is avoiding by name, went on to support Black suffrage. After the Civil War, General P.G.T. Beauregard, yes, the same man who ordered the first shots at Fort Sumter, actually did a political about-face. By the early 1870s, Beauregard became a prominent supporter of the Unification Movement in Louisiana. In 1873, he joined forces with a group of white and Black citizens to promote racial reconciliation and political cooperation, publicly advocating for Black suffrage and biracial governance. He gave speeches urging white Southerners to accept the political reality of Black citizenship and warned that continued resistance would doom the South to economic and moral ruin. Source: Win McNamee / Getty In fact, Beauregard's postwar rhetoric was so conciliatory that it drew criticism from former Confederates and Lost Cause diehards. He openly denounced Jefferson Davis and distanced himself from efforts to resurrect the Confederacy's ideology, calling instead for peace, unity, and pragmatic cooperation between the races. So yeah, it's wild that Jeff Landry and his people are bypassing that Beauregard, the one who tried, however imperfectly, to reconcile with reality, and instead resurrecting the plantation-owning father, Jacques Toutant Beauregard. But I get it. The son doesn't play well on Fox News. That Beauregard doesn't troll the libs. Landry needed a name that wouldn't complicate the white nationalist narrative. The general who advocated Black suffrage doesn't work for MAGA optics. So, what does this tell us, really? It tells us that we're in a new era of historical gaslighting. That the erasure we were warned about isn't coming from activists tearing down statues, it's coming from the state, putting them back up under different names. It tells us that white supremacy no longer needs to shout to be heard. It just needs to legislate. It needs to rename, reframe, and wait for the news cycle to move on. The press, for the most part, is missing the point. The coverage frames this as another skirmish in the culture war, a 'controversial renaming' or a 'reversal of a federal decision.' But too few are asking the deeper questions. Why make this move now? Why pour state resources into resurrecting the name of a man who profited from the forced labor of Black bodies when Louisiana remains one of the poorest, most underfunded states in the country? The answer is simple: trolling liberals and appeasing racists is more important to Jeff Landry than solving real problems. Bigotry is his budget. Spite is his agenda. This isn't just about one man's nostalgia or a misplaced reverence for 'heritage.' It's a coordinated strike in a broader campaign to whitewash American history. We are living in a moment where Black history is under siege. School curricula stripped of truth, DEI programs dismantled, and Critical Race Theory demonized as if it were some contagious affliction rather than a framework to understand systemic inequality. Naming a military site after a man whose fortune was built on human bondage isn't a tribute to courage. It's a provocation, a middle finger to those fighting for historical clarity and racial justice. This renaming is happening in the shadow of a larger, more sinister project: the attempt to rewrite the American story from the top down. Under Donald Trump's revived influence, we are watching the rise of a new Confederacy, not one built on cotton and cannons, but on false memory and white grievance. From banned books to curriculum whiteouts, from the demonization of 'wokeness' to the glorification of insurrectionists, we are being led down a path where historical violence is repackaged as patriotism, and those who name it are branded as enemies of the state. It's all a cowardly sleight of hand, a shell game played with history, and it tells us everything about where America is headed under Trumpism. If future generations judge us harshly, it'll be because we allowed men like Donald Trump and Jeff Landry to resurrect white supremacy and call it 'heritage.' Dr. Stacey Patton is an award-winning journalist and author of 'Spare The Kids: Why Whupping Children Won't Save Black America' and the forthcoming 'Strung Up: The Lynching of Black Children In Jim Crow America.' Read her Substack here . SEE ALSO: Why White Folks Are Grieving Over Destroyed Relics to White Supremacy 'What Up, My Nazi?' Is Fox News Mimicking Black Reclamation SEE ALSO From George Floyd to Jacques Beauregard: America's Racist Rebound was originally published on
UPI
15 minutes ago
- UPI
DOJ launches new civil rights probe into George Mason University
The Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday launched a new civil rights investigation into George Mason University. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo July 21 (UPI) -- The Justice Department on Monday announced it has launched an investigation into George Mason University's admissions process, marking the fourth federal probe the Trump administration has targeted the school with this month. George Mason University was informed of the civil rights investigation in a letter stating that federal prosecutors will look into whether the school has denied equal treatment to students based on race or national origin, a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No specific instances of violations or complaints were provided in the letter, but it suggests alleged racial segregation regarding access to programs and facilities, as well as preferential treatment based on race in its admissions process and in awarding student benefits and scholarships. "Public educational institutions are contractually obligated to follow our nation's federal