Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
John Oliver’s Real Target Isn’t Crooked Televangelists—It’s Conservative Churches
John Oliver’s Real Target Isn’t Crooked Televangelists—It’s Conservative Churches
Dec 14, 2025 1:36 AM

In 2004, Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, famously appeared on CNN’s Crossfire and accused the hosts of “hurting America.” He excoriated the show’s hosts for being “partisan hacks” who suck up to politicians and spin the news for partisan ends. Stewart then spent the next ten years hurting America by being a partisan hack that sucked up to politicians and spun the news for partisan ends.

That so many Americans get their news from opinion shows on cable news like Crossfire has always been depressing. But even more disturbing is the fact that for years a relatively small number (about 12 percent) cited Stewart’s The Daily Show as a place they learned about what was going on in the world.

When Stewart and his show retired earlier this month, many of us sighed with relief. Finally, we thought, thirtysomething, college-educated liberals will be forced to turn somewhere else besides a edy show to get their information about current events. Alas, that was not to be. Stewart passed the baton to his former correspondent John Oliver who has his own current events show on HBO called Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

If you’ve been on social media in the past year you’ve likely seen one of your liberal friends post a clip from Oliver’s show. There’s nothing particularly insightful about Oliver, but he has a British accent which leads Americans to assume he’s intelligent and profound.

Earlier this month, Oliver did a segment on televangelists. He can be forgiven for being late to the topic since he was still a teenager in England when America got bored of talking about predatory preachers on television. The “prosperity gospel” frauds are still a problem, of course, and should be called out for it. But Oliver (or whoever writes for his teleprompter) isn’t really concerned about televangelists. The real goal of the segment is to promote the idea that the IRS should determine what is and is not a legitimate church.

To show how easy it is to form a “false” church, Oliver created his own church, Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption, and asked for donations. As edy bit it’s pretty lame; as a critique of government oversight of religion it’s downright idiotic.

Again, Oliver is from England, so his ignorance about things like the First Amendment and freedom of religious can be excused. But many Americans who should know better agree that the IRS should have the power to determine what beliefs constitute a legitimate religion.

A few folks have attempted to provide the education Oliver and his acolytes are lacking. Rabbi Jack Moline of the Interfaith Alliance has even invited Oliver’s church to join his group. In his letter, Moline writes,

Interfaith Alliance is a national organization that draws support from individuals who identify with more than 75 faith traditions and philosophies. We hope that with the establishment of your church we can now say “more than 76 faith traditions.” I would e you and any other members of the Church of Our Lady of the Perpetual Exemption (COOLPERX?) to join us.

You seemed surprised at how easy it was for you to open your church, register it, and ensure its legal protection. We understand what made you shake your head at what the IRS allows as a house of worship. The only way we can be absolutely sure that mosques, synagogues, churches and temples are able to munities across the country is to protect the rights of new and unique churches like Our Lady of the Perpetual Exemption.

If the IRS were truly empowered to regulate religion in this country, every sermon would be written in red-ink, our prophets would all be living in the Caymans and we’d have to file our prayers at a processing center in Peoria. Religious life thrives in America precisely because the government plays no role in deciding what is or is not a legitimate faith.

Call us crazy, but we believe that mon sense of most people will alert them to the absurdities of religious practitioners who take advantage of these freedoms. And when that fails, we count on you to point out those who are misusing the trappings of faith for personal or political gain.

I hope that Interfaith Alliance can count on your wit, intellect and support as we continue the hard work of balancing religious freedom and the government’s interest in preventing abuse and protecting the rights of all Americans. And I give you my personal promise that no donation you might send us will go toward mansions or private jets. (That’s what government contracts are for, and that’s where the real money is anyway).

While I appreciate Moline’s response, I think he misses the point of Oliver’s critique, and why it’s been embraced by so many on the American left. Unlike Moline, they aren’t all that interested in seeing religion in America “thrive.” And they certainly aren’t all that concerned about the preachers on TV channels they don’t watch. What they are really worried about are the preachers in munities, especially the conservative ministers and priests who challenge a libertine, secular worldview. And what they really want is for the IRS to use the government’s power to take away the tax exemption of any church that dares disagree with their ideology.

As Naomi Schaeffer Riley recently wrote,

We’ve seen in the past two years how ideological the IRS can be, how prone its bureaucracy has been to political influence. Just imagine if Lois Lerner had been sent out to determine which churches were legitimate and which ones weren’t.

Church doesn’t perform gay marriages? It can pay taxes. Your church doesn’t allow women to be pastors? We’ll send you a bill tomorrow. What, you don’t give sermons about the dangers of e inequality? We’ll be in touch mid-April.

In fact, the idea of taxing non-gay-marriage-performing churches is floating in a few circles right now.

Oliver and his acolytes claim all they want is for the IRS to act against “ridiculous” churches. No doubt that’s true. But it won’t be long before their definition of what constitutes a “ridiculous” church includes every conservative Catholic and evangelical congregation in America.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Belief in God Strongest in U.S., Israel, and Catholic Countries
A new reportabout the depth of people’s belief in God reveals vast differences among nations, ranging from 94 percent of people in the Philippines who said they always believed in pared to only 13 percent of people in the former East Germany. Yet the surveys found one constant—belief in God is higher among older people, regardless of where they live. The studies covered 18 countries in”1991 (counting East and West Germany andNorthern Ireland and Great Britain separately), 33 countries in...
Chuck Colson: A Life Redeemed
mon thought many people have about conversion is that a person who has undergone the experience is wholly different before and after. Surely this is true in the order of grace, in that a man goes from darkness into light, from sin into being made cleansed. Yet, the personality remains the same even if it es reordered and redirected, sometimes astonishingly so. Such was the case with Peter, and with Paul, with Augustine and more contemporaneously, with my good friend...
How Some Courts and Legal Theorists Misrepresent the Rational Status of Religious Beliefs
While preparing for a book chapter on the topic of political philosophy and religious beliefs, Francis Beckwith “read and reread scores of court cases and academic monographs.” What he discovered is that judges and legal theorists are often embarrassingly ignorant about the rational status of religious beliefs: The legal theorists I read all claim to be experts in law and religion, and their works appear in law reviews published by prestigious universities. And yet, I could not find in them...
Interview: Rev. Sirico on the Ryan Budget Plan
Napp Nazworth, a reporter for Christian Post, interviewed Rev. Robert A. Sirico about House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s budget plan, “The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal.” Nazworth asked Rev. Sirico, Acton’s president and co-founder, to talk about how closely Ryan’s plan lines up with Catholic social teaching, as the Republican budget chair has claimed, and to speak to criticisms of the plan. “A group of about 60 politically liberal Christian leaders wrote a letter taking exception...
How Profit Ensures that New Yorkers Will Be Able to Eat Idaho Potatoes
How do potatoes from Idaho end up in supermarkets in New York City? As economist Walter Williams explains, its because of the power of the profit motive. ...
Government Cannot Create Happiness
Robert J. Samuelson on why getting the government involved in the happiness movement will make us all miserable: We ought to leave “happiness” to novelists and philosophers — and rescue it from the economists and psychologists who think it can be distilled into a “science” and translated into pro-happiness policies. Fat chance. Government can often mitigate sources of unhappiness (starvation, unemployment, disease), but happiness is more than the absence of misery. If we could manufacture happiness, we could repeal the...
Acton Commentary: Bread First, Then Ethics
My ongoing reflection on the Hunger Games trilogy from Suzanne Collins continues with today’s Acton Commentary, “Bread First, Then Ethics.” This piece serves as a sort of follow-up to an mentary, “Secular Scapegoats and ‘The Hunger Games,'” as well as an essay over at First Things I wrote with Todd Steen, “Hope in the Hunger Games.” In this mentary, I examine the dynamic of what might be understood to reflect Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as depicted in the Hunger Games...
Q&A with Acton
Have you always wanted to interact with one of Acton’s staff members? Do you have questions or ideas related to Acton’s foundational principles that haven’t been answered? Do you want the chance to participate in an intellectual discussion organized by Acton? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then this is your chance! On Tuesday April 24 at 6:00pm ET, we will be organizing an AU Online Q&A session with Dr. Stephen Grabill, director of Programs and International...
Envy and Economics
“Charity rejoices in our neighbor’s good,” said Thomas Aquinas, “while envy grieves over it.” Unfortunately, grieving over our neighbor’s good has e a dominant part of recent economic discussions e inequality,” the “Buffett rule,” the “99%”). Journalist Matt Lewis recently talked to talked to Dr. Victor V. Claar about the rise of envy in economics. You can listen to the audio below. Related: Dr. Claar recently gave a talk on “Envy: Socialism’s Deadly Sin” Acton On Tap (you can listen...
Sergius Bulgakov’s “Religious Materialism” and Spiritual Hope
Yesterday in First Things’ daily “On the Square” column, Matthew Cantirino highlighted Sergius Bulgakov’s theology of relics, recently translated by Boris Jakim. Cantirino writes, Even today, it must be admitted, the subject of relics is an often-overlooked one in theology, and especially in popular apologetics. To the minds of many the topic remains a curio—a mild embarrassment better left to old ladies’ devotionals, or the pages of Chaucer. Yet, for Bulgakov, this awkward intrusion of the physical is precisely what...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved