What UU Should Know about the Johnson Amendment

 

What UU Should Know about the Johnson Amendment

slides

 

What UU Should Know about the Johnson Amendment
(slide 1)

OK, so let’s talk about politics, about non profits, 

about that fundamental principle of the separation 

of church and state and what something called the 

Johnson Amendment has to do with any of it.  

This has been in the news recently, and you probably 

missed it, well, because there’s a lot more “news” 

going on.  But it’s important to know, so 

we are going to share with you today what “UU” 

should know, about real rules of engagement 

with social action and politics.  

Let’s dive right in.

First, let’s talk about the separation of church and state.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state/
(slide 2)
This concept of the separation of church and state, 

goes back to 1791, 

when we ratified the bill of rights

The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging 

the freedom of speech, or of the press; 

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 

petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, 

the clause is often interpreted to mean that the 

Constitution requires the separation of church and state.

Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island used the metaphor 

of “a wall or hedge of separation” between the 

“wilderness of the world” and “the garden 

of the church. Williams believed that any government 

involvement in the church would corrupt the church.  

He was banished for preaching ideas of religious freedom.  

He helped establish in Providence a government with 

limited power that only addressed civil matters.  

This was a revolutionary concept in a time when many governments 

were established with divine 

rights to rule and was influential in establishing the democratic 

governance of our new country.    

(slide 3)

This brings me to one of my favorite stories, the Cheshire 

Mammoth Cheese Wheel.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison 

of Virginia fought against state support 

and taxation of the Anglican Church, which had long been 

established in the colony.  They argued that 

compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they 

did not follow violated their natural 

right to religious liberty. 

They were supported by other denominations, like the Baptists, 

Presbyterians, and Quakers. Which helped support the addition 

of religious liberty in the bill of rights. 

https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/mammoth-cheese/
https://npg.si.edu/blog/big-cheese-presidential-gifts-mammoth-proportions

In 1802, In appreciation of his support of religious liberty, 

the Baptists of Cheshire Massachusetts made a 

“mammoth cheese wheel”. Made by free born farmers, 

their wives and daughters, It has the milk 

of the 900 cows in the county.  

It was formed in a 6ft cider press, and had engraved on it 

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”. 

(Jefferson’s personal motto).  It weighed 1235 lbs and 

was delivered in a wagon drawn by 6 horses.  

Jefferson by policy refused gifts while in office, so he 

paid the Baptists $200 for the wheel.  Fun fact, 

(with their recent discovery in the new world),  

this marks the first recorded use of the word “Mammoth” 

to describe something large. 

A local newspaper joked that bakers in New York were 

now creating an oven to make a giant loaf of bread and 

glass blowers were making a giant wine bottle 

for a fine American porter.  It remained at the residence 

for several years, deteriorating in quality until it 

was reportedly dumped in the Potomac river some time after 1805.   

(slide 4)

So we’ve established that the first amendment  is interpreted 

to mean that the Constitution requires the separation 

of church and state.  But as we know, over time 

these laws require interpretations by the courts.  

So this brings us to post World War II America, 

and Public School Religious Education.  

A couple of noteworthy cases for the interpretation

 of this clause include 
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

A New Jersey statute gave school boards the authority 

to reimburse parents for the cost of busing their children 

to private schools, including Catholic and other 

parochial schools. Everson, a taxpayer, challenged this 

law as an impermissible expenditure under

the establishment clause.

The Supreme Court ruled as constitutional because it did 

not breach the “wall of separation” between church and state — 

and held that the establishment clause 

of the First Amendment applied to state and local 

governments as well as to the federal government.

Justice Hugo L. Black  stated
“New Jersey cannot . . . exclude individual[s] . . . 

because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the 

benefits of public welfare legislation.”



Another pivotal case you may know as “The Lemon Test”
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lemon-test/
 In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) - the court 

established a three-pronged test.  
It must have “a secular legislative purpose,”

it must have principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, 

and it must not foster “an excessive government 

entanglement with religion.”
This was abandoned in 2022 and is currently

 interpreting the establishment clause “by ‘

reference to historical practices and understandings.’”
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
upholding the right of a public school football coach 

to offer a prayer on the 50-yard line after a game. 
This was established on the principle that neither 

teachers nor students shed their First Amendment 

rights at the schoolhouse gate

So we see just a couple examples here of how 

the separation clause has been interpreted differently over time.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/church_state_historical.htm

