|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Project of Big Brother Church Watch info@bigbrotherchurchwatch.org
Posted on 10/18/2004 8:59:48 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
Please use this website to report any churches who allow liberals to illegally solicit votes from a pulpit. They will lose their tax exempt status. We need to do this. Below is their mission statement:
Why we are doing this
RatOutaChurch.org
A project of Big Brother Church Watch
OUR IMMEDIATE AND URGENT PURPOSE
Our immediate purpose is to fight back against vicious left-wing attempts to silence conservative, Bible believing pastors. Every election year, liberal groups have a field day intimidating and harassing conservative pastors into silence, while liberal pastors bring in their favorite politicians and shamelessly campaign for them with impunity. This unequal treatment needs to stop! We intend to make some liberal pastors, who think they can endorse candidates from their pulpits in perfect safety, start to feel the heat conservative Bible believing pastors do. How? We are actively recruiting volunteers to attend services of churches known to have liberal leanings and report to us anything said from the pulpit that may be construed as “endorsement” of a candidate. We intend to file complaints with the IRS against these churches that overtly endorse candidates or who use “code words” to tell congregations to vote for a specific party.
OUR LONG TERM GOALS
Is this a good situation, to have Americans spying on one another in churches in order to report to the Federal government what is said from the pulpit? No, and it is shameful that the ACLU began the process. It is even more shameful that Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson inserted language into an IRS funding bill that took away freedom of speech from America’s spiritual leaders in 1954. It is tragic for our Republic that the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State began a “snitch” system to silence conservative Bible believing pastors. A long term solution would be passing the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act into law. It is our long term goal to return complete freedom of speech to the pulpit by removing the language from the Internal Revenue service code which was inserted there in the 1950’s. We support the passage of the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act as authored by Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC). This bill would return total freedom of speech to America’s pastors. The passage of HR -235 would make spies for the ACLU and Americans United a thing of the past and would restore the freedom of speech our churches have lost.
WHY BIG BROTHER CHURCH WATCH IS NECESSARY
Most Americans have probably forgotten, if they ever knew, that for about the first 150 years of our nation’s existence, pastors in the United States could freely speak from the pulpit about any social issue or public figure, guided only by their conscience and their interpretation of Scripture. The movement for abolition of slavery started in the churches and was driven by fiery preachers who spoke their minds on this controversial “political issue” and urged their congregations to vote for abolitionist candidates. For many years afterward, Americans in their local churches never gave a thought to the possibility that the government might interfere with what was said within the walls of their places of worship. That all changed in 1954 when then Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson found a sneaky way to silence preachers who were critical of him and his policies. He slipped in an amendment stating churches under 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code may not endorse candidates or try to affect legislation. *
For years, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), along with the ACLU, has used the IRS as a hammer to wield against Bible believing Christians, particularly in election years. If Barry Lynn seems to have close ties with the ACLU, it is because he was a counsel for the ACLU before starting his own organization, the AU. The ACLU and Barry Lynn have a nationwide network of spies (they are recruited as “monitors”) who go into churches for the express purpose of catching pastors saying anything remotely “political,” so they can report the pastors to the IRS. They target pastors who have the courage to proclaim what the Bible says about moral issues like abortion and homosexual “marriage.” According to their twisted interpretation, espousing a moral view is said to be the same as endorsing a candidate who holds the same view. Under those conditions, what issue of public morality can a pastor possibly address?
The Christian Coalition was sued for distributing voter guides, which merely listed the voting record of candidates, a matter of public record. Although they eventually prevailed in court, it was only after a long and expensive legal battle. Still today, Barry Lynn sends out warnings to churches telling them they can get into trouble for distributing voter guides. And every election year the ACLU writes to pastors of conservative churches, trying to intimidate them with warnings about political statements.
In July of 2004 the AU filed a complaint against Dr. Jerry Falwell with the IRS because Falwell wrote a column endorsing President Bush, and sent it out as an e-mail as well as posting it on the website of his 501( c ) ( 4 ) organization. Dr. Falwell rightly claims that even a preacher, as a private citizen, has the right to express personal views. But the liberal “watchdogs” like Barry Lynn of course want to completely silence conservative religious leaders.
Another victim on the AU hit list is Bishop Michael Sheridan, who told Catholics that to vote for a candidate known to hold certain unbiblical views, is to be complicit with that candidate in breaking God’s laws. It is a very logical position, but it brought down on the Bishop the wrath of the AU, which ran screaming to the IRS.
Barry Lynn lies when he says his group is impartial and bi partisan. On his website he has a special section hysterically warning about the Religious Right, which he calls the “greatest threat,” and there is a plea for volunteers to “research the religious right.” By “research” they mean search websites, publications and electronic media for any instance where they can catch a religious right leader making a political statement which they can report to the IRS.
This election year another group, the Mainstream Coalition, is bragging about their approximately 100 volunteers who are going into churches to observe and report on what is being said. The Mainstream Coalition has existed for several years, but they came out of the woodwork to begin spying on churches because of the battle over same-sex marriage and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Any pastors who come out in favor of traditional marriage and support the FMA are potential targets.
* For purposes of IRC Section 501(c)(3), legislative activities and political activities are two different things, and are subject to two different sets of rules. The latter is an absolute bar. An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. But if the forum or debate shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, it becomes a prohibited activity. The motivation of an organization is not relevant in determining whether the political campaign prohibition has been violated. Activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate, even on the basis of non-partisan criteria, violate the political campaign prohibition of IRC Section 501(c)(3). See the FY-2002 CPE topic entitled Election Year Issues for further information regarding political activities of charities.
Conservative News Wire
A Project of Big Brother Church Watch info@bigbrotherchurchwatch.org
Sorry, I didn't see your post!
IMO the pulpit should be used for religion, not politics, not matter what the political leaning of the congregation or preacher is.
Why is this cheered if they are preaching "Vote Bush"?
IMO the pulpit should be used for religion, not politics, not matter what the political leaning of the congregation or preacher is.
Where were Kerry, Sharpton and Jessie at in Florida last week?
Thanks. Everywhere I go to check out the organizations mentioned hits a deadend, I google and get "unable to display page" or whatever. There is one scary outfit called Coalition for Religious Freedom of The Southeast, I sincerely hope there is no relationship.
Okay, if W.J. Murray is William J. Murray, son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, then at least I've heard of him.
bump!
What part of, "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" do you not understand?
Religious exercise includes what you DO and SAY, not just what you BELIEVE.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religious conscience are inseparable and inalienable.
.
No, either you are going to be a hypocrite and say it's ok for Conservatives to do it and not liberals, or you are going to say that neither should.
Calm the f* down already. I did not start this thread.
You can pretend it doesn't exist on both sides all you want. Take a trip to the Religion Forum. You will threads where people say that their pastor is staunchly behind Bush and preaches that they should vote for Bush if they are "good Christians". It happens on both sides.
There's no spittle on my monitor. Perhaps you should examine your own.
Your opinion in this matter contravenes the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, which starts with, "Congress shall make no law," and includes, "abridging the freedom of speech," and, "regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I musta missed something. It sure sounded like that to me.
I see nothing hypocritical about allowing church leaders of any political pursuasion to make whatever statements they wish, political or otherwise, from the pulpit or anywhere else, as long as they do not incite sedition or violence.
I said
That does not imply, nor do I wish, to see churches told they cannot preach politics from the pulpit.
What I meant by that was I would not want to see them FORCED to not preach what they want. And I can have any opinion I want.
It is hypocritical for people to cheer conservatives preaching from the pulpit while saying that liberal churches ought to be in trouble for it and vice versa.
Thanks for the ping!
bump
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.