The IRS will grant religious groups greater flexibility toendorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status, the agency stated in a court document filed in July 2025. President Donald Trump has previously promised toabolish the Johnson Amendment, which prevents charitable non-profits from participating in political campaigns – although the recent action merely redefines the regulation.
Embracing the transformation, House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasizedan argumentthat is favored by certain conservatives: the idea that the Constitution does not truly mandate the separation of religion and government.
Thomas Jefferson, the person who created the phrase, did not mean "to prevent religion from affecting matters of civil government," Johnsonwrote in a July 12 opinion piece published on the social media platform XThe original creators aimed to safeguard the church from a growing state influence, not the reverse.
Officials in multiple Republican-leaning states havechallenged long-standing normssurrounding religion and government, spanning from introducingprayer and Bibles in public classroomsto try to obtain public financial supportfor religious schools.
Conservative intellectuals have historically advocated for stronger connections between faith and the state, contending that religious organizations cancreate strong communities. In my own research, I've discovered that mass shootingsare less likelyin a more devout setting.
For reviewers, naturally, efforts toreduce the barrier between religion and stateand state create constitutional issues.The First Amendmentstates that "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of it." Furthermore, opponents worry that recent efforts toreduced boundaries between religious institutions and government less separation between religious organizations and the state diminished division between religious bodies and governmental entities fewer obstacles between religious groups and the state reduced distinction between religious institutions and public authorities lessened gap between religious organizations and the government decreased separation between religious entities and the state lowered threshold between religious groups and governmental structuresfavor conservative Christian organizations over other religions.
But as a researcher in the fields of religion and politics, I think another reason for being careful is being ignored. Studies show that close ties between religion and government can be a factor that actuallydecreases religious participation, rather than encouraging it.
All or nothing
Some academics propose that religious organizations functionsuch as companies in a commercial area, vying for followers. Government regulations regarding religion can alter the power dynamics among competing entities in the same manner that economic policies influence markets for consumer products.
On first inspection, it may appear that governmental assistance would bolster religious organizations. In truth,it can backfire, whether or not the government favors a specific religion over others. In certain instances, followers who are unable to practice their faith according to their own preferences choose to stop practicing it altogether.
In Israel, for instance, Orthodox Jewish organizations are granted official government acknowledgment thatmore liberal Jewish denominationsdo not. Religious sites can be managed by Orthodox authorities, and public religious schools can be operated by them andperform marriages. Many pairs who are not interested inmarry according to Orthodox law, or are unable to, conduct a ceremony overseas or register as a common-law couple.
Guests visited a wedding held in Israel's Ein Hemed National Park in December 2017.AP Photo/Ariel Schalit
In reality, numerous academics cite Israel as a model ofa religious “monopoly." Since the government supports a specific branch, Orthodox Judaism, Jewish citizens occasionally encounter an "all or nothing" decision. The country's Jewish population issharply dividedbetween individuals who follow religious practices and those who consider themselves non-religious.
Government intervention can also harm religious organizations by making them appear less autonomous, thus reducing public confidence. In a 2023 study of 54 countries where Christianity is the majority religion, political scientistsJonathan Fox and Jori Breslawskidiscovered that certain followers believed that religious organizations turned intoless legitimatewhen supported by the government. Furthermore, assistance from the state reduced people's trust in the government.
Their findings built on previous researchindicating that the general population is less inclined to support faith-driven charities and participate in religious gatherings when the government provides financial assistance to religious organizations.
In reality, numerous regions with the lowest levels of religious belief are located in affluent nations that either maintain state-sponsored churches or previously did so not long ago.such as Sweden. Others have a history of dividing individuals of varying religionsinto their own schoolsand other organizations, including Belgium and the Netherlands.
History lessons
One of the most compelling instances illustrating how state backing of religion might lead to reduced religious involvement is seen in the former Soviet Union and its associated states.
During the Cold War, Soviet authorities aimed to eliminate religious practices among their population. However, policies torepress independent religious institutionscollaborated with policies to bring religious institutions under government control. Easy access to religious areas allowed officials to monitor members and penalize clergy who opposed their authority.
In Hungary, the Communist Party supported state-controlled Catholic churches that werecut off from the Holy SeeIn Romania, the regime incorporated previously Catholic churches.into a state of the Orthodox Church. In the previous Czechoslovakia, meanwhile, the Communist Party providedclergy’s salaries to keep them subservient.
Even now, numerous nations from the former Eastern Bloc maintain low levels ofreligious participation. In Russia, for instance, most citizenscall themselves Orthodox Christians, and the church wields influence in politics. However, only 16% of adults statereligion is “very important” in their lives.
Although academics may highlight the impact of visible suppression as a reason for limited religious belief,government funding for religious organizationsis also a lasting issue. Many former Soviet states inherited systems that require religious groups to register, and they only offer financial support to religions deemed legitimate by the government. Such policies continue to be widespread in southeastern and central Eastern Europe.
In recent years, several nations in the area,including Russia and Hungary, have experienced democratic backslidingin the grasp of populist leaders who alsopoliticize religionfor their personal benefit. Due to low levels of religious participation in these nations, religious figures mightwelcome government support.
This image released by the Russian state news agency Sputnik shows President Vladimir Putin and Russia's Orthodox Patriarch, Kirill, touring the Annunciation Church at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in Saint Petersburg on July 28, 2024.Alexey Danichev/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
Free market for faith
Many affluent nations have experienced significant drops in religious belief throughout modern times. The United States stands out as an exception.
In general, the proportion of Americans who are part of a religious groupis declining, as is the proportion of Americans whoregularly attend worship services. However, the proportion of Americans who areintensely religioushas stayed the same for many years. For instance, approximately 29% of Americans mention they pray multiple times daily, while slightly less than 7% state they go to religious services more than once a week.
Some religious studies experts contend that the "free-market model" – in which every religion is allowed to vie for followers, without any governmental involvement or favoritism –is what sets America apart comparativelyspiritual. In other words, they hold the view that this so-called "American exception" isdue to the division between religious institutions and government, not because of it.
It remains to be seen whether the conservatives' efforts to foster cooperation between religion and the government will persist or achieve their goals. Nevertheless, history indicates that when governments try to bolster specific religious groups, it can sometimes lead to unintended consequences.
Brendan Szendro, Lecturer in Political Science,McGill University
This piece is reprinted fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Related Articles:
・George Conway anticipates that Trump's 'inner anger' will lead to repeated losses in court
・"Things won't conclude positively": Critics criticize the new IRS decision permitting churches to support candidates
・Clash between Musk and Treasury Secretary as IRS chief is removed: report
・A former IRS lawyer who supported Trump was sentenced to prison for two felony charges related to voter fraud.
・"Difficult time to be in the pulpit": Morning Joe forecasts challenges for pastors following the IRS decision