(slide 5)
This brings us to The Johnson Amendment.   Now as I said earlier, 

this has been in the news recently, because of 

recent changes of interpretation of this law.  
The relationship between church and state is complicated, 

and you have probably heard people say that non profit 

and church organizations must be “non partisan” 

or not engage in politics.  
This is the Amendment that establishes those rules 

and as you have seen from the previous cases, 

it is open to interpretation.  So let's get into it.
First, what is the Johnson Amendment?  
The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, 

since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit 

organizations from endorsing or opposing 

political candidates. ranging from charitable 

foundations to universities and churches. 
The amendment is named for then-Senator and future 

president Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced 

it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954. 
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity 

by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization 

as one "which does not participate in, 

or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing 

of statements), any political campaign 

on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage 

in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) 

and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. 

The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between 

advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation.
(in simple terms - Issues not Parties)
https://afj.org/article/fact-check-president-trump-has-not-repealed-the-johnson-amendment/

(slide 6)
So What Changed (and what did not):
What changed:
May 2017 Executive Order: Trump signed an executive order 

directing the Treasury Department to avoid penalizing 

religious organizations for engaging in speech 

about "moral or political issues from a religious perspective".
In a July 7, 2025, court filing, the IRS carved out a significant 

new exception to the Johnson Amendment, saying churches 

are allowed to endorse political 

candidates in their "usual channels of communication" 

with no tax-related consequences
Religious  services, concerning electoral politics viewed 

through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]

’ nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign,’ 

within the ordinary meaning of those words,” the filing said.
The filing was part of a joint motion by the IRS, the 

National Religious Broadcasters, and two Texas churches, 

to settle a lawsuit through a consent judgment.

What Did Not Change:
Repealing the Johnson Amendment would either require 

an act of Congress or the Supreme Court ruling that the 

law is unconstitutional. Neither of these 

possibilities have occurred, so the law remains in place. 
IRS does not have the authority to repeal legislation 

like the Johnson Amendment through a consent judgment. 

Therefore, no changes to IRS policies or the laws 

governing political activity for nonprofits have 

been finalized or fully enacted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html
(slide 7)
Who Advocated for this Change?
Starting in 2008, a group now called the Alliance Defending Freedom, 

which worked in recent years to help 

overturn Roe v. Wade, tried to manufacture a 

court challenge to the constitutionality of the law. 

The group organized pastors to speak about candidates 

and elections from the pulpit, a plan intended to provoke 

the I.R.S. into a legal confrontation with 

churches for speaking out in violation of their tax-exempt status.

Among the advocates of that plan was Mike Johnson, 

then a conservative lawyer and now the speaker of the House.
“I think we would defend that as a constitutional right 

to free speech,” Mr. Johnson, said in 2008 about the effort.

Over four years, the group organized some 4,000 pastors 

in the campaign, including some who sent their sermons to 

the I.R.S., inviting a crackdown.
https://sidewithlove.org/ourstories/2025/7/15/side-with-love-denounces-irs-undermining-of-the-johnson-amendment
https://www.uua.org/pressroom/press-releases/irs-response-religious-pluralism
(slide 8)
UUA and Side With Love - Response 
Our Sacred Duty is to Protect Democracy and Religious Pluralism 

Affirms Commitment to Separation of Church and State

Our faith has a long history of faithful statements and resolutions 

that unequivocally support the separation of church and state. 

As such, we are deeply concerned 

by the IRS’s actions which would further erode this fundamental 

principle and democracy itself. 
The UUA maintains adherence to this principle and calls on all 

people of faith and conscience to uphold this cornerstone of democracy.
Our shared values of pluralism and interdependence mean 

that a multiplicity of religious voices must thrive for our 

nation to remain on solid ground. 
As we face a rising tide of authoritarianism and the infiltration 

of white Christian nationalism into government and public policy, 

now is the time to re-assert these values.


We understand that religious institutions and congregations play 

a role in shaping and advocating for the values and principles of our members – 

values that will in turn 

shape the public square, the democratic processes that UUs hold sacred, 

and the public morality 

that helps guide this nation. 
We believe these are appropriate roles for UU congregations – 

and all religious organizations – to play. What is not appropriate 

is for religious leaders to use the 

authority invested in their status to endorse political candidates. 
To do so becomes a corruption of the religious leaders’ 

role and, in fact, harms our ability to help guide the people 

who turn to us for guidance and support.
(slide 9)
UUA has some great  resources on how to be 

“Prophetic, Not Partisan,” 
If you really want to dive into what you can and can’t 

or should and shouldn’t do, the “The Real Rules” — 

is a handy guidebook on appropriate political activity 

and justice organizing.  

It details out almost every scenario you can think of 

so when you ask Can I do that?  

It has an answer.  

But here are the basics broken down into a list.
 WHAT’S ALLOWED FOR 501(C)3 ORGANIZATIONS
The UUA, UU congregations and organizations can:
Engage in issue advocacy and organizing for justice
Conduct voter education
Voter access through voter registration
Get Out the Vote drives
Combat voter suppression
Support or oppose ballot initiatives
Educate candidates on issues
Sponsor candidate forums
Prepare and distribute non-partisan voter guides
Lobby elected officials
Host a variety of activities at our congregations
The UUA, UU congregations and organizations cannot:
Have advocacy as their only activity
Endorse or oppose candidates running for elected office
Intervene in campaigns to influence the outcome of an election

Progressive people of faith can be powerful and prophetic 

without being partisan. 
We can engage our neighbors, educate our communities, 

mobilize voters, rally around ballot initiatives, and shape 

the public discourse with values-based framing, 

rooted in our theology and principles. 
Electoral cycles offer heightened opportunities to engage 

and inspire people, mobilize around key issues, and to 

strengthen democracy, and win real advances 

on key issues on the ballot.

(slide 10)
https://sidewithlove.org/actioncenter
Side with Love 
is our UUA Action center and here are some examples

 of the way the UUA encourages us to engage with these political issues.  

How do we Side With Love? (sidewithlove.org/)

Our intersectional justice priorities are:
Climate Justice (inclusive of Indigenous sovereignty and Climate 

Resilience) with Create Climate Justice
Democracy and Electoral Justice (inclusive of Voting Rights and 

electoral participation) with UU the Vote
Decriminalization (inclusive of Racial Justice and Immigration Justice) 

with Side With Love
LGBTQIA+ and Gender Justice (inclusive of reproductive justice 

and abortion access) with UPLIFT Action

The work that we do together to build a world in which all of us are 

free and thriving is interrelated. When we ground our spirits, 

grow our skills, and act strategically 

for justice in deep relationship with each other and our Movements, 

we choose to Side With Love.
Action Center is a place where we unite in work towards a world 

where we all thrive. Together we take action, Side With Love, 

and make deep impacts in this critical moment.


(slide 11)
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-share-your-rights
Now to protect yourself while engaging on these issues, 

here are some basics from the ACLU.  There is a short 

and a longer version on your screen, and 

these can all be found at ACLU.org

Know Your Protest Rights:
You don’t need a permit to protest in streets or on sidewalks 

if you’re not obstructing traffic or access to buildings.
You have the right to photograph anything in plain view, 

including police.
If stopped by the police, ask if you’re free to go.  

If yes, calmly walk away.
If arrested, ask for a lawyer immediately.  

Don’t sign, say or agree to anything without a lawyer present. 

(slide 12)
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/trends-and-policy-issues/protecting-johnson-amendment-and-nonprofit-nonpartisanship
And finally, why does this matter?  Here’s some thoughts 

from the council for non profits.
Our society is better today because charitable nonprofit 

organizations operate as safe havens from the caustic 

partisanship that is bedeviling our country, places 

where people can come together to solve community problems. 
Repeal or revision of the law would damage the integrity and 

effectiveness of all charitable nonprofits and foundations.
Attempts to repeal or weaken the Johnson Amendment would

have the effect of politicizing and thereby erasing the public’s 

high trust in charities, houses of worship, 

and foundations to benefit politicians and paid political consultants. 


And there is plenty of Support
The majority of organizations support keeping the Johnson 

Amendment and protecting nonprofit nonpartisanship, 

as reflected in the Community Letter in Support 

of Nonpartisanship, signed by more than 5,800 organizations in all 50 states, 
in the Faith Voices letter signed by more than 4,300 faith leaders, 

in the separate letter signed by more than 100 denominations 

and major religious organizations, 

and in letters from the law enforcement community. 
In addition, polls show that 72% of the public support 

keeping the Johnson Amendment in place and nearly 

90% of evangelical leaders say it is wrong for 

preachers to endorse candidates from the pulpit.

So, the short answer, can we talk about politics from the pulpit? 

It’s complicated. Will someone stop us, probably not.  

But should we mix our political parties 

and our religious freedom?  In the spirit of 

Thomas Jefferson and those cheese loving Baptists, 

I would uphold our values of religious freedom 

and keep that a wall or hedge of separation” between the 

“wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.  
(slide 13)  Thank you. Any questions.