Tax Agency Warns Charity for “Inflammatory and Divisive” Sermon
Warning: This is video is seriously offensive.
We might all be camping in tents and up in arms if the IRS monitored speeches and religious sermons to make sure tax exemption is not used to perpetuate hate. Even if an organization implicitly advocated violence using unmistakable code and dog whistles, or a church permitted the advocacy of violence from its pulpit, some might probably object to the IRS’ assertion of authority to ensure the tax subsidy is not used for something clearly not charitable. We would likely think a society permitting its tax agency to assert such authority unenlightened. Communist, even. But that is exactly how it works in the UK. Last week, the Charity Commission for England and Wales asserted exactly that sort of authority when it issued a warning to a religious charity for the remarks recorded in the video above:
The Charity Commission for England and Wales (‘the Commission’) issues this Official Warning under section 75A of the Charities Act 2011 (‘the Act’), on the following grounds:
Section 75A(1)(b) of the Act – to a charity in connection with which it considers a breach of trust or duty or other misconduct or mismanagement has been committed. The Commission considers that a breach of trust and/or duty and/or misconduct and/or mismanagement has been committed in connection with the Charity, as follows:
A sermon was given at the Charity’s premises on 13 October 2023 which included content that – without appropriate context – was inflammatory and divisive. The sermon also discussed party politics and included content which could be reasonably interpreted as discouraging the audience from voting in elections and/or engaging with democracy.
The Charity failed to have effective policies in place to manage the Charity, including those related to speakers, despite having been issued with previous regulatory advice and guidance on this subject by the Commission in 2015. Action that the Commission considers should be taken to rectify the misconduct and/or mismanagement and/ or breach of trust.
If you would rather a summary of the video, the online publication Civil Society reports that the preacher read a passage of scripture that states, “oh Muslim, here is a Jew behind me, kill him.” I know absolutely nothing about the scripture or the Islamic religion so I won’t even try to contextualize, rationalize, or analyze its use. To my mind, its a racist scripture condoning violence. You won’t find any such thing in the Bible, though, right? I even debated whether to post this story. Some might think it sensationalist, at the very least. Especially in these fraught times. But there is an official finding from the UK’s tax exemption agency. The ruling is remarkable, relative to our system, because it involves the Commission’s direct assertion of authority into speech and religion. This isn’t a dictate from the Chinese Communist Party, you understand. It’s an assertion of authority from arguably the cradle of democracy.
The Charity’s response is equally remarkable. It appears to have meekly acknowledged that the sermon — delivered by an unlearned speaker, according to the charity, who served as a last minute stand-in for the intended speaker — could reasonably be viewed as hate speech. The charity even apologized.
We here in America are raised on the milk of free speech and religion. Even when we see the inevitably violent results of hate speech, we are determined that it may be legally uttered. But there is a difference between allowing hate speech on the one hand, and subsidizing it with tax exemption on the other. Sam Brunson and I separately fretted about House Ways and Means Republicans asking whether the IRS reviewed 1023s for evidence of antisemitism. We both thought the IRS would be on seriously thin ice if it developed and applied a definition of antisemitism in the 1023 review process. I still think that’s right because that would seem to implicate a prior restraint enlisting the Service as the arbiter of truth. I think he and I differ later on. I am sure — as I have previously argued — that the IRS has constitutional authority to revoke tax exemption for an organization that actually demonstrates a purpose to perpetuate hatred of other people. I don’t have to define “hate” I only have to show that the instruction is neither “education” nor charitable. Res ipsa, almost, but a lot of people disagree. The burden on the Service would be an appropriately high one, but we are a lazy and absurd people for not even trying to assert through our own tax laws that tax exemption for hate groups is intolerable.
darryll k. jones