civil rights laws when receiving federal funds," Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said in a statement. "No one should be denied access to opportunity or resources because of their race, color or national origin, and the United States is committed to keeping our universities free of such invidious bias." It is the fourth federal investigation launched into the Fairfax, Va., university this month and the second in under a week amid the Trump administration's crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion policies in both the private and public sectors. Diversity, equity and inclusion, known as DEI, is a conceptual framework that promotes fair treatment and full participation of all people. It has been a target of conservatives who claim it focuses on race and gender at the expense of merit. President Donald Trump has sought to remove DEI from the federal government through executive orders and has threatened to revoke federal funding from several universities, including Harvard, over their alleged DEI programs. Last week, the Justice Department launched an investigation into the school over alleged illegal hiring practices, which followed the Department of Education opening a civil rights investigation into the university on July 10 and another probe over allegations it failed to respond effectively to a "pervasively hostile environment for Jewish students and faculty" earlier this month. George Mason University President Gregory Washington has yet to respond to the announcement of the latest Justice Department investigation but has repeatedly denied the accusations leveled at the school by the previous three. "It is inaccurate to conclude that we created new university policies or procedures that discriminate against or exclude anyone," he said last week in a statement. "To the contrary, our systems were enhanced to improve on our ability to consistently include everyone for consideration of every employment opportunity. That is our ethos and it is core to our identity as a national leader in inclusive excellence in higher education." In a separate statement earlier this month that does not directly accuse the Justice Department of misusing Title VI, Washington said he has seen a "profound shift" in how it is now being applied to attack longstanding efforts to address inequality. "Broad terms like 'illegal DEI' are now used without definition, allowing virtually any initiative that touches on identity or inclusion to be painted as discriminatory," he said. "This shift represents a stark departure from the spirit in which civil rights law was written: not to erase difference, but to protect individuals from exclusion and to enable equal opportunity for all." George Mason University has retained Torridon Law to engage with the federal government regarding the investigations.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the recent IRS filing challenges the boundaries between faith and politics
The 1992 ad began with a warning in bold, all-caps: 'Christian Beware.' The text of the ad went on: 'Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments. Did you know that Gov. Bill Clinton …' The ad, which appeared in the USA Today and the Washington Times, listed Clinton's stances on 'abortion on demand' and 'the homosexual lifestyle' and accused a then-presidential candidate of promoting policies 'in rebellion to God's laws.' The ad posed an urgent question : 'How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?' At the end, the ad solicited tax-deductible contributions. The ad was put out by The Church at Pierce Creek, a non-denominational church in Conklin, New York. It also became one of the rare cases of the IRS enforcing the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision of the U.S. tax code that bars tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. In 1995, the IRS retroactively revoked the church's tax-exempt status, arguing the ad crossed the line into prohibited political activity. In response, the church, operating under the name Branch Ministries, sued. But in the 1999 case Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, the D.C. Circuit upheld the IRS's decision, ruling that the church was still free to speak politically, it just couldn't do so while claiming the benefits of tax-exempt status. For decades, that interpretation stood largely unchallenged — until now. A surprising reversal In a surprising turn, the IRS recently signaled it would stop enforcing the Johnson Amendment in certain cases. In a proposed settlement filed in a federal court in Texas on July 7, the IRS agreed not to penalize two Texas churches for endorsing political candidates during regular church communications. The IRS agreement emerged as part of a proposed settlement in a 2024 lawsuit filed by a coalition of conservative religious organizations, including National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America and two Texas churches — Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church of Waskom. Both argued that the Johnson Amendment violated the First Amendment rights of faith-based institutions, particularly when endorsements were made during worship services. The IRS's decision not to treat such sermons as campaign intervention marked a significant shift from past interpretations of the law. 'Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the IRS filing. Since the news about the IRS filing, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, urging the court to reject the proposed settlement and defend the endorsement limitation for churches. Although the judge hasn't ruled on either of the proposals yet, the filing has reignited long-running debates about whether the Johnson Amendment protects the integrity of religious institutions or improperly limits their speech. Supporters of the change, including Speaker Mike Johnson and some evangelical leaders, see it as a win for religious freedom and free speech. 