Congress Refuses To Free Churches From Lyndon Johnson Gag Order

Traditional Values Coalition ^ | Tuesday, October 8, 2002 | Louis P. Sheldon

[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 Johnson’s 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 Stevenson’s 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 Johnson’s 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 Johnson’s 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 nation’s history—both before and after the American Revolution—our nation’s 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 didn’t 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 beliefs—and the freedom to speak out on the moral issues—including 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 passed—as it should be—to undo Johnson’s vengeful action against his political opponents. Let’s 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.

[Ahban]

Sounds like Christians of the time traded meaningful policy for a feel-goodism.

[Thumper1960]

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.

Now, you know full well that Je$$e Jack$on has nothing to do with God, Jesus or religion.

[Askel5]

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.

And it's Catholics who were the primary thorn in the side of the pols ... particularly those champing at the bit to "educate" the nation about Environmental issues and population control once their trials of exterminating black and Puerto Ricans had proven successful.

[moteineye]

I bet the vote was pretty much aloing party lines.This is a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech should not be denied anywhere. I say take this issue to court.I agree with you on holding the liberal churchs to the same standards.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Your posting is quite sensible, although the GOP controls the majority of the House and yet substantially less than half voted for the bill:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20021003-36760510.htm

October 3, 2002

House defeats effort to allow tax-free politics in churches

ASSOCIATED PRESS
The House yesterday rejected a bill that would have let religious
leaders talk freely about politics without endangering their organizations'
tax-exempt status.
The bill, which caused splits in the religious community and inside the
Republican Party, was defeated on a 239-178 vote.

---

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>So it's ok to get your ideas from the Washington Times, but not from the bible? After all, if no one religion or religious leaders are in charge of the government, that's really the only difference.<<<

Another difference: tax exempt status.

[EODGUY]

In essence we are hoping to make it legal for Republican candidates to speak from the pulpit just as the dems have done for decades.

Unbelievable.

[RonF]

Tax laws, whether to tax a religion or to prohibit political speech because of tax exempt status, is "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I'm afraid that I must disagree with this statement. Certainly, tax laws can be unfairly structured so as to kill off an entity or activity. But in and of itself, simplying applying a tax to an activity isn't considered prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Freedom of speech is another activity that is also protected on this basis, yet putting corporate or sales tax on newspapers isn't "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So why would taxing a church at rates common to those of other landowners or corporate entities be viewed as such? My understanding is that non-profit entities such as churches, hospitals, charities, etc.., are not taxed because the operation of such entities is seen as a public benefit, and taking their money makes less sense than allowing them to keep it and use it for purposes that are in the public interest. I imagine that this is why there are there are multiple different types of NFP's, so as to weigh the level of public interest there is in allowing them particular tax privileges, and why contributions to them are treated differently (some are tax deductible, some are not). What I don't believe is that NFP's in general, or churches in particular, are relieved of taxes because to tax them would prevent them from the "free exercise" of their activities.

[RonF]

Organizations that Jesse Jackson heads, or is a member or officer of, may well retain their tax-exempt status, but Jesse Jackson himself certainly does not. The fact that Jesse Jackson, or Jerry Falwell, are politically active doesn't mean that their organizations would or should lose their tax-exempt status, as long as those organizations, as corporate bodies, are not politically active.

[aristeides]

The Congress of 1954 passed a new Internal Revenue Code which was substantially different from its predecessor. It was called the "Internal Revenue Code of 1954" at least until the time of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This provision may have been the price of LBJ's support for that Code.

What makes the provision on tax exemption particularly objectionable is that it isn't enforced impartially. Black churches have long been blatantly political. The NAACP has now dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship. If the provision isn't going to be applied to some organizations for partisan reasons, it's unfair to retain the provision in the law.

[aristeides]

And then there is the third possible course of action: get rid of the income tax.

[lodwick]

The Freeper Tagline Challenge!
For every dollar donated to FR in support of bringing back the Tag Line I will match those donations up to a total of $500 Please let me know the amount you donate, thanks.	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
Fund Raiser thread here

[Taxman]

Well thought out, aristeides.

I have been singularly unsuccessful in convincing major religious leaders that the National Retail Sales Tax will FRee their churches from their IRS chains.

The NRST renders moot the distinction between various types of (taxable or non-taxable) corporations, and by abolishing the IRS, eliminates the agency which enforces the "Thou Shalt Not Talk Politics FRom the Pulpit (unless you are Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or one of their ilk)" rule.

Works for me. Does it work for any of you Ministers out there?

[tahiti]

"...so as to weigh the level of public interest there is in allowing them particular tax privileges,..."

It is because of biases such as these, that our liberties have been eroded and are so blatantly and brazenly violated by our elected representatives and police without fear of retribution by their fellow citizens.

Phrases such as "public interest" and "tax privileges" are the main lyrics to the socialist and communist anthem.

The Bill of Rights, is not the Bill of Privlileges.

Amendment I states clearly, precisely, and unambiguously, "Congress shall make no law..."

If an interpretation is needed to determine its meaning, which in this case "no" means "no," what is there to interpretate, why would you not advocate erring on the side of liberty instead on the side of socialism/communism?

You have been "trained" well as an unabashed socialist/communist, most probably inadvertently, because female school teachers constantly drummed into your head that it is important to "share" and "get along."

So when your government wishes to violate your liberties in the name of "public interest" you are already biased to support that irreprehensible suggestion and behavior without question.

Live the liberty paradigm.

[RonF]

If an interpretation is needed to determine its meaning, which in this case "no" means "no," what is there to interpretate, why would you not advocate erring on the side of liberty instead on the side of socialism/communism?

Do me a favor, would you? Review the last posting I made again and explain where I advocated any such thing, or anything at all?

Your posting accuses me twice of being biased, of advocating a particular viewpoint, and of having been being trained as a communist and socialist. Strong words, but unfortunately the thought process behind them is quite sloppy.

What I did do is report on the information I have learned from the process of being involved in multiple not-for-profit organizations, and by going through the process of incorporating one under the laws of Illinois and gaining 501(c)(3) status for it under the Federal Tax Code. I reported what the law is, and the rationale that's been given for why it was written as it is and how it's being interpreted. I don't recall giving my opinion on the fitness of any of that, or it's conformance to the Constitution.

You clearly are of the opinion that such law violates the First Amendment. Fine. This is certainly the proper forum for offering and defending such an opinion. But don't put words into my mouth, just because you don't like the information I've presented.

In fact, the first posting I made to this thread was that my opinion was that taxing churches, etc., should not be interpreted as interfering with the free exercise of religion. That would seem to support your contention, not oppose it.

[RonF]

In essence we are hoping to make it legal for Republican candidates to speak from the pulpit just as the dems have done for decades.

Excuse me. Are you then contending that Republican candidates and officials don't appear at the pulpits of churches? I seem to recall a number of appearances by politicans such as John Ashcroft, etc., at Southern Baptist churches. You might want to check that.

[tahiti]

RonF you stated,

"Your posting accuses me twice of being biased, of advocating a particular viewpoint,"

I did not accuse you of being biased, I said you have a bias towards your government's interest versus the individual's interest.

And your words indicate that bias:

"...to weigh the level of public interest there is in allowing them..." (your first post)

"Weighing...public interest..." and "...allowing them..." are not phrases of liberty and a bias towards individual rights which are so clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I, U.S. Constitution, bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Only those who are biased towards the revenue needs of our government versus the clear, unambiguous, and categorical declaration, "Congress shall make no law...," interpret this amendment to mean, " So why would taxing a church at rates common to those of other landowners or corporate entities be viewed as such?" (your words in post one)

"Review the last posting I made again and explain where I advocated any such thing, or anything at all?"

I believe I have.

[MissAmericanPie]

Does this mean that demoncrats can no longer use black pulpits to preach their racism and anti-Americanism from? Because if it does we should sue a church blind in one eye for allowing a politician to use it's pulpit.

[RonF]

Let's try this again:

"What I did do is report on the information I have learned from the process of being involved in multiple not-for-profit organizations, and by going through the process of incorporating one under the laws of Illinois and gaining 501(c)(3) status for it under the Federal Tax Code. I reported what the law is, and the rationale that's been given for why it was written as it is and how it's being interpreted."

I reported on information in the tax laws; that is, I stated information that I've discovered in reviewing Federal and Illinois tax codes. In them, they give the rationale that I've reported; that the State of Illinois and the Federal Government believe that it's in the public interest to provide certain benefits to organizations that behave in certain fashions, and don't behave in others.

That's a factual statement; that's the rationale they use. Wherein do you find that I endorse it?

I don't recall giving my opinion on the fitness of any of that, or it's conformance to the Constitution."

[EODGUY]

"I seem to recall a number of appearances by politicans such as John Ashcroft, etc., at Southern Baptist churches. You might want to check that."

Just read your post. Since you "seem" to recall a number of appearances, you "might want to" supply the evidence that Republicans have campaigned from the pulpit. Giving testimony of their religious beliefs is not germaine to my comment.