H.R. 235 would allow pastors to endorse candidates& retain 501c3 status:

tp://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr003=2u49khpxv3.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7353&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241





Church Split In North Carolina Shows Dangers Of Partisan Politics In Pulpit, Says Americans United
Friday, May 6, 2005
Church Electioneering Bill In Congress Would Invite More Disputes Over Politics In Houses Of Worship, Says AU's Lynn

A bitter controversy over partisan politics at a North Carolina church shows the danger of electioneering in the pulpit, according to Americans United of Separation of Church and State.
According to news media reports, the Rev. Chan Chandler of East Waynesville Baptist Church in Haywood County told members that they must vote for President George W. Bush. Nine members who did not do so have since been told to leave the congregation. An additional 40 members have reportedly left in protest.
“This is an outrage,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Houses of worship exist to bring people together for worship, not split them apart over partisan politics.
“I think there is an important lesson here for the whole country,” Lynn continued. “Americans do not expect to be ordered to vote for certain candidates by their religious leaders.”
Religious Right groups have been pressing evangelical churches to get deeply involved in partisan politics, Lynn said, and this kind of controversy is the natural outcome.
Lynn said matters will become even worse if a bill now pending in Congress becomes federal law.
H.R. 235, a measure introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), would allow clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit and still retain a tax exemption of their house of worship.
“Introducing partisan politics into our churches is a terrible idea,” said AU’s Lynn. “I hope this incident in North Carolina will cause our members of Congress to reject Rep. Jones’ bill.”

In violation of every intention of our founding fathers, is how they rack up the few votes they do get, isn't it?

:popcorn:

This effected people directly, in their pocketbooks, Bush was taking meetings with these people, and no one cares.

Please take this matter seriously and join our grassroots campaign and help us reach our friends and neighbors.

WE have to reach to people locally and the Democracy cell project is the place to start with learning, then to move on to activating and empowering all of us!

http://www.democracycellproject.net

Our "biggest problem" happened sometime over the course of the last 5 years (oddly enough when you seriously think critically about it) as it was round about the time Jr first stole the election...

All of us, busy with our jobs, college, raising kids, living bascially created a void of time. We no longer had "time" to read the newspapers, nor our like-minded magazines. No, we drudged home and had enough energy to turn on the dreaded tube.

Low and behold, there was Fox, MSNBC, CNN - you name it. We didn't know what hit us, in reality. Now, we're still in shock because "we" can't figure out why other people just don't get it - or refuse to get it, much less get it at all.

Yet I think mzmolly might be right. A lot of Americans either "just don't give a shit," or they "don't know how to give a shit," because many Americans (under 40 yrs of Democratic normalcy) didn't have to.

We lived our lives, had small political beefs, but nothing that cut into our very blood, sweat and yes, tears.

The scarest part is, our great dictator is laughing along with his pickles...

Even though I listened to the news "religiously" I had NO idea how they were directing the "tenor" of the questions to shape the opinion. They had a masquerade of being fair and unbiased because they "bounced" between the two sides and "appeared" to give both sides of the argument an equal chance.

But then I woke up. I saw them replay the Dean "scream" as if it was NEWS and as if it was important. I saw them intentionally take a man down.

Then I saw them direct the flow of thought about Kerry and Edwards and replay the phrases which I REFUSE to REPEAT because they sunk that phrase into everyone's psyche without any intention of displaying the truth instead of the lie.

But for most people who flip on the news or hear Republican radio news shows, they have NO idea of the deceit, the lies, and the betrayal and thus it's OUR JOB to become the messanger. This means work.

It means waking them up to and getting them angry. It means telling them the truth, forming groups, making connections, and above all else it means taking it outside the choir and into the neighborhood.

So let's wake them up together. Join the Democracy Cell Project and lets teach democracy, activate people to become participants in democracy, and empower people to bring democracy back.

http://www.democracycellproject.net

Honestly!

about deconstructing our economic and social structures so they can build a nation based on their beliefs of how the world should work. This is why strangling the public school system is so important to them. They need to be able to educate the next generation in their philosophies/ideologies. Our parents and the boomer generations are threats to them. We stand in their way.

they may as well be forthright about it and rip up the U.S. Constitution as well.

http://www.hr235.org/
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00235:@@@P

unbelievable

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.235:
<snip> No member or leader of an organization described in section 501(q) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 2) shall be prohibited from expressing personal views on political matters or elections for public office during regular religious services, so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service. For purposes of the preceding sentence, dissemination beyond the members and guests assembled together at a service includes a mailing that results in more than an incremental cost to the organization and any electioneering communication under section 304(f) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(f)). Nothing in the amendment made by section 2 shall be construed to permit any disbursements for electioneering communications or political expenditures prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.</>

Here's the PDF of the bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h235ih.txt.pdf

Folks, this one is gonna be a not so civil war. Get it out there. Keep it from being another stealth attack on keeping churches out of the business of picking candidates through various methods literally using bully pulpits!

