Posted on 07/27/2006 8:20:43 AM PDT by xzins
Five years ago, I wrote about threats made by the Internal Revenue Service against conservative churches for supposedly engaging in politicking. Today, the IRS is again attempting to chill free speech, sending notices to more than 15,000 non-profit organizations—including churches—regarding its new crackdown on political activity.
But what exactly constitutes political activity? What if a member of the clergy urges his congregation to work toward creating a pro-life culture, when an upcoming election features a pro-life candidate? What if a minister admonishes churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful, when an initiative banning gay marriage is on an upcoming ballot? Where exactly do we draw the line, and when does the IRS begin to violate the First amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion?
I agree with my colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina that the political views of any particular church or its members are none of the government’s business. Congressman Jones introduced legislation that addresses this very serious issue of IRS harassment of churches engaging in conservative political activity. This bill is badly needed to end the IRS practice of threatening certain politically disfavored faiths with loss of their tax-exempt status, while ignoring the very open and public political activities of other churches. While some well-known leftist preachers routinely advocate socialism from the pulpit, many conservative Christian and Jewish congregations cannot present their political beliefs without risking scrutiny from the tax collector.
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine.
The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never envisioned a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths.
The political left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. Many Democrats, not all, are threatened by strong religious institutions because they want an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
The Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats. Religious institutions cannot freely preach their beliefs if they must fear that the government will accuse them of "politics." We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced. Free societies always have strong, independent institutions that are not afraid to challenge and criticize the government.
Taxation is predicated on existence, regardless of any rights, alienable or not.
Not when the law delimition that taxation predicates exemption on being politically silent.
Secondly taxation is in reality predicated on more that mere existance, as in at direct tax which must be layed in accord with the rule of apportionment among the states.
All other forms of taxation, comprehended by those laid by the rule of uniformity, are laid upon predicates of use, action, etc beyond mere existance.
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND.
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
- While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned
Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)
- An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.
However no statute enacted by Congress may predicate the taxation of unalienable rights clearly stated under the 1st amendment, and amendment which clearly and unequivocable states:
Congress shall make no law ...
This issue involves moew than just churches. It also cuts to the heart of being able to donate to an organization in order to have your voice heard.
FR is one of those deals that is pretty much affected. Right now if you make a donation to FR, it's not tax deductible.
The reason for that is because in order for an organization to be tax exempt it must refrain from endorsing candidates or taking positions on issues of public importance.
This goes back to LBJ. He didn't like what some groups were saying about him or his administration so what he did as revenge was put proscriptions on these organizations where if they contuined, they would lose their tax exempt status.
This clearly was not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Futhermore, there's really no such thing as separation of church and state. to say there is really stupid, idiotic and foolish.
There's a reason why Democrats and RINO's want to keep things this way. They do so because everybody knows that what they're doing is not only wrong but it's malicious.
These politicians do not have the best interests of the country in their hearts. Their only interest is in the reacquistion of power so that they can continue to missuse and abuse it to do what they know full well are malicious and harmful things to us, the people of this country.
Remember Bill Clinton? This is the previous administration I'm talking about. Monica Lewinsky, Sexual Harrasment, Numerous rapes and murders that took place under his watch.
A lot of what he did was ung-dly. This is why they want these same proscriptions to continue. Because they want to be able to continue to do these enormously malicious and harmful things and they don't want christians and conservatives voicing opposition to their activities.
That is the reason right now why organizations like FR are not tax exempt. Take away these proscriptions and let them be tax exempt and it would allow them to be able to address issues of public importance without having to worry about the IRS breathing down their throats.
It would also mean more and more people being able to contribute to these organizations as a result of being able to deduct that donation from their taxes.
Regards.......
No, it is not. You and your church can simply not engage in conduct that is not subject to tax-exempt status, such as commercial or political activity.
I think any and all speech, political, religious, or otherwise, should not be abridged in any way. Ever. I am appalled that there are so-called conservatives that are all in favor of regulating political speech using the tax code.
Once again, tax-exempt is not a right. If you wish to be taxed LESS than other organizations, you agree to stick to charitable work. If you wish to be political, you are taxed the SAME as political organization. There is no curtailment of a right here. If you chose to engage in political speech, you are made EQUAL with others regarding your tax status.
Once again, the NRA does just fine segrating its political and tax-exempt non-political activities. I have yet to see your side even try to deal with that reality as you whine about the unfairness of being taxed for political activity.
The issue, with regard to the income tax, is and has always been, FREEDOM! Either you are for FREEDOM and are working to rid our nation of this communist inspired monster called the "progressive income tax" or you are not. There is no middle ground in this one.
We will never again be a free people so long as we have an income tax and the IRS!
Incorrect. 501(c)(3) orgs can & do take positions on issues of public importance whether they are the NRA, Planned Parenthood or the NAACP.
They can't electioneer, which isn't the same thing.
You have it exactly backwards. FR is not tax exempt because it is not involved in charitable work. Therefore, it is taxed the same as other enterprises.
You seem to think being tax-exempt is a right for some and not for others.
Levying taxes because an organization engages in political speech that it wouldn't occur if it didn't engage in political speech is about as clear of an abridgment of the 1st Amendment as I can possibly imagine. It is unbelievable that you can't see that. God help us all.
"I think any and all speech, political, religious, or otherwise, should not be abridged in any way. Ever. I am appalled that there are so-called conservatives . . . etc.")
I think your (incredibly naive) rhetoric speaks for itself.
Dammit! (for emphasis)
Carolyn
Once again, it is not levying taxes. It is removing TAX BREAKS. If you chose to engage in political activity, you are taxed at the SAME RATE as others who engage in political activities OUTSIDE OF A CHURCH.
You are not seeking equality - you are seeking special treatment from other political activities under the guise of religion and your church. Do you think that political donations from George Soros should be tax exempt?
hhhmmm, The Unitarian Universalist "Church" in the center of my town sports 2 giant rainbow flags with a sign that proclaims "We support equal marriage". Should I call the IRS?
"I'm taking a more `pro-active' approach."
Is that like "speaking truth to power"? `Diversity', `comprehensive', 'paradigm', perameters', 'projection', etc.?
Sorry, I don't speak demo-psychobabble.
Carolyn
If the churches didn't take the tax-exempt status, they could say anything they want.
Anyone, including those in peaceful assembly of churches, can say anything guaranteed under the 1st amendment they want regardless of tax status
What part of "Congress shall make no law ...", abridging the freedoms of political and religous speech.
Do you not understand?
To tax the exercise of a right is to have power over it. Sorry, "Congress shall make no law ...".
You're welcome.
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.