I am pretty much in favor of free speech for nonprofits and even the right of nonprofits to participate in the political process through endorsements and lobbying. There is a difference between keeping nonprofits out of politics on the one hand and keeping politicians out of nonprofits on the other. I think nonprofits are invariably and necessarily involved in questions about which politics and politicians are concerned. They should not be excluded from the political process if they are inclined to participate. After all, Civil Society is about grassroots governance. Many nonprofits don’t want anything to do with formal government anyway. They just want to perform their charity and don’t really care who is in office.
I feel differently about politicians intruding into Civil Society. It’s an illegitimate effort at capture, I think. Politicians who want Civil Society to operate but only in accordance with their politics. Politicians ought not be involved in partisan efforts to constrain Civil Society. By that, I mean charity should not be defined according to ephemeral political winds. If anything, there oughta be a Johnson Amendment prohibiting campaign intervention or substantial lobbying by politicians in or about Civil Society rather than the other way around. The current politically motivated harassment of church migrant nonprofits is proof enough.
Out in Yuma, Arizona, there is a small church called Gethsamani. For about 25 years, the Church has operated a food distribution and soup kitchen ministry every Friday from 5:00 to 7:00 pm and every Saturday from 7:00 to 11:00 am. Also on Fridays, the Ministry receives a truckload of food items by donation and delivers that food to a few other food distribution ministries around the city:
We freely share food products with you, as a blessing that comes from God and we give it to you in the name of Jesus Christ. Because that is our mission, to fulfill his mandate. We only ask that you pray for us to have resources to continue bringing blessing to this community. Christians are called by Jesus to love the poor and care for children in need. Jesus tells them “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never be hungry; and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35)
The disciples there don’t ask to see your ID or proof of income, they don’t care about your political druthers. If you show up and tell them you are hungry, they will just give you bags of groceries and even a meal right then and there. But Yuma is only about 30 miles from the Mexican border. As a matter fact, Yuma used to be part of Mexico. The United States “acquired” it after a series of armed conflicts. It was our manifest destiny so we pushed the indigenous people off and told them don’t ever come back here without an invitation. The late arrivals no longer care much for the people Gethsamni attracts by its charity. Ever since the new Mayor arrived, the food ministry has been hit by fines and penalties pretty obviously designed to shut the whole thing down:
For the past 23 years, Gethsemani Baptist Church in San Luis, Ariz., made it its mission to offer food to anyone who wanted it. Through free meals and food drives, the church fed its local community, as well as hungry families in the greater region, like California and Mexico. The church, which is about a 5-minute drive from the Mexican border, also served as a crucial support system for people who crossed into the United States, often fatigued, overwhelmed and with little to no belongings. But that all came to a halt this month, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court by the church earlier this month.
Here is a bit from the Church’s complaint:
1. For decades, Plaintiff Gethsemani Baptist Church (the “Church”) has operated a food ministry as part of its religious mission to support some of the most vulnerable families in the southernmost part of Yuma County and across the border in Mexico. Through this ministry, the Church fills a critical need in the City of San Luis (the “City”) by sharing the Gospel and donating food and other supplies, which it ferries to its property using a semi-truck. Because no other food ministries exist within the City, the Church’s charitable activities have been a blessing for the community, with the City often celebrating or even participating in the Church’s ministry efforts.
2. However, the election of a new mayor in December 2022 heralded a major shift in the City’s approach. Although the Church had operated the food ministry in the same manner for approximately twenty-three years without complaint, the City suddenly turned hostile, bombarding the Church with a series of accusations that the Church’s use of its property and semi-trucks violate the City’s Zoning Code, and threatening to take enforcement action if the Church does not cease its operations. Although the Church disclaimed that any of its operations were currently illegal, and committed to rectifying any potential issues moving forward, Defendants refused to even discuss a solution that would allow the ministry to continue—even resorting to citing the Church’s pastor for passing out food to just a few hungry people. Accordingly, the Church has been forced to bring this action to protect its ability to exercise its religious beliefs.
3. Defendants’ actions heavily burden the Church’s religious exercise, violating its constitutional and statutory rights. The Church accordingly seeks declaratory and equitable relief and nominal damages to prevent the City of San Luis and named Defendants from violating its fundamental rights to share the Gospel by feeding the hungry.
I am no Religious Freedom Restoration Act or First Amendment scholar, but the rest of the complaint sets out a fairly persuasive case that the Mayor just doesn’t like the Church’s brand of religion, at least not so far as it makes life easier for migrants. I am surprised that the party of Reagan, so long all about God and country, takes such a dim view of food ministries.
Annunciation House is another example. I have posted often about the small El Paso church that also provides sustenance for any poor soul showing up at its facilities not far from the southern border. The case is beginning to attract national attention. You might recall that the Texas AG is all about a full-on Crusade to shut down that operation, calling it nothing more than a “stash house” hiding migrants according to the Washington Post:
The influential patriarch of Annunciation House, a faith-based network of shelters based in El Paso, Garcia has taken in tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants he calls “guests” for nearly five decades. Working in collaboration with U.S. immigration officials, he provides them food, clothes and a first home in the United States, and some of his expenses are reimbursed by the federal government. It’s work he sees as a religious calling — to help the most vulnerable, no matter how they arrived. But as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) clamps down on illegal immigration, state investigators are raising questions about Garcia’s humanitarian work. In court records, they contend that his shelters are “stash houses” sheltering the undocumented from authorities.
The article explains Reverend Garcia’s frustration at the recent nativism that labels him some sort of human smuggler. When the political winds shift, as inevitably they do, this will all die down I expect. But by then, the damage might have been done already. We should pass a Johnson amendment prohibiting politicians from intervening in charity, rather than the other way around.
darryll k. jones
