The First Amendment Should Apply to All Churches

Accuracy In Media ^ | May 17, 2002 | Paul M. Weyrich

[yooper]

I'm having a hard time swallowing this; however, I will say this: any minister who abides by this law deserves to be shackled by it......

[looney tune]

Ping! Interesting post.

[jwalsh07]

I'm having a hard time swallowing this

WHich part sticks in your craw?

[FreePaul]

Nothing has "prohibited" or deterred the black churches from preaching politics from their pulpits. They invite politicians to give their campaign speeches during Sunday services. To my knowlege there has never been any formal complaint or investigation of this. The hypocritical lunatic leftist organizations like People For The American Way don't see anything wrong with this.

[c-b 1]

There are ways that political messages can be presented in churches, if the pastor has the desire to do so. Many pastors don't have the desire or the courage to speak out.

[Huusker]

Didn't the Christian Coalition get their 501(c)(3) status yanked for handing out voting guides in churches?

[jrushing]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.”

It seems that any prohibition of any speech is wrong. The law Johnson passed seems unconstitutional, but it hasn't stopped the minority churches from political speech in church. It has worked against the conservatives to limit their speech, political and religious. If anyone believes in the 1st admendment, just try it. It seems now that the 1st admendment is only for minorities and immigrants. The citizens who have lived under the 1st admendment and helped to make it strong are now 2nd class and we have lost the 1st right.

[weegee]

Placing a stack of literature on a table is "campaigning" (because it happens in white churches).

A politician (regardless of color but not of political party) who speaks from the pulpit on Sunday is somehow not politicking and is not a religious extremist. This is reported almost every election as happening in black churches.

The minister appears also to be free to endorse candidates from the pulpit.

[ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds]

Separation of church and state is an ideal I read about somewhere. If the church is to be political, fine, but it should also have to pay taxes, and contributions by members will no longer be tax deductable. That should keep them in line or deminish the congregations and donations substantially.

[rebelsoldier]

Bedrock principle: government has no business telling churches what they can and cannot say in within their own premises while allowing it for all other tax exempt organizations and excusing it when it occurs in black churches and mosques. Anytime government wants to remove a church's tax exempt status, it can also remove its ass off the back of private society. I support Walter Jones' bill, because the liberals and Democrats already freely violate the law that isn't enforced anyhow....except against conservative religious organizations.

[jackbob]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.

The entire idea of a tax exempt status for religion, renders those religions accepting it, to the status of being nothing more than a government sponsored instution. As institutions of the government, they become subject to government regulation and arbitrary enforcement of its laws.

The issue should not be how to adjust, or readjust such blatantly unconstitutional law. The issue should be how to have religion completely removed from statutory law.

[Asmodeus]

"The entire idea of a tax exempt status for religion, renders those religions accepting it, to the status of being nothing more than a government sponsored instution. As institutions of the government, they become subject to government regulation and arbitrary enforcement of its laws. The issue should not be how to adjust, or readjust such blatantly unconstitutional law. The issue should be how to have religion completely removed from statutory law.
_________________________________________ First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Power to Tax; Power to Destroy Sometimes it seems the only thing changing in Washington is what is staying the same. In his early start to the 2004 presidential campaign, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is using the same old liberal themes of class warfare and government control.

In a speech last week, Senator Daschle blamed last year’s modest income tax cut for both the current recession and the vanishing budget surplus. On the recession, his diagnosis and prescription are both wrong. The recession began at least last March, before the tax cut was even enacted. It’s tough – even for a politician – to credibly argue that something that did not exist caused anything at all.

So, in classic Daschle-speak, the would-be presidential candidate hedged his bets a bit by also saying the tax cut may at least have made the recession worse. Gosh, he’s good. His speeches are so full of words such as “may” and “perhaps” and delivered in that gooey, honey-dripping tone of his that folks aren’t sure whether he’s really said anything definite at all. It’s as if his main instruction to his speechwriters is plausible deniability.

Still, his point was clear. One side of the coin is that the tax cut caused the recession; the other side is that canceling the tax cut is needed to ease the recession. Canceling (or repealing, modifying, scaling back, whatever) a tax cut is a tax increase. And any economist worthy of the label will tell you that raising taxes is exactly the wrong thing to do in an economic slowdown.

Even Senator Daschle’s fellow Democrats know this. Some of them, after all, voted for the tax cut. Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, for example, said after his leader’s speech that raising taxes in a recession is “the worst thing you could do.” If anything, the tax cut helped limit the severity and duration of the recession.

Senator Daschle also blamed the tax cut for the vanishing budget surplus. On this point, he’s actually right. A budget surplus means the government takes more of our money than it spends. Since the government spends way too much money already, a surplus means the government takes way, way too much of our money. Senator Daschle is just still mad that he and his fellow liberals did not get to spend the surplus rather than giving the money back to its rightful owners – the taxpayers.

The issue is not that the tax cut made the surplus disappear. It did, and it should. The issue is that the surplus is disappearing sooner than expected. Well, massive spending on unexpected things like wars and stuff tends to do that. Legislating a 10-year tax cut requires making a whole lot of economic and budget assumptions. Osama bin Laden was not one of them, and his attack on America necessarily changed those assumptions.

Stripped of its spin, Senator Daschle’s speech revealed the same tax-and-spend liberal we have seen in the past. “We’re here from the guv’ment,” the liberals always say, “and we’re here to hep ya.” To them, the government does not have to justify taking our money, we have to justify keeping it. Since it’s the government’s money, giving it to us through a tax-cut is no different than hiking welfare payments – it’s all government spending anyway. So it’s no wonder Senator Daschle is frustrated that some of it slipped through his grasp and wound up in ours.

Here’s the bottom line. The power to tax is the power to destroy – and Senator Daschle wants more of it. The power to spend is the power to regulate and Senator Daschle wants more of it. If that’s the platform on which he wants to run, so be it – but it’s the wrong prescription for the wrong diagnosis.

Tom Jipping is the director of the Free Congress Foundation’s Center for Law and Democracy.

[timestax]

If the church is to be political, fine, but it should also have to pay taxes, and contributions by members will no longer be tax deductable.

DITTO, man DITTO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4444

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bttt

[LarryLied]

Separation of church and state is an ideal I read about somewhere.

An ideal? For whom? It is nowhere in the constitution. It was put into constitutional law by the former Klu Klan Klan member, nativist and anti-Catholic bigot, Hugo Black in 1947. In the last 4 years, the Supremee Court has dropped the Separation metaphor. They have not yet replaced it with anything. So we had Separation from about 1947-98, not before and not since.

[LarryLied]

So I can set up a non-profit to preach the wonders of homosexuality, the joys of marxism, how we should honor and love our planet but if I dare mention God in relationship to those subects, I lose my tax exempt status? That makes no sense.

[timestax]

My own idea of a religion, or "Church" is to point the way to Jesus, and the teachings of Jesus. NOT to point the way to DemoncRATS, and liberalism, Socialism, and other isms. Again= POINT THE WAY TO JESUS/and GOD the FATHER, not political stuff. Is that too much to ask or demand of our "Churches"?

[LarryLied]

When one lives in Sodom or Gomorrah, most churches would point out what is going on in the community.