Skip to comments.
Congress Refuses To Free Churches
From Lyndon Johnson Gag Order
Traditional Values Coalition ^
| Tuesday, October 8, 2002
| Louis P. Sheldon
Posted on 10/08/2002 1:19:41 PM PDT by Polycarp
Congress Refuses To Free Churches From Lyndon Johnson Gag Order
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
Washington, DC On October 2, the House of Representatives voted 178-239 to defeat the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act (H.R. 2357) offered by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC).
H.R. 2357 was designed to revise IRS code to remove restrictions placed on churches and non-profit organizations in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. Prior to 1954, churches and non-profits had no such restrictions on their freedom of speech or their right to speak out in favor or against political issues or candidates.
The history of this IRS gag order is instructive. It began with the fraudulent election of Johnson to the Senate in 1948. It has been well established by both conservative and liberal historians that Lyndon Johnsons election to the Senate in 1948 was won by massive voter fraud. Known as Landslide Lyndon, this mean-spirited political operative was elected by only 87 votes. His challenger, Coke Stevenson challenged his election and presented credible evidence that hundreds of votes for Johnson had been faked. Johnson, however, was successful in blocking Stevensons effort by the clever use of court injunctions.
In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnsons liberal agenda. In retaliation, Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, this thoroughly corrupt man used the power of the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked.
The legislation proposed by Rep. Jones was designed to overturn Johnsons vindictive gag order against his political opposition. There is no reason for this gag order to remain in effect, but Congress apparently thinks it must perpetuate bad public policy simply because it exists.
Organizations like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State continue to claim that this Johnson gag order must be upheld to protect church/state separation. This is irrational and fails to take into account the entire history of religious freedom in the United States.
Throughout our nations historyboth before and after the American Revolutionour nations pastors freely spoke out on the political and moral issues of the day. It was their duty and their right under the Constitution to preach against immorality and corruption in the political and the moral realm. Historian James H. Hutson, writing in Religion and the Founding of the American Republic notes: Preachers seemed to vie with their brethren in other colonies in arousing their congregations against George III. And, as Hutson discovered, the House of Representatives sponsored church services in its chambers for nearly 100 years. These services only ended when convenient transportation was available to take Members of Congress home for the weekend.
It is interesting to observe that our Founding Fathers and our first elected officials didnt have any notion of church/state separation so vehemently endorsed by Americans United and other modernist groups. Our Founders valued religion and wrote the First Amendment to protect the free expression of religious beliefsand the freedom to speak out on the moral issuesincluding those involving politics and politicians.
The disservice that Lyndon Johnson did to religious freedom has yet to be undone, but in the next session of Congress, perhaps H.R. 2357 will be passedas it should beto undo Johnsons vengeful action against his political opponents. Lets finally exorcise our public policies of the sad legacy of Landslide Lyndon.
Traditional Values Coalition is an interdenominational public policy organization representing more than 43,000 churches across the United States. For more information, contact Katie Bruton at 202-547-8570. TVC's Web site is: www.traditionalvalues.org.
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
1
posted on
10/08/2002 1:19:41 PM PDT
by
Polycarp
To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Antoninus; aposiopetic; Aquinasfan; Aristophanes; ...
ping
2
posted on
10/08/2002 1:20:51 PM PDT
by
Polycarp
To: Polycarp
The Republicans had a majority of both the Senate and the House as well as the Presidency in 1954. These changes may be due to LBJ, but they were approved by the GOP and signed by Eisenhower.
To: Polycarp
Liberal churches and nonprofits never had to follow that limitation.
To: Polycarp
The greatest injustice in this matter arises from the selective enforcement of this law. Black churches, which favor liberal politicians, have acted as centers of political activism for decades. After all, a large number of black leaders (Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Abernathy, Al Sharpton) have been ministers. Democratic politicians have appeared at black churches during Sunday morning services during election season as a matter of course. The whip is cracked whenever conservative Christian churches or parachurch ministries take a stand in political affairs, at least when Democrats are in office. Witness the IRS crackdown on several churches and ministries (notably the Christian Coalition) during the Clinton Administration. Yet no action against liberal black churches has been taken by any GOP administration, from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush, either out of fear of being called racist or because someone in the Democrat Party has the goods on prominent Republicans.
