A bridge too far

The Internal Revenue Service has given its blessing to bully pulpits of all faiths by abjuring its traditional weapon of selectively enforcing tax codes in order to keep targeted individuals and organizations in line. 

Have they beaten political reprisals into ploughshares? Not so fast.

The IRS is in the racket of collecting debts. Not necessarily of the 1040 variety, although that document is its alibi. 

When constitutionally protected speech does not comport with the reigning ideology in Washington, the IRS unleashes its hounds. Both parties have been guilty of using its armed auditors as hitmen.

According to the Johnson Amendment of 1954, nonprofit entities could forfeit their tax-exempt status if they engaged in "any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." Their primary focus was supposedly religious institutions, but its value, when needed, as a disciplinary cudgel with wider applications, was quickly exploited.

Although the amendment's punitive authority was rarely used, it was kept on the books, just in case the government wanted legal cover to justify harassment.

No longer does the IRS treat nonprofit organizations' endorsement of candidates for elective grounds as a violation of their terms of eligibility. As of a few months ago, it is treated as a "family discussion," through "customary channels of communication … in connection with religious services … through a lens of religious faith."

"Separation of church and state" is among the most contentious alleged protections of the Constitution. There are more renditions of its meaning than there are versions of Jingle Bells. 

It can be wholesome for religion and politics to have an uneasy relationship and occasionally run afoul of each other. Ideally, they should mind their own business, but the inspiration for their activism may preclude that. 

Only once in the last half- century was a church's tax-exemption revoked for trespassing beyond its lawful confines, and that happened when it advertised against Bill Clinton. It often happens that when the government discovers that its efforts to suppress behavior fail and are ridiculed, it reverses itself to countenance what it formerly condemned. 

That's what Prohibition was about. In an abundance of caution, I won't identify the modern counterparts of those bootleggers.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State warns that the IRS's relaxation of the Johnson Amendment's tax-exemption provision, nonprofit groups will be transformed into political action committees, and there will be "flooding of our elections with even more dark money."

How dark can dark money get?

Now the shirt of secrecy has been stripped away to reveal undue influence bare-chested. Just one less layer.

Two-thirds of surveyed Americans claim to support the separation of church and state, even though some of them actually believe that their articles of faith are entitled to special dispensation, being singularly divine. According to their delusions of superiority, the universal Creator subscribes to their faith alone and doesn't recognize dual standards of legitimacy.

Anyway, it was always impractical and unrealistic to draw uncrossable lines between their territories. Straying is inevitable, and the clinch between the businesses of religion and politics cannot be broken. 

Politics and religion both are inextricably bound to human affairs, the progress of souls, the relationships of nations and clashes of spirit in a temporal world.

In the four months since the IRS officially removed the penalty, there has been no discernible difference in the tone and substance of preachers and propagandists. The more things change, the more they remain the same. 

They've just migrated from covert defiance to overt compliance.

The United Methodists urge churches to "speak out boldly on social issues from a gospel perspective and … as effective advocates for justice in the wider world." By substituting "human rights" for "gospel,” that quote could have come from public school unions.

It is rare for government agencies to voluntarily diminish their own capacity to harass citizens, no matter whether the sitting regime regards them as ideologically offensive or innocent. Have the IRS, DOJ, DHS, (and others) just put their blank checks in cold storage?  Don't be naive. 

Blue donkeys and red elephants have both, though not in equal measure, spiked their opiate of omnipotence with the benzo of partisanship.

While the resulting dystopia persists, let's popularize it and find creative ways of raising awareness. Here's my pitch for Hasbro, makers of Monopoly and Potato Head. It would be a board game with alternate models and designs.

The game would have a minimum of two players: Democrat and Republican. Variations would allow for additional players (e.g. MAGA, RINO, Socialist, Libertarian). 

There would be strategically placed squares on the board with directions or consequences for whomever lands on them, with a variety of implied ideological slants, such as "Raided at dawn by FBI SWAT team, "Indicted for offense with no precedent," "Contempt of Congress citation," "Felony consorting with the opposite caucus," "Excessive reaching across the aisle," "Palm greasing or nose bloodying special prosecutor,” " Fixer for Pardons and commutations,” "Antisemitism as revisionist fodder," etc. 

There are endless possibilities, and they could be amended to mimic the changing political landscape. The winner would be the first player to betray their nation without forfeiting their pension. 

Perhaps the game could be called "Civic Duty." Or maybe a title suited to ambitious politicians. Too bad  "Snakes and Ladders" is already taken.

Not to worry. We are all safe, so long as we can protect ourselves from the institutions sworn to protect us. Common citizens (in the broader, extra-judicial sense of the word)  must be the watchdogs, and increasingly it is clear we must be of the junkyard breed.

Until federal agencies get recalibrated and stabilized, we must hope for, but cannot depend upon, the Fourth Estate for tactical media and support. Even when journalism is ideologically aligned with us and aggressively propagandizes in favor of positions we share, they betray us only slightly less than they do our enemies. 

Legions of examples in our American electronic, digital and print media could fill an encyclopedia and have had a Svengali effect on international outlets, such as the BBC.

During World War II, citizens of besieged nations in occupied nations in Europe, huddled in their basements, in peril of their lives if caught, listening to the globally trusted BBC for updates about when their hour of liberation would come. It was universally renowned and wore the crown of integrity with courage and grace.

Presently it is holding on with its pinkie to a ledge between depreciation and disgrace.

We can perhaps accept, or at least get acclimated to, editorializing slants embedded in what are represented as straight news stories. Our nemeses and our cronies both do it. 

We have both rationalized the imperative to be cutthroat, usually in terms of our adversaries being "existential threats to (our) truth.” But what the BBC did was an egregious misadventure in the shibboleth "the end justifies the means."

By doctoring footage from Donald Trump's speech to make it appear as irrefutable, objective evidence that he sponsored and pushed for violence in the Capitol on January 6th a few years ago,  BBC crossed the line even of advocacy journalism. 

Splicing and interweaving strands of images and audio is "dirty pool.” Even when defamation ensures a richly deserved effect that many are convinced is merited, it is essential that the words and actions speak for themselves, and not be artificially engineered.

Contending with errant government agencies is already an indefatigable overreach. The loss of honorable journalism would be a  "bridge too far.”