GOP Congressman Seeks to 'Restore Free Speech' in Churches

But if you link your blog to a campaign website, you will be fined!!! Only God's house gets free speech, by God!!!

This is what happens when the wingnutts get faith-based taxpayers funding.

March 03, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A U.S. House Republican wants religious leaders to be able to use their pulpits to endorse political candidates and he has introduced legislation that would do just that through a change in the tax code.

Church leaders, in order to protect their tax-exempt status, are currently prohibited by law from taking sides in a political debate. But North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones' bill - the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005 -- would change the Internal Revenue Service code. Similar legislation may be sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback.

"Whatever God puts in the minister's heart to say, he is protected by the First Amendment if this becomes law," " Jones told Cybercast News Service . This is the fourth time such a bill has been introduced in the House.

Jones said churches "have a special place in America," and should be freed from some rules typically applying to tax-exempt organizations. "When the churches qualified for a 501(c)3 (the IRS's classification for tax-exempt organizations) back in the late 30s, early 40s, there was never any restriction of speech on them -- nothing, absolutely zero."

Restrictions on political speech for tax-exempt groups were imposed in 1954 under an amendment to the tax code proposed by Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, who went on to serve as vice president and then president after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

more...

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200503\POL20050303e.html

Screw the poor and go for tax breaks from the government. Why should GOP churches be different from GOP voters?

local campaign bases. I read it in a Molly Ivins column. When churches wrote back to him saying they couldn't devote their worship time to his campaign because they would lose 501c status, he wrote back, I can fix that.

Guess I'll have to start me up a church so I can speechify.

they can endorse candidates if they wish to. They just cannot do it and not pay taxes. It's bad as it is these mega-churches who swallow up city blocks paying no property taxes and taking in millions. A far cry from the little churches of the 1800s.

Property tax exemption is a state (or locally) based regulation. If the IRS codes change to allow political activity then it will still be up to the states to set standards for exemption from property tax.

If the states want to prohibit political activity as part of property tax exemption that can certainly be put into practice, and the GOP Congress critters couldn't really say much about it.


Laura

What if a radical Muslim fundamentalist cleric were to say in the middle of the mosque that the US was evil and Osama bin Laden was a hero? Would that be allowed too?

I think they disappear "radical Muslim fundamentalist clerics" every time one opens their mouth in this country, don't they?

Let 'em endorse who they want. Just start filing that Quarterly Statement with the IRS, Pastor....

:grr:
these people are so...gah... can't even find the words

Imagine these wackos unfettered?

God save America!

I believe this means that liberal pastors are able to take the gloves off. And hey, what about those radical ayatollah's?

They do so in subtle ways without mentioning names. I believe that all churches should be paying taxes.

religion. Property is property, and any church property that is not specifically dedicated to charity work should be taxed like any other real estate. Churches should also pay taxes on their income, like any corporate entity. Maybe if it wasn't such a profitable racket, there would be more interest in spirituality than in politics in churches.

in spirituality than in politics in churches.




AMEN!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, as a church-goer (not as of late, can't find a non-fundie one) I am all for churches paying taxes, just like corporations. Hey, many of these fundy churches run themselves just like corporations.

I think its time to evaporate tax exemption for religions, since its getting abused by the GOP to such a degree.

but, just in case you haven't checked it out, in your search for a non-fundie church, check your area for a UCC (United Church of Christ) church. Most are tolerant, if not completely supportive of liberal politics...depends on the individual church to some degree, though, your mileage may vary.

we've heard a lot about the UCC and several of our friends attent the local churches. We're Catholic, but it seems that most of the Catholic churches are pretty fundy.

Didn't use to be that way, but sadly, they have taken over Mass as well...

and find protection in the constitutional prohibition against Bills of Attainder. That alone should protect them against the problem which the "power to tax is the power to destory" doctine supposedly is there to address.

(Note: I am not an attorney. I would be interested in hear from people who look at this sort of thing for a living if my assertion is at all worthwhile).

It is really time for the tax breaks for churches to end. There is only so much that can be squeezed out of citizens.

Even if there's a limit on how much you can give a candidate, you can give a church as much as you want -- imagine the tithe of a millionaire. And it's tax deductible, to boot!

a caller made a comparision between church and government and an old commercial about peanut butter and chocolate. The commercial went "Hey, you got peanut butter on my chocolate", "Hey, you got chocolate in my peanut butter."

His point was that if the church wants to be involved with the government, they shouldn't be surprised if the government wants to be involved in their church.

The Clergy can pass through and dick with the Government, but the Government can't come into the Church.

Amazing, yes?

1. One day same-sex marriage WILL be legal throughout the land. Then, if churches can endorse candidates, I say make them perform gay marriages! They'll be absolutely begging for separation of church and state.

2. Fundies always talk about how great the 50s were. They argue that "under God" in the pledge, the Ten Commandments on courthouse lawns and Confederate state flags are part of "history" even though they were all added in the fifties. But this restriction from the 50s must be repealed.

