While most pastors, priests, rabbis and imams will tell you that they always try to avoid the intersection between partisan politics and what they think is a moral lesson on a public issue, it happens all the time. And, thanks to a new ruling issued earlier this month by the Internal Revenue Service, it’s likely to happen a lot more often.

The IRS waves the white flag

It came as part of a settlement in a federal court case in which two Texas churches and the National Religious Broadcasters, a Christian group, sued the IRS to get them to remove what always hangs over the heads of any religious group: the threat of losing their tax-exempt status, without which many such institutions would fail. Rather than further contest the lawsuit, the IRS conceded the case in a court filing.

At issue was the Johnson Amendment, which was passed in 1954 and named for Lyndon B. Johnson, then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Texas and future president. It banned 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from endorsing or publicly opposing specific political candidates and parties. But the new IRS ruling more or less guts this provision. The words “endorse” or “endorsement” appear nowhere in the document, so it can be considered something of a compromise that doesn’t discard the 71-year-old regulation altogether. However, it does state that “communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.”

In other words, as long as the political sentiments coming from a religious institution are conveyed from a pulpit or a newsletter to its congregants, it’s officially kosher for it to take sides in an election, and it need not fear for its nonprofit status.

This is something that President Donald Trump has long called for. And, predictably, it’s being condemned by liberals and left-wingers.

One of the loudest voices opposing it comes from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, whose leader, Rabbi Jonah Pesner, viewed the ruling with “alarm.” He stated that the new policy “weakens the principle of church-state separation that has protected both government and religion, allowing diverse religious communities, including our own, to flourish.”

He went on to paint a dismal picture of what he thinks will now follow: “Permitting synagogues and other houses of worship to endorse or oppose candidates undercuts the integrity and unity of these religious institutions, turning them into an extension of political candidates or parties. Because of the hyper-partisan quality of contemporary politics, this risks dividing congregations and alienating those supporting different parties or candidates, thereby threatening the congregation’s status as a place where all feel welcome, rooted in faith teachings and transcending partisanship.”

They’re already partisans

The main problem with Pesner’s statement is that it aptly describes exactly what has been happening in his own denomination for many years and, to be fair, in many other faith communities as well since Johnson had this provision put into the IRS code.

Religious institutions have been playing partisan politics ever since the founding of the American Republic 249 years ago. Yet, since 1954, though churches, synagogues and mosques have still consistently been used to promote political causes and candidates, the IRS rule gave the federal government a weapon with which it can use to selectively bludgeon congregations.

That was the point of the lawsuit brought against the IRS in Texas.

The federal bureaucracy has used its power to punish religious institutions over the last 71 years with impunity. But it hasn’t escaped the notice of many Americans that it wasn’t always or even mostly applied fairly across the board. Conservative Christian pulpits were usually the ones targeted for enforcement, while liberal congregations—be they black churches, where political activism has been a constant since the days of the civil-rights movement, or Reform synagogues, where the line between Judaism and liberal politics has always been blurry at best—were not.

Seen from that perspective, it’s clear that far from burning down the so-called “wall of separation” between religion and state, the neutering of the Johnson Amendment merely recognizes reality and creates a level playing field.

Religion and state

At the heart of this debate is a disagreement about the role of faith in public life.

Most liberals and left-wingers think the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment should be interpreted in the most limited way possible. They believe the right to worship in freedom refers to what happens at home or in a house of worship. And they are appalled at the idea of exercising the right to live faithfully in the public square, viewing anything that enables religious observance outside of the strict confines of the faith institution or household as a violation of another clause in the amendment that prohibits the “establishment of religion.”

That is a legal philosophy that became ascendant in the 1950s when LBJ put his name into the IRS manual. But over the last three decades, legal scholars, politicians and ordinary Americans became increasingly aware that this was completely at odds with what the Founding Fathers intended, as did the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It also created a situation in which the state felt itself permitted to discriminate against religious institutions if they disagreed with public policies.

That led to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.

With the example of Europe’s not-so-distant age of religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries firmly in mind, the intent of those who wrote the nation’s founding documents was to make the right to religious liberty a priority—hence the expression labeling it our “first freedom.” But the rigid secularism that arose in the second half of the 20th century created a legal environment in which it was made into a secondary right that was only respected by special permission of the government.

Restoring the balance

This was given full expression in the last decade when the Obama administration sought to drag institutions like the Little Sisters of the Poor into court because that Catholic order refused to comply with a provision of the Affordable Care Act to provide contraception coverage for their employees, regardless of the fact that this was something that was directly forbidden by their faith.

In the last decade, the proper balance between the First Amendment and government priorities has been restored with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the right of religious institutions like the Little Sisters or even private companies owned by people of faith like Hobby Lobby. In this way, they cannot be forced into subsidizing practices and behavior they doctrinally oppose.

This has alarmed liberals, who felt that the government had the right to suppress religious practices and beliefs they thought were outmoded or reactionary. Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has referred to the upholding of such rights as a “weaponization” of the First Amendment.

That’s the context for the dispute over IRS regulations about endorsements.

And no better object lesson of the way the Johnson Amendment has been observed in its breach is the RAC.

A distinction without a difference

It has never specifically endorsed candidates or parties. But its every pronouncement and policy is a living example of the old joke about the essence of the Reform movement being the Democratic Party platform with holidays thrown in.

That’s unfair to Reform Judaism as a whole, which is a serious religious tradition worthy of respect. But it more or less defines the way the RAC—the overtly political wing of the denomination—operates as it seeks to mobilize the considerable resources of its members and congregations to pursue liberal political causes. Its leaders would argue that there is a difference between lobbying on issues and endorsing parties and candidates. That’s true to a point. But when you consistently act in this manner, it becomes a distinction without a difference.

And they are far from alone in behaving in this way.

The same is true of many, if not most, African-American churches, where Sunday services during the fall of election years are weekly political rallies for Democratic candidates in much of the country. That is part of their religious tradition, which was the foundation of the civil-rights activism of the past, and is used to advance the causes and the politicians that are in tune with their views today. The same is true of conservative Christian congregations and, in some instances, the way ultra-Orthodox and Chassidic sects sometimes operate when they use their potent political power in some localities to favor candidates who cater to their interests.

All this horrifies strict “separationists” who want as high a wall between religion and state as possible, even though there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates such an impervious and steep barrier.

But whether you’re discussing liberal religious institutions or conservative ones, there’s nothing wrong with it, either from a constitutional perspective or a religious one.

Many of us would prefer time in a house of worship to be free of political discourse and a respite from the partisan noise that seems to infiltrate every aspect of 21st-century American life.

The point about religion in America is that no “established” church or faith is inextricably woven into the fabric of the republic as it is in many other countries, including those that are democracies. You can choose to belong to any congregation you like, and most people try to find a home in which they can comfortably coexist with the opinions of their fellow worshippers. If your local religious institution is one in which the sermons or the nature of the activism it pursues are not to your liking, you are free to join another or even create a new one.

Little will change

Contrary to Pesner’s fulminations, I rather doubt that the new IRS ruling will change the way most religious denominations and congregations will act. Few will explicitly endorse candidates simply because they do not wish to alienate congregants who will disagree with their choices. That’s as true of Reform Judaism—not all of whose adherents are Democrats—as it is of other religious institutions.

As many leaders of religious groups have already stated, they will go on as they always have. Which is to say that most will make no secret about their preferences and positions on elections and issues, but without crossing over into explicit partisanship.

We have seen in the recent past how the IRS can be weaponized to discriminate against political foes of the party in power, and given the way most of the federal bureaucracy leans hard to the left, it’s no surprise that the tax agency has been utilized to make it harder for conservative groups to gain or keep their nonprofit status. That’s a blatantly illegal and unfair practice that has only been corrected with great difficulty by those with the resources to dispute such rulings in the courts.

There are those who argue that giving tax exemptions to faith institutions, including those that engage, as many, if not most, of them do in one way or another, is an “establishment” of religion. But this is utterly false. It seems to be based on the Marxist mindset that the resources and funds of congregations or individuals belong to the government, and that tax refunds or exemptions are a gift from the state rather than merely a restriction on its ability to confiscate income.

We may disagree with what endorsements or political activism some houses of worship engage in, but in a country that properly treats the First Amendment as inviolable, there should be no effort from the government to favor or punish those that the reigning powers of the day oppose. The latest IRS ruling is nothing more than recognition that the routine manner in which religious associations and houses of worship express their political opinions should not be restricted. A partisan sermon from the pulpit or the use of your congregation for politics may be tiresome and/or infuriating. But it ought not to be illegal or punished by the government.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him: @jonathans_tobin