The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has portrayed itself as a group dedicated to ensuring the separation of church and state. It says its mission is to prevent the government from endorsing or promoting a particular religion in violation of the First Amendment.
However, the organization’s actions reveal that its objective goes far beyond limiting the government’s role in religious matters. Instead, its true aim is to diminish the voice of Christians in America.
The FFRF has targeted the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) in a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), demanding that the agency strip the Christian organization of its tax-exempt status.
The FFRF’s letter was ostensibly intended “to report illegal political campaigning by Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.” Yet, it is clear that this is an attempt to attack the organization through its finances.
As the grounds for its complaint, FFRF cited “a special election issue” of BGEA’s Decision Magazine, contrasting the relative positions of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump as “Socialism vs. Freedom.” They complain the comparison was “cherry-picked” with the intention “to encourage readers to vote for Donald Trump over Kamala Harris.”
As further proof, the anti-Christian group cited a Franklin Graham quote included in the issue, which “denigrates the Democratic party’s platform,” without actually naming it: “Progressive, liberal thought and activism have so contaminated the mainstream of American life and culture that once-unthinkable abominations such as same-sex marriage, abortion on demand and transgender advocacy have become dogma in one major party’s platform.”
The FFRF never alleges that the magazine issue contained false information, simply that it set Trump’s and Harris’s policy positions side-by-side. This exercise led the FFRF letter to conclude, “The overall takeaway from this election guide is that Christians should vote for Donald Trump over Kamala Harris in the presidential election and Republicans in state and local elections.”
Reaching that conclusion requires a leap of logic, a missing premise that the FFRF letter does not provide. If the magazine issue were read by someone who leaned pro-socialism, pro-abortion, and pro-LGBT policies, the statements quoted by the FFRF would make the reader more likely to vote for Harris than for Trump. The FFRF implicitly assumes that someone with such far-Left political leanings is not the target audience for Decision Magazine.
It appears FFRF believes that not only should Christian organizations refrain from endorsing specific candidates or policies, but it also wants to prevent these groups from weighing in on political matters at all.
The organization has taken similar actions against other Christ-centered organizations. In August, the FFRF filed a complaint with the IRS claiming that the Catholic League violated its tax-exempt status by posting articles criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris and supporting Republican candidates like Sen. JD Vance (R-OH). The FFRF claimed these actions amounted to illegal political campaigning, which constitutes a violation of restrictions imposed on 501(c)(3) organizations even though the Catholic League did not directly or explicitly endorse these candidates.
In May, the FFRF pushed a Florida elementary school to shut down its chapter of the North Central Florida Fellowship of Christian Athletes. It wrote a letter accusing the school of violating the Constitution. The letter said the school “is allowing a religious club for children at the elementary school during the school day” and demanded that the district “immediately investigate this situation and ensure that the FCA club at Hamilton Elementary is disbanded.”
An attorney representing the school district responded to the FRFF’s letter, explaining that the investigation found “a small group of fifth graders” were part of the FCA club. The attorney pointed out that “While these same students will be eligible to participate in FCA on the campus of Hamilton County High School in a few short months as sixth graders,” the school disbanded the club “in an effort to avoid any perception that such a gathering on the campus of Hamilton Elementary is being organized, promoted or endorsed by the District or its employees.”
So, this particular instance appears to be an empty victory for the FRFF. The kids the organization sought to prevent from being part of a Christian group will soon be able to do so in a few months, which means the atheist zealots haven’t accomplished much.
The FFRF in 2012 filed a slew of lawsuits taking issue with the IRS’ lenient treatment of churches regarding tax-exemption regulations. It argued that churches were receiving preferential treatment by not being required to submit the same financial reporting forms as other nonprofits.
In the case of BGEA, the FFRF’s contentions don’t hold even a thimble full of water. For starters, there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here.
FFRF is also a 501(c)(3) organization. It blatantly operates as a political organization pushing for governmental policies aimed at diminishing the voices of Christian groups. The BGEA has not specifically endorsed a candidate or policy, even if some of its leaders, such as Franklin Graham, have personally expressed their political views.
The law does not necessarily stop an individual from participating in political discourse – especially if they are doing so on their own time and not when they are representing the organization.
The FFRF’s argument that BGEA “cherry-picks” issues to portray Harris in a negative light is about as strong as a wet noodle. It is not wrong for the BGEA to highlight policies it believes are morally or socially significant — especially if it is not endorsing a specific piece of legislation.
It is similar to how the FFRF specifically highlights policies regarding church and state. Indeed, the organization recently came out against a new Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom.
It is also worth noting that, historically, the IRS has allowed religious organizations to speak on political matters as long as they do not explicitly endorse a candidate. The BGEA’s publication does not cross the legal line in this regard. Publishing a side-by-side comparison is about informing voters, not campaigning.
Of course, the folks at FFRF already know this.
For these people, it is not about ensuring that the state does not embrace a particular reason. It is about taking Christians out of political discourse altogether. Fortunately, the group has not had much success. Let’s keep it that way.