Like the "Fairness Doctrine," which was used to thwart conservative presence on the airwaves for 20 years, the restriction on churches in the area of political speech is a form of liberal oppression that must be abolished.
To: Doctor Stochastic
Maybe they, like the Republican-controlled House that just shot that bill down, figured that theocracies wouldn't work any better here in the USA than they have in places like Iran or Afghanistan.
Regardless, though, if there's a double standard in terms of how this gag order is applied to LIBERAL churches, then we need to raise Caine with the IRS for not enforcing the law objectively. Fortunately President Bush's homeland security initiative is making it easier to fire parasitic bureaucrats across the entire federal government.
Jerry Falwell firmly believes that Jesse Jackson has been allowed to behave politically in churches in ways that conservatives could never get away with doing. Now that this bill has been defeated even in a Republican-controlled House, isn't it time to move on to plan B: better enforcement of the existing rule so that Liberals can no longer get away with illegal mischief while still claiming tax-exempt status?
To: End The Hypocrisy
Between 1776 and 1955 we did not have a Theocracy. In fact we did not have a theocracy during the late 18th and early 19th century when some states had official churches.
What basis do you have to presume taht we will have a Theocracy if we go back to the freedom of speech we had from 1850-1955?
The factis that we are a very diverse country with regard to religion. There are hundreds of sects in this country. To assume that once would dominate is preposterous.
What I do so is a domination by the state for the purpose of a particular beliefs system: Atheism, under the guse of seperation.
7
posted on
10/08/2002 1:56:29 PM PDT
by
rmlew
To: rmlew
>>>Between 1776 and 1955 we did not have a Theocracy. In fact we did not have a theocracy during the late 18th and early 19th century when some states had official churches.<<<
Various states had STATE laws which made sure that the state and church were separate during that time. In Virginia, for example, Jefferson authored his state's religious independence bill.
The US DOES, indeed, have numerous religions. The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not?
To: Dialup Llama
Just listen to Pacifica Radio and tell me that they don't violate their 501c3 non-profit status. They just had an internal coup to overthrow the music programmers and replace programming with left wing propaganda (they still keep some music on the air because that is where they get a response to their fundraising efforts).
9
posted on
10/08/2002 2:25:31 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: End The Hypocrisy
The US DOES, indeed, have numerous religions. The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not? I can say with confidence that God does not sanction the slaughter of the preborn. In fact, God is ProLife! It therefore follows that God is not in favor of proabort/prochoice politicians and political parties. It therefore follows that God is not in favor of nations that have legalized baby shredding. Those that oppose what God favors, such as live babies instead of dead shredded babies, are enemies of God.
To: Polycarp
Actually, the title is misleading. Churches are perfectly free to endorse candidates and to lobby for legislation (such as anti-abortion laws). What they are not free to do is to retain their tax-exempt status upon doing so. No one's being gagged. It's their own desire to suck at the government teat that is plugging their mouths.
This law doesn't prevent churches from hosting politicians to speak to their congregations, nor does it prevent pastors from speaking out on abortion, or other issues of the day. Churches supporting conservative causes are as welcome to do this as those supporting liberal causes. Certainly there are plenty of conservative pastors speaking out against abortion.
What it does do is prevent said churches from donating money to a party, or to a candidate. It also prevents a church from campaigning, as a church (as opposed to individuals) for a candidate or from endorsing a candidate, while still retaining their tax-free status. Political organizations (GOP, Dems, etc.) are not tax-exempt, and your donations to them are not tax-deductible (as opposed to donations to churches). If a church starts acting like a political party or a PAC, then they become taxable.
11
posted on
10/08/2002 2:31:44 PM PDT
by
RonF
To: End The Hypocrisy
I wrote:
Between 1776 and 1955 we did not have a Theocracy. In fact we did not have a theocracy during the late 18th and early 19th century when some states had official churches.