Shake, rattle and roll on this one, DUers. LTTE, contact Congress Critters, get folks to think about what it means to let tax exempt organizations who supposedly are entrusted with spiritual guidence to start telling followers who to vote for.

This is the line in the sand we have to hold.

Do it.

I don't think that it is unconstitutional, but I do think that churches should lose their tax-exempt status if they become overtly political. I don't want this to happen--churches do good and important charitable work and donate money to worthy causes. This will be VERY bad for our country and clearly is yet another step on the road to a fascistic so-called Christian theocracy which is neither Christian, nor compatable with our constitution, nor remotely democratic.

Can't we stop this lunacy in the Senate, if not the House? Even with the nuclear option enacted, we still have the fillibuster on legislative matters.

the "nuclear option" is inacted to pass those looney judges, it will remain in effect for any other legislation they want passed.

sent to me by a fine reporter out in Cartaret county, eastern NC: Sue book: she wrote the article:

fcp://@fc.freedom.com,%231011100/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Stories.cfm&ByReporter=Sue
Book&Section=Local ]Sue Book
Sun Journal Staff
About 60 members of the Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition got an update
on Washington moral and church-state issues from their U.S. representative
Monday night.
Obviously empowered by November election numbers that showed religious
right strength from the hinterlands to the White House, Rep. Walter B.
Jones, R-3rd dist., said he is "returning to Washington to the push bill
to return free speech to the preachers of God's word."
"It's hard to get a speaker of the house to hold a bill number but the
speaker of the house has protected the bill number 235, which is already
introduced," Jones said.
"In April, we will start having a national press drive to encourage
members of both parties in the House to support this important legislation
that has received a tremendous amount of national and international
attention since it was introduced four years ago," he said.
The attention on the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act" has
created sufficient interest to get even the most liberal representative
from California to call Jones' staff for more information.
The bill would amend IRS law to allow houses of worship the ability to
endorse or oppose a political candidate, including the use of up to 20
percent of its money for political activities and endorsements.
"The country is in great, great jeopardy," he warned. "You need to hold
elected officials' feet to the fire on issues important to basic freedoms,
particularly freedom of speech."
Jones said he was invited to speak at a Columbus, Ohio, church with more
than 3,000 members on his bill as well as faith-based issues including
same sex marriage and pro-life positions.
Jones also held up a 12-by-12 inch illustrated children's book that he
described as telling a story of two male kings that marry, then a sequel
with princesses with two daddies.
"We know about drugs and pornography, but if we do not know, we cannot
protect our children from subtle approval of homosexuality," he said.
"Next week or the week after, we will be introducing legislation that if
you receive funds from the federal government, you will have to fully
disclose any sexual content."
He said one area media director told him that she ordered the book because
the only description was that two kings got married and she thought it
would be to two different queens.
Asked by Chuck Tyson about the status of Cherry Point as the Base
Realignment and Closure review approaches, Jones, who sits on the House
Armed Services Committee, said Cherry Point's future is positive.
"I don't know the reason people try to scare people about this," said
Jones, mentioning conversations with several individuals inside Department
of Defense positions close to the pulse of the procedure.
"We're going to tour three of the bases in March and I'm going to be
careful, cautious, sure to closely monitor the BRAC activities," he said.
Sue Book can be reached at 635-5666 or at < mailto:sbook@freedomenc.com[br />]sbook@freedomenc.com.

But this is a thing of beauty;

"In April, we will start having a national press drive to encourage
members of both parties in the House to support this important legislation
that has received a tremendous amount of national and international
attention since it was introduced four years ago,"*

and

"...the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act" has
created sufficient interest to get even the most liberal representative
from California to call Jones' staff for more information."*

Wow, they've equated 'interest' to 'positive reaction'.

What a manipulative piece of garbage.

"only moral speech should be free"

*emphasis mine

Bob Beauprez and Joel Hefley - two of the sorriest excuses for public servants ever.

My rep., Wamp, is listed. Why am I not surprised?

But it doesn't surprise me. Her head is so far up Dobson's ass that her hair is brown.

us, and that's why Frist did what he did? This is so wrong, on so many levels....


:mad:

We should be allowed to picket and protest and disrupt their organizations just as we would any other political group.

Let's meet hardcore with hardcore. They want war, give them one they will never forget. Picket day in and day out. Slander their character (the trait of the slimy right). If they are to become a political party, they should be treated as such AND NOT HOUSES OF WORSHIP.

I got my protest signs ready:

'Fristians are not Christian'

and

"Who would Jesus Exclude?"

I hear from an editor at Asheville Citizen Times that there are to 'be protestors.'

... all its members should be required to contribute one-tenth of their income to the church. I'd like to see someone start a bill like that in the House.

I'm disgusted by their cherry-picking and convenience store shopping of Scripture. They can put their money where their mouth is.

Actually, many church's (especially the more "fundamentalist" ones, already do require that the members donate 10%.