3. Oh yeah and... Sam Brownback is a self righteous shit stain on Kansas.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in his country. This is one of those times!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I will stop responding in kind. I am in no mood to kiss the ass of people that will deny full civil rights to GLBTs on the basis of a blood thirsty religious mythology.

Me too.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Basically, you get stuck between the Christian wingnuts, which you obviously hold no truck with, and the wingnuts and scared people on our side, who lump you in with the rest of The Enemy.

Tolerance right now is at a very low ebb, because never since the Vietnam War has the 'culture wars' been so close to actual WARFARE. During the Civil War, if you wore a Confederate or Union uniform, it doesn't matter if you were pro or anti-slavery, if you were racist or progressive. The other side simply saw you as an enemy to be killed.

While it isn't that extreme yet within the culture wars, it's getting that way.

And myself? I think we need all the moderate Christian allies we can get. The wingnuts are the way they are not necessarily because they are the majority, but they have the most money, political ties and make the most noise. They need to be shouted, smacked, and whittled down from within as well as from without.

Thereby I extend a hand of peace to you. :)

-- ArchTeryx

stems not from Christians simply not agreeing with our way of life, but from their full-blown assault on our way of life. We are the ones being attacked and put in a defensive position, so it is natural and necessary to fight back. It is difficult and unrealistic to expect liberals to be "tolerant" of the views of a group of people who have labeled us their enemy and actively seek to conquer us. Fundamentalist Christians have declared war on liberals and liberal values, and it is not only our right, but our responsibility, to stand for what is right and call them on their shit.

I do regret that this criticism is uncomfortable for those Christians who are not hellbent on abolishing everything that does not jibe with their worldview. But that does not change the fact that the fundamentalists are dead wrong and deserve all of the criticism they receive. Let me be clear -- the only Christians I have a problem with are those actively trying to destroy freedom and the democratic process in this country. I understand that you may feel this is still a criticism of you personally as a Christian, but that is completely incorrect. You appear to be saying that we should not criticize Christians at all because you personally are not a fundamentalist or dominionist, but that is not a reasonable argument. Under that logic, theoretically the KKK should not be criticized because some of its members do not actively participate in cross burnings. Or the Bush administration should not be criticized at all for its fascist policies because there could be individuals in the administration who did not actively participate in the formulation of those policies. Am I the only one who sees how ridiculously flawed this line of reasoning is? Sorry, but the bad Christians do not get a free pass just because some good ones exist.

Frankly, I do not think that it is discriminatory or unjust to assert that churches which insist on using their pulpits for political purposes should lose their tax exemptions. What IS discriminatory and unjust is for those churches to abuse their influence over people to advance an evil political agenda, to flout the law of the land, to thumb their noses at the constitution and attempt to force their belief system onto every American. NO entity, religious or otherwise, is above scrutiny or is exempt from criticism when it inflicts harm on others. Churches are not above the law. If they break the law, they should be held accountable and suffer the consequences, just like everyone else.

Bottom line: if you are not one of those fundamentalists who hate liberals and want to end freedom in this country, then you have absolutely no reason to be offended. And if you are still offended anyway, then maybe you agree with their position more than you realize or care to admit. Only you can answer that question.

I just think it's more wrong for you to use yourself to justify defending the fundamentalists than it is for me to criticize the evil things that they are doing in the name of God. And I say this as the child of a Southern Baptist minister who takes spirituality very seriously.

EDITED for context to say that the post I was responding to has been removed.

EDITED for context to say that the post I was responding to has been removed.

Progressives have been slow to recognize that when the rightwing declared that they were in a cultural war, they really meant the part about the war.

It is no accident that gay Jews were among the first victims of the nazis!

"Never again" means what it says.

As one who aspires to follow Jesus Christ, I say you've put your finger on it.

Didn't Jesus say that not everybody who says "Lord, Lord" really means it?

because this time the Jesusista Nazis are going after them. Will others stand up and say No to those who have beaten swastikas into crosses or will they wait until it is too late?

"Whatever God puts in the minister's heart to say, he is protected by the First Amendment if this becomes law," " Jones told Cybercast News Service...

"He" who?--the minister or God? And would this law apply to rabbis and leaders of Muslim, Hindu or other non-Christian places of worship?

More to the point, what really makes a "church"? People of a feather flocking together to worship, or the clergyperson who leads them? Would a proper political endorsement of a house of worship be a reflection of the will of the majority of its congregation, of the personal opinion its leader, of what the leader interpets as the will of the deity that's being worshipped, or of a direct message from the deity? And if the endorsement is a result of the leader bearing the deity's message, how would anyone know if the leader is lying or mistaken?

Fortunately, there's a really simple solution to all this--all of America's worshippers should inform their clergy leaders in writing that any endorsement of any candiate will result in their withdrawing financial support and resigning as members. If they want to work for the government, let the government pay their bills--minus the appropriate taxes, of course.

:headbang:
rocknation

Every last bit of it is the same shit, just different assholes.

Religious fanatics are religious fanatics, regardless of their particular religion.

Those who are tired of "Christian bashing" need to organize and make it clear that their religion and their God have nothing to do with the right-wing corporate theocrats who are trying to take over this country.

:headbang:
rocknation