|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 10/04/2003 2:07:56 PM PDT by webber
Summary: North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones (R) is pushing for passage of H.R. 235, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Act. He currently has 120 co-sponsors.
Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) is urging passage of H.R. 235, a bill that will overturn an injustice that has been done to pastors since 1954. That year, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that restricted what pastors could say on political issues from the pulpit. Johnson added this language to seek revenge upon conservatives in his state who opposed his re-election. Rev. Sheldon's editorial published in October, 2002, provides more details on Johnson's act of vengeance against his opponents.
H.R. 235 will amend the IRS code to correct this injustice imposed upon churches by Lyndon Johnson nearly 50 years ago.
For more details on this legislation, access Rep. Jones' web site: H.R. 235. Ask your Congressman to support this important legislation!
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
The first amendment does, in fact, keep the government out of the churches. My copy of the constitution makes no mention of a quid pro quo. Just because the government is forbidden from interfering with churches does not imply that the converse is, or should be, true.
Further, I would point out that many of America's churches predate the US government, and enjoy greater devotion from their followers. On those points, it's reasonable to assert that those churches are a more legitimate foundation of society than is the IRS, or any other branch of the US government. If that's true, then it's probably very legitimate for people to take political instruction at church.
ARE YOU FOR REAL? Or is this satire? Do you really not believe in freedom of speech? Are you really that anti-religious?
You probably routed for having the 10 commandments monument removed from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court Rotunda too I bet, believing that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution says that "There shall be a wall of separation between church and State, so that the Government can infringe on the rights of religion and those who practice it, but religion cannot do the same to government."
Well, you're getting what you asked for and are going to pay dearly for it in the future. A nation who does not base their laws on God's laws will become like the other nations of the world, and the God given freedoms, rights, privileges, blessings, and protections will disappear like dust in the wind. How sad. It appears God's judgement is not too far off.
What are you so afraid if churches are allowed to talk about politics from the pulpits? Are you afraid that the nation will become a righteous, and moral nation"?
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
From a "presumption of liberty," what part of"no law" does our federal government not understand?
Any law, a law to tax religion, a law to tax exempt religion, is unconstitutional.
Any action or rationalization to the contrary is anti-liberty, tyrannical, socialist and communist.
Apparently you just don't understand.
Churches are allowed to exist, but they can't say anything political.
If they want to say something political, they must be taxed.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Churches must not get involved in politics or we will destroy them!
See, it makes sense.
If a law is being applied in a biased way, one solution is to repeal it, but another is to enforce it without prejudice.
My copy of the constitution makes no mention of a quid pro quo.
Agreed. The text says only, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Technically that’s very limited; it doesn’t, for example, prohibit assessing real estate taxes on church buildings. But a great deal of tradition has grown up amounting to a de facto “wall between church and state,” a wall that generally confines each party to its own side. Even Jesus endorsed that, saying, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” He recognized the government as supreme in worldly matters and God as supreme in spiritual matters.
Further, I would point out that many of America's churches predate the US government, and enjoy greater devotion from their followers. On those points, it's reasonable to assert that those churches are a more legitimate foundation of society than is the IRS, or any other branch of the US government.
The political legitimacy of our government rests on its operation under a constitution ratified by the elected representatives of the people of all the constituent states. No church enjoys ratification of all the people, only its own members. Churches may have spiritual legitimacy, but cannot, under the first amendment, enjoy political legitimacy.
I believe what you have said is incorrect. It is true that that there is freedom of religion, but certainly not freedom from religion.
The first amendment guarantees both freedom of religion and, for those who prefer it, freedom from religion.
The Bill of Right, and the Constitution, as a whole, is based on Christian morals.
They are primarily based on the teachings of the Scottish enlightenment, not Christian morals. Most of the framers were Christians, but that is not tantamount to saying that whatever they wrote was, ipso facto, Christian.
In most cases, the church, containing those Christian principles, should have the same right of FREE SPEECH as any other organization.
Strict freedom of speech is applied by the courts to individuals, not organizations. Corporations, for example, have more limited speech rights. In any case, I don’t advocate depriving clergy of their speech rights, only predicating tax exemptions on their steering clear of politics.
Speaking of tax exemptions, they represent subsidies to religion. After all, churches (both the buildings and the people) require police and fire protection, streets and sewers, justice and defense. Their exemption from bearing their proportionate share of the financial burden represents a subsidy of church-goers by non-church-goers.
As you consider your counterarguments, think about the reported fact that Saudi Arabia has assumed the mortgages on U.S. mosques and sponsors the madrasahs that inculcate illiberal and antidemocratic values in American children in the hope that one day they’ll take over America and abolish our constitutional law in favor of Sharia. Do you think that Saudi Arabia should have the right to exploit our religious freedom? Or do you believe that Saudi subsidy of one of our religions is just as abhorrent as Chinese subsidy of one of our political politics?
The government should not tell him not to say it, but neither should the government subsidize him to say it, which it now does.
Of course, he impairs his moral authority by abusing his position of trust with his congregation to spout political cant, though I doubt his parishioners recognize it.
What you say may or may not be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the government isn't required to give any organization tax exempt status- any group that wants the privilege of not paying taxes has to follow tax code rules to meet tax-exempt qualification.
The government is not preventing anyone from exercising their 1st Amendment rights- clergy is free to say whatever it wants. However, certain rules exist whereby an organization can obtain the PRIVILEGE (but not the right) to be tax exempt. One of the requirements to become tax exempt is not being involved in politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.