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.
Now, you know full well that Je$$e Jack$on has nothing to do with God, Jesus or religion.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
I will match those donations up to a total of $500 Please let me know the amount you donate, thanks. |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.