Posted on 05/22/2003 9:16:31 AM PDT by sheltonmac
Many of you are probably already aware that for the last 50 years freedom of speech in America's churches has been stifled. Thanks to a new bill gaining support in the House of Representatives, that may change.
In 1954 Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson championed an amendment to the IRS Code that banned any place of worship from overtly supporting a political candidate. The punishment for such a heinous crime was, and is, the loss of tax-exempt status.
Originally voted down last October, the "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" (H.R. 235) hopes to remove the free speech restrictions placed on churches. The bill was reintroduced this past January by its original sponsor, Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, and has become the subject of controversy even among so-called "religious leaders."
On May 9, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy of The Interfaith Alliance (and when someone takes the time to squeeze two titles in front of his name you know you'd better listen) released a statement expressing his staunch disapproval:
It's incredible to me that anyone would attempt to politicize houses of worship through our federal government's legislative process...Other opponents have raised constitutional concerns related to this bill, but even if it presented no constitutional problems, I would oppose it. As an active pastor who has worked in congregational ministry for more than 40 years, I shudder to think of the devastation that would be visited upon the religious community and its leaders were such legislation to become law.This is a strange over-reaction, particularly when you consider it is coming from someone belonging to an organization that claims to "encourage participation in the political process by people of faith."
Now Gaddy is hardly an example of great spiritual leadership, but I would think that even he could subscribe to the idea that defending free speech is a good thing. Speaking out against active government involvement in religious activity is one thing. Complaining about an attempt to limit government intrusion in religious activity...well, that's just idiotic.
Of course, liberal members of the clergy have no real interest in preserving the sanctity of the pulpit. They have devoted their entire professional lives to advancing a dangerous political agenda under the guise of Christian good will. Their primary message is not the gospel of Jesus Christ but the liberal gospel of equality, tolerance and diversity.
A week before his remarks on H.R. 235, Gaddy had chimed in on a federal court decision that struck down certain parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002:
Campaign finance reform is not simply a political issue, it is a moral concern. People of faith share a commitment to values—values like honesty, justice, liberty, service and integrity—that form the ethical core of all faith traditions, complement the values of our democracy and thus contribute to the common good.That ruling, however, has since been put on hold—at the behest of the Bush administration and the law's sponsors—until the Supreme Court has a chance to weigh in on the issue.
It is only fair to point out that The Interfaith Alliance, while enjoying tax-exempt status, is one of the most active quasi-religious political organizations in America. But I guess it's okay, as long as it isn't promoting its socialist agenda from a church sanctuary.
What self-centered hypocrites like C. Welton Gaddy fail to understand is that freedom of speech extends to all Americans. It is not a right that is limited to those who sleep in on Sunday mornings. Simply restoring freedom of speech to the nation's churches can in no way be interpreted as a push to "politicize houses of worship."
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Left-wing hate groups like The Interfaith Alliance may have good reason to be frightened of this pending legislation. Who knows? Pastors just might start using their newfound freedom to speak highly of candidates who oppose liberal, un-Christian, unconstitutional policies—and we can't have that.
Granted, many churchgoers would probably frown on sermons that were political in nature, but why can't that be decided by the church? Why should the government be included at all?
Some would argue that giving tax-exempt status to houses of worship is all the justification the federal government needs to clamp down on political speech. That argument, however, lacks constitutional merit. The First Amendment was drafted precisely to guarantee the protection of free speech—especially political speech.
To deny someone in church the right to voice their opinion of a particular candidate running for office is to deny one of the most precious freedoms we have in this country. We can debate the practice of exempting a particular organization from the oppressive income tax, but that is a completely separate issue.
One of our founding principles as a nation is that citizens should remain free from government-imposed restrictions on political speech. If it's good enough for the rest of America, then it should be good enough for churches too.
"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.
The question is if churches did not unite in opposition when their God-given rights were taken away, will churches unite in support of H.R. 235 to reclaim their rights?
The solution is to enact the National Retail Sales Tax (NRST). The NRST eliminates the distinction between "for- profit" and "non-profit" corporations, and takes the IRS out completely.
Talk about "FRee Speech!"
Sure wish I knew how to get some church groups interested in the idea, particularly those who want to participate in the "action and passion of our times" (apologies to Mr. Justice Holmes).
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.]
Click here to help us scrap the Code, scrap the IRS and abolish the VLWC!
You can also click here to sign a petition in support of Fundamental Tax Replacement.
We will never be a truly FRee people so long as we have the income tax and the IRS.
That's utterly ridiculous. As much as I'd like to see this bill passed, it's not about the right of free speech.
What registered churches can't do is to endorse candidates or lobby (except as a very, very small amount of their overall budget). This is the same rule for all 501(c)(3) organizations in the United States.
If churches don't like it they have two choices:
1) Deregister & start paying taxes. No one forces them to be a registered church.
2) Re-incorporate as a 501(c)(4) which would give them the ability to do the things they can't as a 501(c)(3) -- that's what everyone from the ACLU to the NRA did.
Perhaps I would be for this bill if it extended to all non-profits but, as it is written now, it reeks of churches seeking special rights that no one else would have.
Except that their right to free speech isn't being attacked. Again, no one forces them to be registered as non-profits.
With the shekels come the shackles. Deregister and free yourself of such government oversight.
And if this is such an infringement on free speech then why has no one taken the IRS to court over it?? (hint -- they'd lose in a second).
Why should churches be tax-free in the first place?
The theory is that they do something to promote the public good when they act much in the same way as typical social service agencies. That's all fine & good -- I'd rather they do it then the Govt. (assuming the church(es) in question are actually effective in providing such services).
However, their is no true enforcement mechanism in place to ensure that churches who apply for & receive non-profit standing actually do any such things. Many churches, over the years, have found all kinds of ways to maintain their 501(c)(3) status w/out actually providing any meaningful social services.
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.