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.
Do you not understand?
You seem to be the one with comprehension problems.
First, it does not say political & religious speech. It simply says "speech". Which means speech that is not political and/or religious is also protected.
Second, the right is not absolute. Unless you think federal laws against, say, defamation, libel, or slander are unconstitutional.
This is what happens when govm't violates the 1st Amend.
OK, so what's the difference between a hill-billy and a son-of-a-b****?
)))
)))
)))
)))
)))
)))
The Ohio River
An agency that is out of control. It is the ultimate arm of a coercive government. It has the power to take all your money without being answerable to anyone.
Doing away with this totalitarian agency is politically difficult and maybe impossible, since it is essentially a make-work welfare program for those who are the special beneficiaries of an out of control government.
I thought Prince McCain took care of this?
Sure. If Jesse Jackson can take the podium at the Church of What's Happening Now and villify conservatives, and the parishioners can write-off their tithes, then we should be able to write-off our gifts to FR.
It ain't rocket surgery.
So you think that political donations by George Soros to Moveon.org should be tax-exempt?
First, it does not say political & religious speech. It simply says "speech". Which means speech that is not political and/or religious is also protected.
I have no problem with that,
For it is clearly understood the "Congress shall make no law ..." abridging the freedom of speech of anykind.
Whether that law is a revenue bill, or other the 1st amendment is clear that Congress shall not abridge that freedom.
Second, the right is not absolute. Unless you think federal laws against, say, defamation, libel, or slander are unconstitutional.
Any such national law that reaches outside the federal preserve allowed for in Article I Section 8 of the constitution, where such is contemplated, is an unconstitional infringement upon the power of the states to exercise the police power under the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Once again, THIS IS NOT CURTAILMENT. Being tax-exempt is not a right - it is a recognition that certain organizations should not be taxed because they perform charitable work.
If an organization does other kinds of activities such as politicking, they are simply returned to a level playing field of equal taxation with other organizations.
So you are in favor of restrictions on speech?
How incredibly totalitarian of you? Which speech is it that you are so afraid of that you want restrictions?
Being tax-exempt is not a right
Freedom of Speech, is and "Congress shall make no law" abridging such. Tax law predicated on the exercise of the freedom of speech is an abridgement of that guaranteed freedom.
If that is the case why does the Commonwealth of Virginia mandate that I cannot legally carry a gun into a house of worship during a worship service?
No, it is not. What you are asking is for special treatment for religious groups to engage in political activity by allowing them to do such in a tax-exempt manner. Everyone else would still have to pay taxes on political donations.
Yet again, the tax EXEMPTION is for charitable work. POLITICAL organizations are treated equally WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS, since their work is not charitable.
Once again, the NRA has no problem separating their political and tax-exempt activities.
Gee, I dunno . . . standing up in a crowded movie theater and screaming `Fire!', for starters?
E-mailing your fellow muzzies and arranging an honor killing? Those are just a couple examples.
I thought I left absolutist idealists behind in poly sci 101 . . stop it, Bad--yer killin' me.
Explain how taxing and imposing bureaucratic BS on the right to free association and speech is not an infringement.
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.