Johnson Amendment not what it seems

I read your front page article, “Trump wants religion and politics to mix,” with great interest. Both the tone of the article and the headline clearly mark this as an opinion piece, and it belonged on the Op/Ed page, or at the very least should have been labeled as commentary.

Since it was commentary, a few things were missing from the article.

The Johnson Amendment, proposed in 1954 by Lyndon Johnson, a Southern Democrat, was designed to silence political activity by African-American churches. Then, as now, churches were a center of community life, and Southern Democratic party leaders then were not anxious to see them become even more active political centers as well.

Southern Democrats then were not the civil rights activists they like to be seen as today. Let's not forget our own Strom Thurmond, who ran for president as a Dixiecrat in 1948 after the national party inserted a relatively weak civil rights plank in their platform.

The Johnson Amendment had little effect on African-American churches, which remain political centers of their communities, especially since the 1960s work of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and groups such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which remains active today. Then, it was composed mainly of African-American clergy.

Today Democrats and Republicans are anxious to speak at African-American churches. We saw that in our last election.

The Amendment was, however, effective in limiting any political activity by mainstream churches and other non-profit organizations. That's why some want to see it repealed.

Supporters​ of the Johnson Amendment would be wise to keep in mind that old expression, “Be careful what you wish for.”

If the Internal Revenue Service begins to enforce its provisions equally everywhere, vital centers of community activism may be silenced. Do we really want that?

This story was originally published March 13, 2017 at 7:23 AM with the headline "Johnson Amendment not what it seems."