Hannah M.

Willey Los Angeles Times: The pulpit should be free of politics The article The pulpit should be free of politics focuses on the first amendment right of churches to endorse candidates, but due to the Johnson amendment on the 1954 tax code there is to be no tax exemption if such endorsements take place. It also focuses on how erratic the IRS punishes those churches which do not follow the rules of endorsing candidates, the article does not support the repeal of the article however it does fervently support a more aggressive enforcement approach. Some critics suggest that church leaders should preach their opinions on political actions and leaders but they should not be allowed to use their tax exemptions or the money they receive to support candidates or influence people of the congregations vote. However many argue that a political endorsement from the pulpit is just as influential as a monetary donation to support a candidate just on the grounds that its a religious rite as an example: In a 2004 situation a sermon was given, the sermon did not take sides between Kerry and Bush; however it did say the Bushs war strategy in Iraq would be condemned by Jesus. The sermon didnt give support to one candidate however it did influence members to vote democratic against Bush. Also in 2007 on the ruling of what the church had preached a judge wrote that a political advertisement should be construed as an endorsement only if it "is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate." However there was no IRS action taken, there is no clear line in which a church has overstepped the boundaries in cases such as that, so how can we protect the amendment if no action is taken or clear rules set in place. In correlation to chapter 2 this article shows that the first amendment right to freedom of religion (speech, assembly, petition and press) has been restricted, by another amendment of an aspect of government (taxes). It also shows judicial interpretation by the Supreme Courts ruling in 2007. There ruling however didnt change the action, or lack of action, taken by the IRS by political preaching from the pulpit. The constitutions offers no guidelines for taxing churches, so when Johnson amendment took effect it showed the flexibility allowed by the constitution to still allow are basic right but also having both state and federal influence to interpret how we regulate amendments to not influence future government action (no matter how effective the regulations are or how abusive some politicians can be with amendments to further there on political agendas). My belief is that religion should not play apart in how we choose our leaders or effect how we vote on certain issues, such as marriage equality or abortion. I do know however, that the morals I have and standby were shaped by my religion, and it is sometimes hard to separate my religious beliefs from what is right for all people. At 17, I have already learned to not allow my beliefs limit others rights and I wish that our leaders of both our country and our separate religions could learn to do the same. If they learn how to balance what is best for everyone and not just what is best for one set of people, who follow an agenda based on something not every citizen believes in, this country would be much better off as a whole.