ETH responded
Various states had STATE laws which made sure that the state and church were separate during that time. In Virginia, for example, Jefferson authored his state's religious independence bill. Thank you for citing the exception, which proves the rule. MA and CT Congregationalist, NY NJ NC SC and GA were Anglican/Episcopalian. In these states, all citizens were taxed to pay for the Established STATE CHURCH. I'm not sure about the others. I certainly don't support State Churches, but the point remains that your fear is ahistorical.
The US DOES, indeed, have numerous religions. The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not?
Nope. A Theocracy is a place where the Established Church runs the government. Having various congregations get involved in political controversies or even endorsing candidates does no such thing.
12
posted on
10/08/2002 2:40:17 PM PDT
by
rmlew
To: RonF
What they are not free to do is to retain their tax-exempt status upon doing so. Well, Jesse Jackson gets to keep his, and go on preaching regardless. I believe this is the point: conservative churches get harassed while liberal churches don't. The law is supposed to be applied fairly and it is not.
To: RonF
The tax-exempt status of churches and other nonprofit organizations is a baited trap for those organizations. A few years ago, a Catholic bishop spoke about the possibility of excommunicating the numerous Catholic politicians who favored abortion on demand. Rep. Charles Rangel, of the House Ways and Means Committee, a pro-abortion Democrat and a communicant Catholic, questioned whether his church would retain its tax-exempt status if the bishops started excommunication procedures. Not one pro-abortion politician has been excommunicated from the Catholic Church, to my knowledge. Not that this is a Catholic problem alone; the Southern Baptist Convention has yet to condemn First Baptist Church of Little Rock, home church of President Clinton, for failing to exercise church discipline against X42.
Since the law was passed 48 years ago, the Executive Branch has been held by the Republicans for 28 of those 48 years. If any enforcement of the political prohibition against nonprofits, churches or otherwise, was conducted by the Justice Department or the IRS at any time from Eisenhower to Bush II, I am not aware of it. Black churches are the most flagrant violators, but environmentalist groups like the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club are equally guilty of advocacy of liberal causes. Unfortunately, prosecuting a black organizaion, even a corrupt one like Jesse Jackson's Operation Push, is perceived as political poison. Likewise, going after environmental groups, especially ones like the Nature Conservancy, with its facade of moderation and cash payments to landowners, is also seen as political poison.
Sometimes, I have to agree with the cynics who point out that our two party system consists of the Evil Party (Democrats) and the Stupid Party (Republicans). In any case, the law muzzling churches' political speech at the expense of losing their tax exempt status has never been enforced equitably, nor is it likely to be enforced fairly. The law is bad public policy and needs to be repealed.
To: rmlew
I sed: >>>The US DOES, indeed, have numerous religions. The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not? <<<
You sez: >>>Nope. A Theocracy is a place where the Established Church runs the government. Having various congregations get involved in political controversies or even endorsing candidates does no such thing.<<<
Dictionary.com sez: "theocracy: 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance."
We respectfully disagree.
To: Polycarp
I imagine Mosque is allowed to say whatever it wants, huh?
To: RonF
Let's see!
Amendment I, U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The IRS code is a law made by Congress. Tax laws, whether to tax a religion or to prohibit political speech because of tax exempt status, is "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The tax code, as applied to religion's, is blatantly and categorically unconstitutional.
Just because a "benefit" may accrue from a federal law, "...desire to suck at the government teat...," as you put it, the law(s) still cannot violate the Bill of Rights.
18
posted on
10/08/2002 4:48:39 PM PDT
by
tahiti
To: Polycarp
Prior to 1954, churches and non-profits had no such restrictions on their freedom of speech ortheir right to speak out in favor or against political issues or candidates.1954. Wasn't that about the time 'under God' was shoe-horned
into the Pledge of Allegiance? Politics was plucked from
the pulpit, and the pulpit was poked into the Pledge. Priceless.
And now what's is, is. Bwahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!
19
posted on
10/08/2002 4:50:42 PM PDT
by
gcruse
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson