From Drudge, I picked up this article:
Ban on Political Endorsements Targeted
This is significant in that the Alliance Defense Fund(ADF – think of them as the ‘Anti-ACLU’) believes that current law is unconstitutional and in that they are willing to provoke a Court Battle over it.
Firstly, ADF does not take on a case unless they feel they are absolutely in the right. If they feel the current law is unconstitutional, then it almost certainly is.
Second, they would not take on the case unless they felt they could win, or use the case to successfully establish precedent leading to a future win.
Many of you here are surely experts on the Church/State separation issue, so I will not even try to fully document it except for this brief (admittedly amateur) summary:
Prior to 1954 churches were tax exempt, independent from government control and fully free to express political opinion in the course of sermons and ministry. Most importantly, perhaps, they able to instruct and direct their congregations in the morality of their respective voting decisions.
Liberal politicians saw this unrestricted power as an impediment to their expansionist socialist agenda and worked to restrict this power. The leader in this effort was Senator Lyndon Johnson.
In 1954, LBJ was facing tremendous opposition from two non-profit anti-communist groups that were fighting against his Liberal socialist agenda. Johnson retaliated by having restrictions on non-profits (including churches) included in IRS code. The changes prohibited non-profits from engaging in political activities (such as endorsements), lest they lose their non-profit status and be subject to taxation and penalties.
This change has had staggering ramifications and almost completely removed the Church from the political arena. You could make a reasonable case that the progression of every social ill proceeds from this change in the law. The chilling effect on the church has been enormous.
For example: The recent admonishment of Nancy Pelosi by Bishops and Cardinals is remarkable primarily for how infrequent something like this actually occurs today. I guarantee all the rebukes were legally screened to ensure they could not be construed as political.
Today, the bolder churches dance around political issues and might venture to say: “Under our Christian beliefs, having an abortion is a sin and enabling an abortion is a sin. You have a responsibility to take this into account when you make your voting decisions. Please research the issue and choose prayerfully who you will support”.
However, in the early 50s, a pastor was free to say “Mrs. Pelosi votes for abortion. This position is inconsistent with Christian theology and places her on the wrong side of God’s law and into grave sin. If you vote for her, you are also committing grave sin and placing yourself against God and His law. You should not vote for Mrs. Pelosi.”
I’ve been a supporter of ADF for a very long time. You can do the research if you choose, but they have been diligently training a cadre of Conservative/Christian Attorneys to fight religious free speech restrictions, freedom to worship, parental rights cases.
They have been remarkably effective in doing this and provide a significant (and growing) check to the ACLU and other anti-Christian forces. They do tremendous good for our Conservative causes. Visit their site and look at the long record of successes both at the Supreme Court and in multiple lower courts.
Once the election is over – please make a decision to financially support their work. (OK, end of shameless plug.) Our beliefs (both conservative and Christian) are based on good law. The ACLU and other forces have been successful in the past based on bad law and a general lack of opposition.
The tide is turning.