Recently, the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal court against the IRS for failing to enforce the Johnson Amendment in the tax code against pastors and churches.  The lawsuit requests the court to enter an injunction against the Commissioner of the IRS to prohibit him from “continuing a policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.”  One of the issues the complaint raises as an example is Pulpit Freedom Sunday. The complaint states: ”More than 1500 clergy reportedly violated 501(c)(3) on October 7, 2012, in a deliberate and coordinated display of noncompliance with the electioneering restrictions of 501(c)(3), including prominent megachurches.”  The complaint goes on to allege that the IRS non-enforcement of the Johnson Amendment results in favoritism toward churches in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Legally speaking, this complaint has no merit and should be summarily dismissed.  As I detailed in an earlier blog, the IRS is not following a policy of non-enforcement.  Churches must remember that the IRS has not given up on auditing churches or enforcing the Johnson Amendment.

The lawsuit also has an insurmoutable legal hurdle in its way.  In order to bring a lawsuit against the federal government, a plaintiff must prove that it will be harmed in a specific and concrete way that is different from the harm experienced generally by the public at large.  It will be difficult, if not impossible, for FFRF to prove that it is being harmed by the IRS’ delay in enforcing the Johnson Amendment.

This lawsuit is really about two things.  First, it is about generating publicity for Freedom From Religion Foundation.  A quick lawsuit, even if it gets dismissed at a later point, can earn some headlines.  But secondly, this lawsuit is about fostering FFRF’s radical agenda.  FFRF, a group of radical separationist atheists, envisions a future where the tax code is used against churches and pastors to punish them for speaking out on issues of candidates and elections.  It wants to see pulpit police in the churches of America, and fines and penalties meted out if a pastor crosses whetever line the government chooses to draw.  Ultimately, FFRF does not want people of faith to have a voice in the public square.  It wantswhat its name says – freedom from religion.  And that is where its agenda is at odds with the fundamental rights of America’s churches and pastors.

I expect for this lawsuit to be dismissed and hope to be able to bring you news of that dismissal.  But do not be fooled, groups like FFRF will not stop and will continue to push their radical agenda of silencing churches and pastors.  America’s churches are a crucial component to the survival of our country.  The voice of the church must be free to impact culture and society and as the liberty of the church is restricted, society and culture suffers and declines.  That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom created the Church Project – to defend the right of the Church to be the Church.  If your church’s rights are threatened or violated, please contact us so our attorneys can help.

Well, ninety days have come and gone since over 1,500 pastors participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday on October 7,2012.  And the IRS has not taken any action against any of the pastors who participated.  Actually, the title of this blog post could have been “Four years and Counting” because Alliance Defending Freedom first launched Pulpit Freedom Sunday in 2008.  And since that time, Pulpit Freedom Sunday has occurred every year and thousands of pastors have participated through those four years.  But the IRS has not taken any action against any of the pastors who have ever participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

Now before you may be tempted to become complacent or to think that the IRS has given up on auditing churches, you should remember as I wrote in an earlier blog, that the IRS is in a bit of a reorganization when it comes to auditing churches.  The IRS has not given up on auditing churches and an IRS official even warned churches to remain silent about the last election.  So what is going on then and why hasn’t the IRS sought to enforce the Johnson Amendment against the pastors who participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday?

In 2011, I gave some reasons why I thought the IRS has not taken any action.  But the fact is that only the IRS know why it has chosen to remain silent. The IRS’ silence, though, should not cause us to lift up the pressure or to retreat from the battlefield.  The Johnson Amendment has been in place since 1954 and has been enforced now for over fifty-eight years.  It will not go away in an instant and the campaign to end the Johnson Amendment will be more akin to a siege than a blitzkrieg.  We must continue to press forward until the rights of churches and pastors are secured once and for all from the pernicious censorship that has occurred under the regime of the Johnson Amendment.

You can visit our Pulpit Freedom website to see a list of churches that participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday on October 7, 2012.  Why not take a moment to encourage these courageous pastors or to perhaps begin attending these churches who are standing firm and contending for the faith in our culture?  And if you are a pastor and want more information about your right to speak freely from the pulpit, visit our website and become part of the battle to protect and defend your constitutional rights.

NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK CHURCHES SHOULD NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN DISASTER RELIEF:  CHURCHES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA GRANTS AND MUST APPLY NOW TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS

A recent article in the New York Times stated that there were constitutional problems with FEMA providing grants to churches that were damaged or destroyed in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.  The article quoted the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State who both argued that churches should not be given grants because to do so would violate the “separation of church and state.”  Once again, this tiresome phrase is being promoted to deny churches equal access to government grants.  The article went on to tell the story of St. George Malankara Orthodox Church of India in New Dorp, Staten Island.  This church suffered an estimated $150,000 in hurricane damage to its basement, windows and doors. When they asked for a grant to help with the rebuilding costs, they were given a clear “No.”

But the New York Times article did not tell the full story.  And the ACLU and AU “experts” it quoted were dead wrong on the law.  Churches cannot be discriminated against in the provision of disaster relief funding.  Churches can, and should apply for FEMA grants.

FEMA provides grants to charitable organizations through its Public Assistance program.    The purpose of this grant program is to allow communities to quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies declared by the president.  Through these grants, FEMA has provided Federal disaster grant assistance for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster -damaged facilities of private non-profit organizations.  The program does not specifically exclude churches or other religious organizations.

So if a church is not categorically excluded, how does a church qualify?  To qualify as a private non-profit organization, the organization must operate facilities that are open to the general public and provide services that are otherwise performed by a government agency.  According to FEMA, this specifically includes such organizations as colleges, universities, parochial schools, hospitals, museums, zoos, community centers, libraries, homeless shelters, senior citizen centers, rehabilitation facilities, shelter workshops and facilities that provide health and safety services.

As long as a church provides a service that is “otherwise performed by a government agency”, it should apply for a grant.  Does the church offer education classes?  Does it have a library open to the public?  Then it should fill out a grant application if it has been damaged.  Does it act as a community center where members of the community can come and use the facilities?  Then it would be discriminatory for FEMA to deny the church a grant while giving grants to secular community centers.

The list goes on.  Does the church house Alcoholics Anonymous, or other rehab programs?  Does it offer programs for battered spouses?  Provide transportation to medical facilities?  Offer food programs or a clothing bank?  Run an Upwards basketball program? The reality is that most churches are intimately involved in their communities, and provide such services that are also provided by the government.  Thus, they should be eligible for FEMA grants and should apply.

The deadline for filing for a FEMA grant in New York is January 28, 2013.  The deadline for New Jersey is January 30, 2013.  You can fill out a grant request at this link: http://www.fema.gov/apply-assistance, or call the FEMA Helpline at 1-800-621-3362.

But if you face discrimination or opposition because you are a church or religious organization, contact us at Alliance Defending Freedom and we will assist you in defending your rights.  The bottom line is that churches and other religious organizations cannot be prohibited from equally participating in a government program.   Disaster relief is intended to allow our communities to get back on their feet as quickly as possible.  And churches, as vital partners in those communities, should not be left behind in the wake.

When talking about the consequences of redefining marriage, we rightly focus upon the impact on churches—pastors being forced to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies, and churches at risk of losing tax exemptions for preaching against homosexual behavior. But the consequences are not limited to the four corners of the church. Redefining marriage will impact numerous aspects of our culture–notably, our children’s education.

If same-sex “marriage” becomes the law of the land, then we are only fooling ourselves to believe our schools will remain enclaves of neutrality where the issue is not addressed. On the contrary, schools will undoubtedly be required to affirm such “marriages” in their health and family curriculum. Students who oppose such “marriages” on religious grounds will be labeled “intolerant” and forced to undergo “re-education” to help reform their “outdated” way of thinking to the new “normal.”

This is already happening across our country.  Earlier this year, an elementary school in Erie, Illinois voted to stop using curriculum called “Ready, Set, Respect!” — produced by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network — after it discovered that several of the books, including one for use in pre-kindergarten classes, celebrate same-sex families. The curriculum was touted as a way to teach about diversity, tolerance, and community values, and GLSEN used it as an opportunity to promote its pro-same-sex “marriage” agenda. But when the school board was informed about the alarming content by a group of parents, it determined that these materials did not reflect community values and that it would find other, more suitable curriculum.

That is how many of these groups operate. They shroud their agenda in words like “tolerance” and “diversity” while imposing their radical ideology on impressionable children. But it is not just limited to school curriculum. When a group of parents at Evergreen State College in Washington objected to a man claiming to be a woman and using the women’s locker room while young girls were changing after a swimming competition, they were told the college had to allow it because of state diversity laws! How dare these parents question this man’s “rights” in order to protect their children? 

Be sure parents in your congregation are well aware of the freedoms their child ought to have in public school. Parents can download our free Student Rights Handbook by visiting www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/Education.

On December 7, 2012, the United States Supreme Court agreed to take up two cases that directly impact the definition of marriage in the United States.  This is the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to decide a case that confronts the issue of same-sex “marriage” directly, so the impact of these cases will be significant no matter the outcome.

It is important that you as a pastor have the right information to convey to your church members about this issue.  Alliance Defending Freedom has been at the forefront of these battles in courtrooms across the country and we want to ensure that you know what is happening in these significant cases so that you can take appropriate action.

The Cases

The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases.  The first case is Hollingsworth v. Perry and concerns the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8.  In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman only.  However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a divided opinion, held that Proposition 8 violated the federal Equal Protection Clause.  The Court of Appeals’ decision overrode the vote of the people on Prop 8 and opened the door for same-sex “marriage” in California.

The second case is United States v. Windsor.  This case concerns the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act known as DOMA.  This law was passed by Congress and defines marriage for all federal purposes as between one man and one woman only.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that DOMA’s definition of marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause.

As you can quickly see, these cases present the fundamental question of what is the legal definition of marriage.  Thus, the Supreme Court’s decisions on these two cases will have far-reaching ramifications for marriage in the United States.

The cases will likely be argued around the end of March, 2013.  A decision is expected from the Supreme Court by the end of June, 2013.

The possible outcomes

In Perry, there are a few outcomes possible.  First, the Court could affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which would mean that California’s Prop 8 remains invalid.  The effect of such a decision would be to establish same-sex “marriage” in California and could trigger legal challenges to the laws in other states that define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Court could also reverse the Ninth Circuit and hold that Prop 8 is constitutional.  This would mean that the definition of marriage in California would remain as one man and one woman only.  A decision like this could forestall challenges to other similar provisions in other states.

It is possible the Court could sidestep the issues altogether and decide the case on a technical issue.  It is difficult to predict what the effect would be.

In Windsor, the Court could affirm the Second Circuit, which struck down DOMA’s definition of marriage.  The immediate effect of such a decision would be to allow same-sex couples to be treated as married couples under federal law.  For example, same-sex couples could claim the benefits of marriage under federal tax law.  But the impact of the Court explicitly acknowledging same-sex “marriage” at the federal level would no doubt have broad and far-reaching consequences for religious freedom.  And a decision invalidating DOMA’s definition of marriage would surely threaten the validity of state provisions that define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Court could also reverse the Second Circuit and hold that DOMA’s definition of marriage is constitutional.  A decision like this would protect traditional marriage at the federal level and could forestall future attacks on marriage definition provisions at the state level as well.

Again, it is possible the Supreme Court could decide the Windsor case on a technical issue.  The effect of such a decision would be hard to predict and would depend on what the Court says in its opinion.

What can your church do?

In light of these significant cases that confront the definition of marriage directly, what can your church do now?

1.         Pray:  Pray for the Court as it decides these cases.  Pray for the justices’ law clerks who will have significant input into these decisions.  Pray for the attorneys — Chuck Cooper in the Perry case and Paul Clement in the Windsor case  – who will argue against these radical attempts to redefine marriage.

2.         Be informed:  Regularly visit the Speak Up Church website for updated information about these cases.  Download our Marriage Talking Points and FAQs.  This is a valuable resource to prepare you for how to discuss marriage and the legal landscape surrounding this issue.  The American Church was not present when the Court decided Roe v. Wade. The Church needs to be present now and stay informed about the cases and their potential impact.

3.         Prepare:  It is possible that one of the outcomes of these cases will be the imposition of same-sex “marriage” in one or more states or across the country as a whole.  We know that everywhere same-sex “marriage” has been instituted, oppression and censorship of religious freedom has followed closely.  Your church must be prepared for this eventuality.  Download our resource Seven Things all Churches Should Have in their Bylaws.  Our website also contains suggested language for church bylaws on the topic of marriage.

Now is not the time to be alarmist.  The Church’s voice must be heard as our country wrestles with this issue.  We must pray for the justices who will decide these cases and for the lawyers who will argue the cause of righteousness. And we must be prepared for any outcome. Above all, we must recognize that, as Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.”  Let us pray that God bends the hearts of the nine Supreme Court justices to protect marriage.