"Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act" (H.R. 235)

alerts@conservativealerts.com ^ | ConservativeAlerts.com

[webber]

Restore Freedom of Speech to America's Pulpits

ISSUE: Ever heard of the First Amendment?
Apparently, it doesn't apply if you're in church.

There are limits to what your preacher can say from the pulpit -- limits placed there by the government. Now, a bill introduced in Congress seeks to change the law.

If a church speaks out on issues that the IRS deems to be too political, it risks losing its tax-exempt status. But the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act" (H.R. 235) would repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax status of a church, temple, or mosque whose clergy speak out.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), who introduced the bill, explained how the problem of churches speaking out on political issues arose.

"Lyndon Johnson in 1954 put an amendment on a revenue bill that stifled the ministers, priests and rabbis from being able to speak of moral and political issues," Jones said. "That's not what America's about. America's about freedom. And we've got to have freedom in the churches." He said Johnson's amendment has had a chilling effect that fails to define where their speech is actually protected. He also contended the restrictions have not been impartially enforced.

"I think all churches should be treated the same," Jones said. "They should have freedom to talk about these issues."

ACTION ITEM: All houses of worship SHOULD be treated the same. They should have freedom to talk about any issues affecting any aspect of society -- including politics. Anything else is simply un-American.

As Rep. Jones stated, "This legislation goes beyond party lines and theological debates. We must not allow a government institution to have this kind of chilling effect over America's churches."

Rep. Jones' bill is supported by religious leaders from all faiths, and he now has over 120 co-sponsors on this simple straightforward legislation that will finally give back to churches and other houses of worship what was unjustly taken from them 49 years ago: the freedom to speak however they feel led to speak, whether the issue is construed as political or not.

Go to our site below to ask your Representative to support H.R. 235, the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act":

Write your Representative

NOTE: Please be sure to forward this to everyone you know that wants to see free speech rights apply to ALL Americans, in EVERY situation.

Thank you!

---

[supercat]

As a matter of fact, the IRS is proposing that they be treated EXACTLY like every other citizen, if they abuse the special privileges they now enjoy.

That might be a fair and reasonable standard if it were enforced fairly and reasonably. As it is, though, Jesse Jackson et al. are free to use churches as platforms for political advocacy but conservatives are not. Any attempt to bring the IRS to bear against Jackson et al. would be refused on the grounds that such action was "racist".

Therefore, removing the barriers is the only way I can see to level the playing field.

[jimt]

I never said that. America was founded by Christians who saw faith as essential to maintaining a free republic...

Sorry, you're right. The "Christian Nation" contention was made by Gargantua.

How about "America was founded by religious men, mostly Christians, who saw faith as essential to maintaining a free republic." Certainly the majority were Christians, and I don't recall any of them proclaiming themselves to be agnostics or atheists.

[Izzy Dunne]

Therefore, removing the barriers is the only way I can see to level the playing field.

I agree that it has not been enforced fairly.
But it seems to me that this act simply legitimizes what JJ et al have been doing all along, but says "we can do it too".
And I think that denigrates the church, and turns it into just another political platform. And in THAT case, there is no reason for special tax status. I'm all for ticketing the leftist churches when they step over the line, but it's the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy that I don't agree with.

[supercat]

I agree that it has not been enforced fairly. But it seems to me that this act simply legitimizes what JJ et al have been doing all along, but says "we can do it too". And I think that denigrates the church, and turns it into just another political platform. And in THAT case, there is no reason for special tax status. I'm all for ticketing the leftist churches when they step over the line, but it's the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy that I don't agree with.

I don't like legitimizing JJ's tactics, but since nobody with power is willing to call them illegitimate, I don't see that matters too much.

Of course, in some ways the real problem is the notion of "charitable" organizations, donations to which are tax-exempt. Of course, many such organizations exist as a means of providing tax-defered payments to certain beneficiariesemployees, so the problems go far beyond churches.

Another thing to consider is that most churches receive most of their money through freewill offerings. If a group of people decide that they want to worship together and have a place to do so, and so they pool some money and buy a building for use as a church, in what sense can the money they pooled together really be termed "income"?

[NeoCaveman]

NOTE: Please be sure to forward this to everyone you know that wants to see free speech rights apply to ALL Americans, in EVERY situation.

Including Wahabbi imans calling for Jihad on a Friday night? Seems to me that wouldn't be prudent right now.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Given the fact that most organized denominations are liberal these days its no wonder they are thinking about changing the rules."

Actually that is not true. Most organized denominations are conservative. That should have you asking yourself the question of why you mostly are hearing from the liberal denominations. The reason has been stated over and over and over again. The IRS ignores anything and everything out of the liberal churches and works to suppress free speech in the conservative churches by audits and threats at taking away the tax exempt status of those churches. If this bill passes, no church will have tax exempt status taken away. As it is right now, only the conservative churches face that threat.

[Hila]

"Churches should stay out of politics". What kind of idea is that? Churches are made out of people, most of those people are tax-paying citizens. Churches is not an etheral concept, churches is people with political preferences and the right to express themselves in their God-given freedom of speech right. What do you mean churches should not have political opinions? Churches are made of people, thinking, decision making, voting human beings.

