“Radical Threat”: Federal Government to Force Christian Schools Across Nation to Close Doors

School closedWith seven words—“It is going to be an issue”—the U.S. government signaled to orthodox Christian colleges and universities that if they don’t drop their opposition to same-sex marriage they will lose their tax exempt status.

Those words came earlier this week when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, a case concerning whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s must guarantee the right for same-sex couples to marry. While the primary issue is whether gay marriage will be required in every state in the union, one exchange highlighted how the upcoming ruling could affect religious liberty. Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli how it would affect educational institution that opposed same-sex marriage:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I – I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I – I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is – it is going to be an issue.

In the case of Bob Jones University (Bob Jones University v. United States (1983)), the Supreme Court ruled that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the IRS from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy.


The policy at Bob Jones was indeed loathsome and contrary to Scripture, which the school later admitted when it apologized for it’s racist past. But opposition to same-sex marriage is not the same as racial animus. Yet the government, through it’s representative, has now signaled that Christians schools may soon be treated like racists and pariahs for refusing to give up the view of marriage shared by almost all people throughout history prior to the 1990s.

This threat is more radical than many people realize. It’s not merely that Christian schools will have to choose between accepting federal funds and keeping their religious views about sexuality. If the choice were to follow the example of schools like Hillsdale College or New Saint Andrews College and forego taking any federal money, the decisions about what to do would be painful, but obvious.

But what it being proposed is to revoke non-profit status, a move that would destroy many schools. According to the IRS, if an organization’s tax-exempt status is revoked it is no longer exempt from federal income tax and is not eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. As Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary, notes, “The loss of tax-exempt status would put countless churches and religious institutions out of business, simply because the burden of property taxes and loss of charitable support would cripple their ability to sustain their mission.”

In 2005, Jonathan Turley, a law professor who support gay rights, warned this would happen:

The debate over same-sex marriage represents a coalescing of rights of free exercise, free speech, and expressive association. With the exception of abortion, same-sex marriage is almost unique in blurring neat divisions between these rights. Many organizations attract members with their commitment to certain fundamental matters of faith or morals, including a rejection of same-sex marriage or homosexuality. It is rather artificial to tell such groups that they can condemn homosexuality as long as they are willing to hire homosexuals as a part of that mission. It is equally disingenuous to suggest that denial of such things as tax exemption does not constitute a content-based punishment for religious views. . . . The denial of tax-exempt status presents a particularly serious threat to these organizations and puts them at a comparative advantage to groups with contrary views.

When Turley originally made this claim ten years ago, many people assumed he was overstating the case and that same-sex marriage would not require people and organizations to give up their deeply held religious beliefs. But now, as we’ve seen time and time again over the past few years, the threat to religious freedom is all too real.

Are supporters of same-sex marriage—including the many misguided Christians—willing to let Christian high schools, colleges, and seminaries be put out of business simply for holding a Biblical view of marriage? Sadly, I suspect they will follow what Rod Dreher calls the “law of merited impossibility”: “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.” (“Radical Threat”: Federal Government to Force Christian Schools Across Nation to Close Doors, first appeared HERE, reposted with permission)

  • Loretta

    They probably want to close Christian schools because they are the schools that are teaching not indoctrinating as the pubic schools

  • mikecnj

    “Are…misguided Christians…willing to let Christian high schools, colleges, and seminaries be put out of
    business simply for holding a Biblical view of marriage?”
    (They are apostate : yes they will)

  • johnwlooper

    We, as a nation have lost our minds! We are closer to Communism than most people believe. What will it take to open the peoples eyes? When we are totally subjugated, it’ll be too damned late!

  • usncb

    The U.S.Gov.’t are using EXTORTION, this is a felony crime !!!!! This gov.’t keeps violating the laws and the Constitution. Where is this REPUBLIC heading , are the NO BALLS in congress ???? The SCOTUS is NOT to make laws. Are they all a bunch of queers ? and how can less than 3% of the population dictate to the 97%. Our Constitution is the law of the and is for everybody as it stands. It is written in plain language. If I say NO in plain speech, the scotus will ask, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT ?? These so-called judges the best we can offer, not much intell. there. They got their law degree on a three question test over the internet. Being a combat vet. this is what I fought and protected for.

  • akprayingmom

    So be it! Onward Christian Soldiers! Don’t let tax exemption status be the determining factor in spreading the Gospel and standing for truth. “He who honors Me, I will honor,” declares the LORD. The government cannot take away our First Amendment rights! We the People are millions strong against a tyrannical government .

    Ephesians 6:11 Put on the full armor of GOD so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.

    Ephesians 6:13-16 Therefore put on the full armor of GOD, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

    Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,

    and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the Gospel of peace,

    above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.

  • Concerned

    We are a Christian nation, with freedom of religion being one of the most important rights granted by our Constitution. The Government is supposed to represent the people, so we cannot allow 25% of the population dictate to the 75% who what to honor and live by their own moral values. Christian’s position on moral grounds cannot be interpreted as disqualifying them from their tax exempt status. People who believe in the Constitution must support these schools.

    • John Liberty

      “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” – Frederick Douglass.

      “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” – Alexander Hamilton.

      “Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best stage, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.” – Thomas Paine.

  • John Liberty

    We now see the Tyranny of the elite being forced down upon us by the collectivist groups creating a “cascading failure” in society against the goodness the God gave us in this land of opportunity, and our unique culture of exceptionalism. According to the ideology of Marxism, which is clear to see under Obama, we have extortion against the citizenry being played out as a “social justice” hypocrisy. For a just society is restrained by Laws, by Morals, and the Freedom to associate with whom ever you want to, … its called Liberty which Socialists, Marxists, and Communists abhor.

    This is a subversion to our national Christian heritage, and submission to the atheist lobbying efforts of the godless human secularists, which is the cancer within our societal normalcy. We see it everywhere today right down to the lunch menu in schools, so why is it that only government supported ideologues have a problem with the word … NO … and that all WE ALL MUST be inclusive of everyone ??

    This all fits into the UN agenda 21 ….”Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”- Excerpt – UN Agenda 21.
    This is a world community vision for a centrally MANAGED global society of norms … which allows for government will make all the rules and violate the ones it sees fit for its own self-interest, and the extortion of an individual’s choice.

    • John Wood

      Shoot the college can just take their education centers over seas. Then allow online education. Thus preventing the U.S from ever getting their money. Just Saying.

  • John Liberty

    The Tyranny of the elite has arrived, and this administration is the EVIL that, day by day, confronts the goodness God gave us all in this land of opportunity. The soul of America is integral to our Liberty under God; it is what makes America and Americans truly exceptional. America was created by men with the direction of a MORAL society, that the individual seeks Liberty through Truth, established by, for, and of, our Liberty under GOD! Evil is at War with each of us daily, yet it is this is a “cascading failure” of our society, into a death spiral, where the attacks against morality are seen as the “social justice” of a Marxist ideology devoid of Liberty of association, and of Freedom.

    “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” – Karl Marx.

    • mikecnj

      Karl Marx : Dead and in Hell

  • gracentruth

    Good. It is about time that we the sheeple stand up against the IRS and all those unconstitutional taxes. Perhaps this will make us stand up and become the salt and light that we are supposed to be. Peace,

  • v steve

    There is NO turning the clock back now to “restore America.”

    To reverse such monumental damage, this nation and its remaining genuine patriots would actually have to start all over with the next generation of children…and develop them into responsible, thinking, competent, informed citizens. That will never be allowed to happen.

    Those who voted for the criminal fraud Obama and the Jewish are going to reap a bitter, and sometimes deadly, harvest.

    The nation is divided and polarized as never before…all by clever and long-term social engineering and mass mind control.

    Engineered despair and discontent abound and enforced Centralization will continue unrestrained, providing Jewry with ever more direct control over our daily lives.

    The Patriot Act, the NDAA, ‘Free Trade,’ ObamaCare, Drone Surveillance, The Obama Kill List, Countless Executive Orders, nearly 50 Unconstitutional ‘Czars’ and too many other astonishingly illegal acts, will unceasingly continue to deprive Americans of their lives, their liberty and their pursuit of property…

  • Alphabet_Soup

    A government by the consent of the people.

    IMO should SCOTUS roll over for phag marriage my response will be to revoke consent. A lawless government is a contemptible and tyrannical thing and resistance to tyranny is obedience to God

  • KDC

    Fascism is not dead. What a government! Home schooling maybe the only option. Someday they’ll stop that too. It’s the end times

    • mikecnj

      they’ll only stop it if WE let them stop it

  • mikecnj

    HEY, Christian schools :
    (Take the $$ hit : tell THEM to shove it)
    Let Caesar choke on his filthy lucre.

  • G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

    As a
    CONSTITUTIONALIST (Australia) I am well aware that the Framers of the
    (Australian) Constitution much relied upon the US version regarding prohibiting
    laws against religion or atheist.

    Our benefit is we have Hansard records of what
    was stated during the debates to draft our constitution. Even so we still had
    that as soon as the federation took off certain delegates (Framers of the
    Constitution) afterwards used their positions and power as judges to ram
    through what they had been defeated upon during the debates. While the
    constitution is to be above the Executive, the Parliament and the courts we
    find that the High Court of Australia in my view committed treason against the
    People to pervert the course of justice. This is what we have and how unelected
    judges are amending the constitution by stealth to their wimps. While now
    retired, as a Professional Advocate/CONSTITUTIONALIST I always sought to avoid
    using religion in my arguments when representing a party. My view is that
    religion should not be part of litigation and the rights of atheist should be
    the same as those who pursue a religious view.

    See also WELSH
    v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)

    WELSH v. UNITED
    STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970),
    398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
    STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20,
    1970, Decided June 15, 1970

    QUOTE

    1.
    The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v.
    Seeger, supra, and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military
    service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from
    both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that
    Congress used the words “by reason of religious training and belief”
    to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
    worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.

    2.
    The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a
    construction of that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp.
    354-356.

    3.
    Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
    exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic
    belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To
    comport with that clause an exemption must be “neutral” and include
    those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical
    source. Pp. 356-361.

    4.
    In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act’s severability clause and
    the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the
    Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its
    coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded
    from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.

    END QUOTE

    Ok by now
    you may assume that I am in favour of homesexual life style, but to the
    contrary I am not at all.

    Again, I
    did not seek to use religious arguments in my past litigation representation
    but just consider the following as relevant:

    Generally,
    albeit there are exceptions, a female body will combat any foreign matters when
    a male enters her body. That is how I understand the basics is best explained.
    But when a male enters the sewerage of another male then this protection system
    doesn’t operate and well HIV and other problems are the result. The body is
    telling you that if you are going to put it in a sewerage disposal system then
    you are bound to reap the problems from this.

    Poor woman
    who’s partner first got stuck in a sewerage disposal system and ended up with
    problems and then enters her body with those kind of problems her body was not
    prepared for and then she too becomes ill.

    I have
    avoided to make it too technical and if you do not understand what the sewerage
    system stands for then forget about reading anything as you may never get it.

    For the
    above I view that not just for our own sake but for out relatives and society
    as a whole we should accept that a sewerage disposal system is not one you
    should mesh with. I do not accept that any competent court would seek to
    enforce an ab surd view against people who not necessarily upon religion but
    upon common sense oppose to accept the usage of a sewerage system as to be an
    acceptable conduct.

    If we,
    those who do not currently accept this, have to accept homosexuality of the
    minority then soon they will dictate that another minority of pedophiles should
    be accepted also as a norm.

    I recall
    how decades ago the homosexuals lobbied that what they do as consenting adults
    in their bedroom should be left to them and is no one else business. Well we
    came a long way from there, as now they dictate that schoolbooks should be
    amended not to refer to Mum and Dad but to parents, as it insults homosexuals.

    While the
    following relates to drafting of the Australian constitution nevertheless the
    principles ought to be considered!

    .

    Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

    QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-

    “religion is ever a matter between God
    and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the greatest
    engine of tyranny in the world.”

    END QUOTE

    .

    Hansard 7-3-1898
    Constitution Convention Debates

    QUOTE

    Sir EDWARD
    BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an
    amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an amendment of my own. The
    clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting
    the free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make
    lawfull practices which would otherwise be strictly prohibited. Take, for
    instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the “suttee,” and
    another is the “churruck,”-one meaning simply murder, and the other
    barbarous cruelty, to the devotees who offer themselves for the
    sacrifice.

    Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.

    Sir EDWARD
    BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people
    will be able to practise the rites of their religion, and the amendment I have
    to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-

    But shall prevent the performance of any such religious
    rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing character or contrary to the law of
    the Commonwealth.

    END QUOTE

    Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

    QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

    Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the

    Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.

    END QUOTE

    .

    Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

    QUOTE

    Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to

    the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that

    we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power

    over us.

    END QUOTE

    .

    HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

    QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-

    The court may say-“It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on

    the Constitution we will have to wipe it out.”

    END QUOTE

    For this, I
    view that religion itself is a personal issue that cannot be forced upon
    someone else against his/her desires. Having stated this I also view that the
    antics of homosexuality cannot be forced upon any person contrary to his
    religious/non-religious views.

    If the
    Framers of the American Constitution desired to have had homosexuality as part
    of the Commonwealth (U.S.A) legislative powers it could have inserted this into
    the constitution. They to what I understand didn’t do so. Then I view the
    U.S.A. Federal Government has no legislative powers to by backdoor manner force
    upon people opposing the sewerage system to be used by homosexuals to contrary
    to their views having to accept them within their midst.

    As I
    understand it homosexuality and bestiality has been in practice for centuries.
    Priestesses copulating with goats, etc was a practice. But society moved on
    from this. We no longer are living in the Stone Age, because then politicians
    never had cars, planes, etc. As such let us be real about it, that both the
    Bible and the Koran promotes rape, murder, pedophilia, etc, but again we moved
    on from there, well basically Western society has so. We cannot apply the rules
    of yesteryear while demanding at the same time todays benefits, pending what
    suits us best. Having the cake and eat it!

    I live in
    today’s society and for better or for worse desire to have this rather than the
    Stone Age kind of society. Hence, regardless if pedophilia, etc, used to be
    acceptable/tolerated in past centuries I do not accept this to be allowed in
    today’s society. It is not for any government to seek to interfere with my
    morals and how I view them where they are not unconstitutional. The
    constitution (again) didn’t provide for the federal government to dictate what
    morals any person (religious or not) has to accept. Neither do I accept that
    judges can pervert the true meaning and application to reflect their own morals
    or the lack thereof.

    Neither do
    I accept that any person being it a wedding celebrant, a baker or else should
    be/potential forced to serve any would be customer where this goes against the
    religious/non-religious views of the person exercising this particular trade.
    If I request a builder to do a job but he refuses this because he doesn’t like
    this particular job, then I can go to a builder who doesn’t mind to do this
    particular (perhaps small) job. This is the freedom of choice to any person in
    performance of a particular job.

    HANSARD 17-3-1898
    Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
    Australasian Convention)

    QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

    What a charter of liberty is
    embraced within this Bill-of political liberty
    and religious liberty-the
    liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
    aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution,
    which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the
    whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

    END QUOTE

    Again, this
    related to the Australian draft constitution but considering many provisions
    were those in the U.S.A (American) constitution then I view the American
    constitution likewise has this freedom of religious liberty embedded in it as a
    legal principle.

    For this my
    view is that the issue of removing tax exemption status from any kind of
    education system merely because of not accepting the waste disposal system to
    be appropriate is an abuse of power n ever intended by the framers of the
    American constitution.

    Not do I
    accept that a person can be forced to do something in his/her profession
    against his/her moral views. This regardless if those moral views are religious
    or non-religious views.

  • Wanda Harker Smith

    Leviticus 18:22

    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.