[babble-on]

frickin Novak. Who asked him?

[Coop]

Gosh, a negative article about the GOP by Bob Novak. Who'd a thunk it?!?

[redgolum]

This just gets uglier and uglier.

[Constitution Day]

Yes, I know it's Novak, but this is regarding Walter Jones' Freedom of Speech in Churches Act.

---

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail me, mykdsmom or TaxRelief if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[mkj6080]

Its odd Bill Thomas is so anti-Christian conservative. The district he represents, Bakersfield, is the Bible belt of California. That what happens when someone gets so entrenched in power with no real possibility of being voted out of office. Reminds me of Orin Hatch from Utah.

[hosepipe]

[ Civil war looms for Republicans ]

That would require a backbone, preferably with a tongue..
Republican tongues can't say, socialist, communist, left wing re-education camp(colleges), or even that the civil war is well advanced with democrats and the republicans are losing due to moles(neocons) aiding the insurrection making america a democracy and not so slowly..

Is the war in the mid-east a diversion from the civil war here.?. Hopefully not on purpose, but the result is the same. Much too complicated for liberals maybe even too complicated for conservatives..

[Spirited]

Muzzled churches are not likely to do anything to "shake up" the party. They have added the party to their pantheon of gods.

They easily abandon God for whatever local false gods have set themselves as captors over them because they are walking in deception; blinded followers of blind leaders.

If they knew and walked in obedience to their God they would long ago have moved to assert their God given and their Constitutional rights.

[Badeye]

Novak hasn't had a valid insight about Republican Party politics since about 1991.

This article just confirms the above conclusion.

[MagnusMaximus1]

We need to get rid of Bill Thomas whether Dubya is reelected or not.

Thanks for posting the article here.

[YOUGOTIT]

Bill Thomas - Country Club Republican has again proven that his kind will do or say anything to make sure that they get an invite to the next left-wing golf foursome.
It is time that the Republican leadership put people like Bill Thomas out of any chairmanships.

[NCSteve]

An interesting mix of comments here. The GOP cheerleaders can't stand the thought of Novak criticizing their beloved club...er...party. I would say that the comments posted to this thread alone prove Novak's point.

The country-clubbers thought they had pushed all those pesky conservatives out back in 1964 following the Goldwater mess. Then along comes Reagan and not only does he bring back the conservatives, but he puts the GOP back in power after the clubbers handed us the twin debacles of Nixon and Ford. Once again, the country-clubbers thought they had a leash on Reagan when they saddled him with George Bush, the ultimate clubber. Unfortunately for them, their boy couldn't hold on to the White House and they never did quite rid themselves of the conservatives.

Novak is absolutely right. There is a civil war brewing of the same proportions as the original GOP split from the Whigs. One can only wonder who will come out on top.

[B Knotts]

Wow...almost 30 posts and no one's added "FRUITCAKE" to the keywords. :-)

[F.J. Mitchell]

It's time for Christian Republican's and their Churches and Clergy to demand equal rights with liberal Democrats-this double standard has gone on way too long.

[Ohioan]

I read some of the comments that have been posted, in response to your posting of the reasonably apt comments of Robert Novak, with some sadness. Robert Novak is an intelligent moderate Conservative. What possible reason does any one, who claims to be a Conservative, have for rejecting his comments on any basis other than specific disagreement?

Do some of those who automatically reject a writer's views, based solely on whether he agrees or disagrees with Republican policies of the moment, realize how their comments read to other people, just surfing by? Do they consider how such knee jerk reactions communicate the very worst possible image of Republicans in general, and supporters of the in group of the party in particular? Does anyone think that a totally closed-mind, whose views of personalities and issues at least appear to be driven by the interests of a particular faction of a particular party, resonates well with anyone not equally emeshed in the interests of that faction?

George Washington specifically warned against this factionalized party mindset. I would suggest that before anyone claims to be a spokesman or spokeswoman for Conservative values, they read Washington's comments, and reflect accordingly. (See Farewell Address.)

William Flax

[No Dems 2004]

Reading Novak is like reading Buchanan ... it's pretty serpentine stuff. I've learned to avoid them for very much.

[narses]

Another assault FROM the GOP on religion and free speech.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (Introduced in House)

HR 235 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 235
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 8, 2003
Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. HAYES, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. PENCE, Ms. HART, and Mr. PITTS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

---

A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act' .

SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS FREE EXERCISE AND FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES, ETC.

Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by inserting after subsection (o) the following new subsection:

`(p) An organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A) (relating to churches ) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, or to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection (c)(3), or section 170(c)(2) (relating to charitable contributions), because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.'.

SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED.

Nothing in section 2 permits any disbursements for electioneering communications, or political expenditures, prohibited in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made herein shall be effective as of the date of enactment of this Act .


Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Introduced in House)

HR 1547 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1547

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be one of the fundamental and unalienable rights belonging to all individuals.

(2) The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government.

(3) For over 150 years, the Court held to this historically correct position in interpreting the first amendment. During this period, scant mention was made to `The Separation of Church and State'.

(4) Then, beginning in 1947, and accelerating through the 60's, the Court abruptly reversed its position. This was done with no change in the law, either by statute or by amendment to the Constitution. The Court invented the distorted meaning of the first amendment utilizing the separation of `church and state' in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when it announced: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1, 18 [1947]). Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice.

(5) In making this abrupt change, the Court ignored all historical precedent established previously by the Court, the wording of the First Amendment, and the intent of its framers. The rulings are legally irrational and without foundation. Although the Court presumed to rely upon the First Amendment for its authority for these rulings, a review of that Amendment reveals that said rulings could not possibly have been based upon its original intent. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Congress to review not only the rulings of the Court which are in question but the wording and history of the First Amendment to determine the intent of its framers. This abrupt change is found in the following court cases:

(A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral.' (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.)

(B) `Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional.' (Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981, Bishop v. Aronov, 1991, Duran v. Nitsche, 1991.)

(C) `It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.' (Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980, Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981.)

(D) `If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.' (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)

(E) `The Ten Commandments, despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the United States Supreme Court, may not be displayed at a public courthouse.' (Harvey v. Cobb County, 1993.)

(F) `When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer.' (Harris v. Joint School District, 1994.)

(G) By interpreting the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in any public place, the Supreme Court

[Lancey Howard]

Bill Thomas is a scumbag?
Dump the p.o.s.

[ozzymandus]

2 points: As everybody already has stated, Novak is always looking for a "civil war" in the GOP,and why no mention of all the RAT electioneering that goes on in the black churches.

[streetpreacher]

I say as John Adams did in the movie "Amistad" about a possible civil war:

"Let it come. And let it be the last great battle in the American Revolution."

Besides, I'm tired of these dull conventions...