It’s a good rule of thumb that if Tony Perkins lines up on one side of an issue, it’s better to be on the other side.
This is not merely because of Perkins’s history of entanglements with the Ku Klux Klan and the Council of Conservative Citizens, also known as the “uptown Klan.” As a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, he proposed legislation requiring public schools to allow daily silent prayer and characterized Buddhist and Hindu traditions as “goofy.”
Tony Perkins, standing in front of a Confederate flag, addressing the Baton Rouge chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, colloquially known as the “uptown Klan,” on May 17, 2001.
Perkins deemed the so-called “birther” controversy over Barack Obama’s citizenship “legitimate” and said it “makes sense” to conclude that Obama, a Christian, was actually Muslim.
And of course, the president of the Family Research Council has been an ardent supporter of America’s “family values” president, Donald J. Trump. Following Trump’s defeat in the 2020 presidential election, Perkins signed a letter asking legislatures in battleground states to overturn Joseph Biden’s victory by appointing pro-Trump electors. He urged his followers to pray for “chaos, conflict and gridlock” during the Biden administration.
Perkins’ latest curtsy to the far right was his support for eliminating the Johnson Amendment, which forbids tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements.
In 1954, as Lyndon Johnson was up for reelection to the Senate, a group of Texas conservatives deemed him too liberal and sought to defeat him using money from tax-exempt organizations. Johnson proposed an amendment to an IRS bill that would prohibit such organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The amendment was passed by Congress and signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower.
For decades, tax-exempt organizations have regarded this arrangement as a pretty good deal. They receive public subsidies in the form of tax exemptions (which means, of course, that taxpayers have to pony up a bit extra for everything from police and fire protection to national defense); in return for this largesse, tax-exempt organizations simply reject making political endorsements.
Shortly after the emergence of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, however, various evangelical preachers began to chafe at the restrictions of the Johnson Amendment. Rather than expressing appreciation for their public subsidies, they complained that somehow their freedom of speech and even freedom of religion were thwarted by the restrictions of the Johnson Amendment.
Obviously, that’s a canard. Any preacher (or rabbi, imam or any other religious leader) is free to make whatever political endorsement he or she chooses. All that’s required by law is that they surrender their tax exemptions.
But Perkins and his Religious Right cronies want to have their cake and eat it too. What they’re asking, of course, is that taxpayers subsidize them as they make partisan political endorsements.
Such a scheme makes churches into money-laundering machines. Suppose, for example, I approached Joel Osteen or Philip Anthony Mitchell and offered a gift of, say, $3 million (I assure you this is hypothetical!). All I ask in return is that the preacher say good things every week about my preferred political candidate—J.D. Vance or Josh Shapiro or Kristi Noem or whoever I choose.
For me, the donor, this is a pretty good deal. I receive a large tax deduction while simultaneously advancing my candidate’s prospects. And if someone else comes along and offers $4 million or $5 million to promote another candidate, these organizations are selling out to the highest bidder.
At a time when we need prophetic voices perhaps more than any time in our history, we can ill afford to compromise further the integrity of religious leaders.
Trump has tried to neuter the Johnson Amendment with executive orders, but an act of Congress can only be reversed by Congress itself or by the courts. Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly demonstrated its disdain for the establishment clause of the First Amendment—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—lower courts so far have held the line.
The most recent triumph for church-state separation occurred in Texas, of all places, and in the courtroom of a Trump appointee, J. Campbell Barker. Judge Barker rejected, on technical grounds, a settlement that would have provided an ill-considered loophole for churches to engage in political endorsements.
Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Church and State, hailed the ruling as a “victory for church-state separation and the integrity of charitable organizations and elections.” The proposed settlement, she told the New York Times, “would have been unhealthy for our democracy because it would allow churches to become unaccountable political action committees.”
And who’s on the other side of this issue? You guessed it: Klan-friendly Tony Perkins. In a social media post, Perkins huffed that the judge “sidestepped an opportunity . . . to correct a wrong that strikes at the very heart of American freedom.”
Nobody’s trampling on your freedom, Tony. You can make any political endorsement you choose. All we ask is that you don’t require taxpayers to foot the bill.
- About the Author
- Latest Posts
An Episcopal priest, Balmer is John Phillips Professor in Religion at Dartmouth College and the author of more than a dozen books, with commentaries appearing in newspapers across the country. He is a contributing correspondent at Good Faith Media.