Freepreach.org - Protecting the Free Expression of All Religious Traditions
Issues
Members of the clergy are finding themselves increasingly subjected to legal sanction for what they preach. They speak with trepidation about politics, fundamental social issues, and even the morality of their congregants. Thankfully, in this country they enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Our Supreme Court has admonished governments that attempt to censor what ministers say to their religious audiences: "[P]reaching from the pulpits," it has held, enjoys a "high estate under the First Amendment," and must be protected under the Constitution. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty works to defend this fundamental principle: Ministers, priests, imams, and rabbis must be able to profess their religious beliefs without fear of punishment by the State.
FreePreach.org will continue to monitor these threats and shed light on private abuses and official overreaching. If you are a member of the clergy, and the government has threatened you because of what you preach, please contact us.
Churches & Political Activity
Every election season, our government sends a warning to churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples ordering their clergy to remain silent about some of the most contentious issues of the day. The prohibition is as broad as it is offensive to our valued interest in protecting free speech and religious exercise:
[C]hurches . . . cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate.
Elsewhere, the IRS tells churches that their ministers "cannot make partisan comments . . . at official functions." The pedigree of this unconstitutional proscription is less than noble. The ban was ratified in the 1950s, pressed by Senator Lyndon Johnson as a political ploy meant to protect the Democratic Party--and his own seat--from anti-communist groups. Religion was never the issue; until 1954, churches were permitted to engage in political debate.
And the ban continues to be supported and enforced in a haphazard and political fashion. Too often, it is cast in partisan terms. The Religion Newswriters Association lists conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and the American Center for Law and Justice as the major proponents of religious political activity, while opponents emerge mainly from the left: Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), the Interfaith Alliance, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
But the casualties of the IRS' policy are not limited to right- or left-wing churches--all suffer. The leftist AU calls on the IRS to investigate Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs for telling Catholics not to vote for candidates to support abortion, while the conservative Catholic League does the same to a Miami church that invited Rev. Al Sharpton and DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe to speak.
This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It is a free speech issue. There is nothing inherently wrong--or contrary to our constitutional experience--with ministers preaching on topics that may involve political issues or candidates. For example, abolitionist preacher Charles G. Finney, just before the 1860 presidential election, urged his audience to vote for the candidate opposing slavery, Abraham Lincoln. And, contrary to the IRS' position, the Supreme Court has never held that the First Amendment tolerates such restrictions on religious speech.
"Hate Speech" Laws
It's not only politics that ministers are afraid to discuss in their sermons. Modern "speech codes" do not exempt religious speech or churches from their scope. Canada's hate crime law was amended this year to criminalize speech characterized as "directing hatred" against persons based on sexual orientation. In Sweden, a Pentecostal minister was jailed for one month after preaching against homosexuality. The prosecutor argued, "Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
And this is not merely a foreign phenomenon. For example, Pennsylvania's recent amendment to its Hate Crimes Law could prevent clergy from addressing issues about sexual orientation and gender identity. That law covers "harassment by communication," which means that a minister could be subject to harsher penalties under the Hate Crimes Law for spoken words alone.
Other Threats to Religious Speech
Churches also face the threat of legal liability when they engage in actions to remove a member from their community. Lawsuits brought under a theory of wrongful excommunication or "shunning" often fail, but can still interfere with a church's religious exercise. Under defamation theories, churches have been held liable for discussing moral issues about their congregants. All such communications should be privileged; clergy should be free to speak about religious matters without fear of offending the law.