[narses]

Ping

[Arkinsaw]

Actually that is not true. Most organized denominations are conservative.

They all pretty much are at the grass roots level, but higher up I have my doubts about this statement. I find it hard to believe that any denomination can support the National and World Council of Churches and call itself conservative.

The NCC took out ads supporting the United Nations, are opposed to US policy in Iraq (despite the fact that it resulted in the liberation of those people), opposes our preemptive strike policy against terrorism, favors turning Iraq reconstruction over to the UN, oppose Welfare reform, published a report making the old "Bush is a cowboy" insinuation in not so many words, agreed that the US approach to North Korea was "confrontational", held 6,927 vigils to say "NO to war with Iraq", has an Eco-Justice branch promoting environmental justice in the face of global warming, advocates universal health insurance coverage which IMHO promotes a socialist form of health care, have an "Ecumenical Bail-Bond program", wants to end expedited removal of illegal aliens, eliminate the numerical limits on turning asylum seekers into permanent residents, came out in favor of campaign finance reform, resolved to oppose the Navy on Vieques, calls for the US to sign the International Criminal Court treaty, resolved to support clemency for Leonard Peltier, resolved in favor of Affirmative Action.

These are just a few, and only those from the National Council of Churches. Here is a list of denominations that support this junk. Several of them are not small denominations.

African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Churches in the USA
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Church of the Brethren
The Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Friends United Meeting
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Hungarian Reformed Church in America
International Council of Community Churches
Korean Presbyterian Church in America
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Mar Thoma Church
Moravian Church in America Northern Province and Southern Province
National Baptist Convention of America
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
Orthodox Church in America
Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Polish National Catholic Church of America
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
Reformed Church in America
Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada
The Swedenborgian Church
Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
United Church of Christ
The United Methodist Church


Can anyone with a straight face say that these denominations are conservative when they are members of a body that promotes these causes? Many people THINK they are conservative denominations. Their leadership obviously is not.

Members of these churches should, if they feel so inclined, join the Communist Party or some socialist organization to promote these goals ( I doubt most members know what they do) . But the churches should not be used as a vehicle to promote these goals and retain the illusion that they are not political organizations instead of churches. Its a fiction that many of these are actually representing the views of their members.

[ladyinred]

So,good ole boy Lyndon did this did he?
Seems Rats were against free speech even then weren't they. He went totally against the constitution doing so, but then, democrats don't like that nasty ole document.

[Arkinsaw]

"Churches should stay out of politics". What kind of idea is that? Churches are made out of people, most of those people are tax-paying citizens. Churches is not an etheral concept, churches is people with political preferences and the right to express themselves in their God-given freedom of speech right. What do you mean churches should not have political opinions? Churches are made of people, thinking, decision making, voting human beings.

The people that those churches are made of are free to go and join any political organization they choose, make any speech they choose, organize as a political party, take out ads in newspapers, donate to anyone they want, vote for anyone they want.

The idea that the church must speak for them in political matters is a red herring. The fact is that most churchgoers are conservative while many of the denominations are nearly socialist in outlook. You are maintaining that the churches speak for their membership when in reality their political activity is just about the opposite of their membership.

I used to be a member of the Methodist Church. NOBODY I ever went to church with would support any of the political stances I mentioned in other posts on this thread. Yet the denominations themselves continue to advocate these positions. It is a fiction that the denomination is speaking for the majority of their members politically.

If you want moneylending, go to a bank, not a temple. If you want some political activism contact a conservative political organization or party, don't turn the church into a Political Action Committee. If they are a political action committee then they should be treated as one.

[TradicalRC]

I would be curious as to 1) What is the definition of lynching here, 2)Why do some states have a circle but no number and 3)How did Murray Straus come up with his calculations?

[TradicalRC]

Who the hell in Any church does NOT pay taxes?

[AmericanVictory]

Apparently, however, the law is not applied to mosques. 80% of them are Saudi funded terror centers preaching Wahhabi violence and the IRS doesn't even examine them.

[TradicalRC]

I don't believe they established a nation at all: it was a federation of sovereign states. While Virginia may have enjoyed a deistic freedom other states mandated forms of Christianity as the official religion.

[TradicalRC]

Wow. And Thank you.

[TradicalRC]

It must have been quite easy to take potshots at Christian governments. Jefferson was not around to witness the rise of atheistic governments in the twentieth century. Governments which killed more people in one century than the previous nineteen centuries of religious wars -combined.

[Dave S]

Those that want to express their freedom of speech can do it outside the church and as private citizens, not members of a tax exempt institution. The minister sure as hell should keep his mouth shut on partisan politics as long as he is in his role as church leader. If he wants to speak out as private citizen Joe Schmoe, more power to him.

However to get tax exempt status, the church and its leaders committed themselves to not participating in partisan politics, etc. Seems to me that they should either stick with their agreement or give up the exemption.

[TradicalRC]

Unitarians are what they are today because of what they were back then. You deny the divinity of Christ? The divine Christ will leave you to you non-divine beliefs. All there is is the here and now. Logic winds its way with an austere inevitability through churches, societies and centuries.

[TradicalRC]

I thought that freedom of speech was an inalienable right, even in Church. Is it a right that must be purchased from the government? Are THEY the source of our rights?