'The Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around,' Johnson wrote on X. President Donald Trump said he loved 'the fact that churches can endorse a political candidate.' Critics, however, warn of the dangers of entangling churches with partisan politics. Because churches are exempt from the financial disclosure rules that apply to other nonprofits, they could become vehicles for untraceable campaign spending if allowed to endorse candidates, experts say. 'Our faith should inform our vote,' said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. 'Our votes shouldn't drive our faith.' Whether the IRS's proposed shift becomes policy or not, it has brought renewed attention to a broader question: What are the appropriate boundaries between faith and politics in a house of worship? And can rules like the Johnson Amendment help preserve both religious integrity and democratic fairness? An 'unorthodox way' While the proposal does not formally change the law, it opens the doors for churches, who choose to do so, to endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status, experts say. 'It does serve as a signal to churches that, at least under the current IRS, some amount of candidate endorsement is tolerated,' said Sam Brunson, professor at Loyola University Chicago, who specializes in tax law. 'It gives kind of a legal reasoning for that, even if it's not a binding legal reasoning.' The filing 'is NOT a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. It does not change the law, nor does it protect all churches from potential enforcement,' Tyler emphasized in a statement. But the way the policy was introduced was significant on its own, Tyler said. 'It was a very unorthodox way to go about tax policy,' she said. Rather than issuing formal guidance, she said, the IRS appears to be attempting to change enforcement by bypassing the normal regulatory process without the act of Congress. Brunson called the filing a ' troubling, but at the very least interesting attempt' to get around procedures for issuing tax regulations. Brian Galle, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who teaches on taxation and nonprofits, said the filing, at least now, does not carry much legal weight: 'I think the promise right now that our charities can participate in politics isn't worth that much — at least for careful lawyers.' If the judge signs the proposed order, the IRS under the current administration would be prohibited from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the two churches. The Trump administration could attempt to formalize a policy change through regulation, but Galle believes that's unlikely. 'The reason the IRS probably won't issue a regulation is because it would be illegal,' he said, pointing to the Supreme Court's 'major questions doctrine,' which bars federal agencies from making significant policy shifts without clear authorization from Congress. The current filing isn't 'legally binding,' he said, which means that the IRS under a future administration could change its mind on the issue. But for now, it marks an important, and controversial, shift in how the IRS interprets the boundary between religious speech and political activity. Churches endorsing candidates Although the cases of the IRS enforcing the Johnson Amendment are rare, church leaders have often endorsed political candidates. One early example dates back to 1800, when the Rev. William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister, publicly opposed Thomas Jefferson's presidential candidacy. Linn published a pamphlet titled 'Serious Considerations on the Election of a President,' in which he questioned Jefferson's religiosity: 'Does Jefferson ever go to church? How does he spend the Lord's Day? Is he known to worship with any denomination of Christians? ... Will you then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence ... vote for Mr. Jefferson?' Linn faced no legal consequences for his advocacy, according to a 1997 Regent University Law Review article, which argued that The Church at Pierce Creek had the right to run the Clinton ad in 1992 and shouldn't be punished. Other historical examples include a 1960 sermon broadcast by a religious leader warning against voting for John F. Kennedy and a 1980 letter from a Catholic archbishop in Massachusetts urging Catholics not to vote for pro-choice congressional candidates. The article concluded: 'The restriction upon religious political speech adversely impacts a central conviction of religion's purpose: the ability to address issues germane to its moral code with the objective of influencing others.' More recently, a number of evangelical pastors have endorsed Donald Trump from the pulpit. For instance, pastor Mark Burns is known as 'Donald Trump's Top Pastor,' and publicly supported the current president at RNC events and rallies. Repealing the Johnson Amendment became one of Donald Trump's top priorities when he ran for presidential office in 2016. Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2017, he said he would 'totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.' Although efforts to repeal the amendment through legislation ultimately failed, the administration announced a shift in enforcement through the latest filing. 'The administration is trying to signal that if other religious organizations also want to participate in politics, then the administration wouldn't go after their tax-exempt status,' Galle said. Risk of 'dark money' Regardless of whether the filing becomes law, tax policy and religious experts warn about potentially alarming implications of partisan politics entering the house of worship. 'If this is applied to all churches, it would be toxic for both churches and our politics,' Galle said. 'It would make essentially every church a dark money organization.' Unlike other 501(c)(3) nonprofits, churches are not required to file annual tax returns (Form 990) that disclose their donors or spending. Engaging in partisan political activity, Galle explained, could open a channel for wealthy individuals, including those with no religious affiliation, to funnel money into campaigns through churches, benefiting from tax-deductible donations and total financial opacity. 'That would give churches a major, unfair advantage in political messaging,' he said. 'And that's bad for our politics and bad for the integrity of churches themselves.' Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, expressed similar concerns. 'This action is not about religion or free speech,' she said in a statement, 'but about radically altering campaign finance laws.' For religious communities, endorsements from the pulpit, whether local or national, risk dividing congregations and distracting houses of worship from their spiritual missions, Tyler said. Even further, it could fundamentally alter the church's purpose, she said. 'If they get engaged in partisan elections for candidates, we really could see that motivation is driving their mission, instead of their mission, their values and their beliefs really driving civic engagement in society,' Tyler said. Public sentiment remains largely opposed to pulpit endorsements. In 2023, a survey found that 75% of Americans opposed churches endorsing candidates, while only 20% supported it. Is the Johnson Amendment constitutional? When the IRS revoked Pierce Creek's tax exempt status over the Clinton ad, the church challenged the decision and sought an injunction against the IRS. In 1999, the district judge ruled that the IRS did not violate constitutional rights and religious freedoms of the church and dismissed the church's claims. But the question whether the Johnson Amendment is constitutional continues to percolate in the public debate. House Speaker Mike Johnson reiterated his view that this tax rule is unconstitutional and argued that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, but rather originates from a 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist association. While Brunson thinks churches should not be endorsing candidates, he believes that the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment is 'shaky at best.' The Supreme Court has identified 'core political speech' — speech that directly addresses government, candidates and elections — as the most strongly protected type of speech, he said. 'That's the speech that the government faces the strictest limits on prohibiting,' Brunson said. 'So it seems like this blanket prohibition is probably at best deeply questionable.' Brunson said ads placed in national or local newspapers aren't the kind of endorsements the IRS appears to be concerned about in the recent filing, which would be more like endorsements made during a sermon or within a church newsletter. Brunson argues the Johnson Amendment is sound and could be considered constitutional with some adjustments. Tyler, however, remains firm that the law does not silence pastors. 'There is nothing that is stopping a pastor's speech,' she said. If the pastor feels they want to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, 'they can give up their 501 (c) (3) tax exemption.' 'Moral judgement' or 'partisan politicking'? Still, politics often finds its way into church life, even without explicit endorsements. Defenders of the Pierce Creek church argued that the Clinton ad highlighted the moral issues at stake of the election, and they viewed it as the church's duty to speak out on the moral qualifications of political candidates. 'The unfortunate result of the I.R.C. (Internal Revenue Code) restrictions is that no meaningful distinctions have been made between moral judgment and partisan politicking,' the 1997 Regent University Law Review article said. Issues versus people — that's how Brunson articulated the appropriate line in addressing the questions of the day that may touch on politics. 'There's a difference between advocating on issues that align with your mission and endorsing a person,' he said. Faith communities also have a stake in local policy debates that directly affect their ability to operate, he said. 'Churches need to be able to protect themselves.' Tax law generally permits churches to advocate on issues like zoning laws, housing policy or poverty, he said, as long as they don't cross the line into endorsing specific candidates. Tyler also distinguishes between being political and being partisan as a church. 'I personally think that Jesus was political the way that he cared about the people and that he lived with and how he was working to change societies and structures,' she said. Historically, churches have played an important but nonpartisan role in civic life: educating voters, helping people get to the polls, hosting forums and even serving as polling places, Tyler noted. 'The law really forbids partisanship,' Tyler emphasized. 'It doesn't forbid political engagement. There's so many ways to be politically engaged without being attached at the hip to a candidate or a particular party.'