Theocracy rather than Democracy!!!

Period. Only the most arrogant politicians would pass a bill such as this, which plainly violates the First Amendment. It would be struck down immediately.

Churches have the right to say what they wish. You can not prohibit their free speech. However, they should lose their tax exempt status but I am of the opinion they should never have had it in the first place.

of religion. Is this not a law respecting an establishment of religion? I think so.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By not allowing them to endorse someone you are restricting a religion and violating their freedom of speech.

beliefs is an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into secular activities. The one that is harmed is the one excommunicated. This is not so much as endorsing a candidate, which has always been allowed as long as the one doing the endorsing is expressing this as a 'personal' endorsement, not a church endorsement.

To allow a tax exempt church to function as a political enterprise is in effect a diversion of tax money from those that do not agree with the political stand to those that do agree with the political stand. Political Action Committees should never be allowed tax free status for just this reason.

Therefor, the ones that were excommunicated had their constitutional rights to free expression of their political beliefs stomped on by a church. Personally, I think they are better off outside of that church. I wonder how the Southern Baptist Church will deal with this, because you can bet, heads will roll when the effects cascade up the line and Uncle Sam removes the tax exempt status to organization as a whole. If this action of excommunication was the result of any activity at the leadership level above the local level, Billy Bob is gonna have to pay a lot of money to Uncle Sam.

Not to quote the scripture, but "the beast fed on the flesh of old whore of Babylon". This would be a fitting end to the bitch, and as near as I can tell, if you believe in a symbolic Revelation story, then the old whore of Babylon is a false religious organization that has fornicated with the secular world. Sounds like Falwell and other religions to me, the ones dabbling and interfering in politics are indeed fornicating with the world.

Edit: To change "literal Revelation" to "symbolic Revelation" to relect the idea that the story happens time and time again throughout history. Its the nature of man being told. That is the story.

and if they do so, they must pay taxes like any political advocacy group.

Allowing them tax exemption while doing political advocacy is giving defacto imprimature to their particular religious beliefs, thus violating the first amendment. This is clearly not permissable because every church must be treated equally and be subject to the same penalties.

I would resolve this by letting anyone say what they wanted from the pulpit, and taxing all religious organizations -- I think that tax exemption for churches is, itself, a violation of the first amendment as it gives religiosity a leg up in the marketplace of ideas. Besides, without their tax exempt status, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would probably be ripping people off selling used cars instead of making themselves rich off their congregations.

To allow churches not to pay property taxes or taxes on their income is already violating the ideal of separation of church and state.

Go ahead and tax them all and then they can be as political as they wish.

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

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

very well said. ;)

so as to curtail the argument, then it would stand, perhaps?

"Is this not a law respecting an establishment of religion? I think so."

Please explain to me how making churches pay taxes is a law respecting an establishment of religion?

No one is telling them they can't endorse candidates, but if they do then they are acting as a political advocacy group and have to follow the same rules as other political groups. They can't hide behind god to maintain their tax free status. If they give up their tax fee status they can advocate for candidates and discriminate against people based on political affiliation all day. They do have to follow the laws of this country though, just like everyone else.

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

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

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

Just stupid.

Equal protection. Why does this political group get to raise funds with public subsidies (tax exemption), and moveon.org does not enjoy the same privilege?

a couple bake sales. Hey, what's good for the goose...

:evilgrin:

if that would help.

:evilgrin:

It's getting a bit dry here in AZ.

Amen.

IMO, "no law" means no law. This appears to be a law respecting an establishment of religion. Just MHO. :)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

H.R. 235 does exactly that--takes away your freedom to make up your own mind or to disagree while still exercising your religious beliefs. More important, this law would give Christians the edge, which goes against the constitutional ideal of all religions being created equal.

:headbang:
rocknation

I don't see it so much as a free speech issue, myself, but more a violation of the establishment clause.

The government is prohibited from making ANY laws ("no law") about religion and churches.

I will wait for some constitutional experts to make arguments one way or another about the Constitutionality of it.

That said, this bill SCARES THE LIFE OUT OF ME!!!!!

It really is on the edge of a very slippery slope. More and more bills will be introduced and passed allowing religions to become more and more political. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons will dominate political discourse, because they already have no fear of, indeed they will wallow in, the mud at the bottom of the slope.

The mud, IMHO, is that if my religion is allowed to control my government, how long will it be before my government is controlling my religion? :scared:

Can we spell Taliban?

difference does "Constitutional" make?

Take a look at who's in the Heritage Foundation and see how many of them would make dandy SCOTUS picks for the Theo/NeoCon agenda.

If you don't want to look, theres a BUNCH.

these traitors, fascists and whores have given my religion the worst possible black eye, relentlessly, in the most disgusting way conceivable.

I want Jesus to come back and start overturning the tables in the temple again.


aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

has been done, written and said over the last 2000 years... in His Name.

He was the ultimate nonjudgmental pacifist and he advocated love, forgiveness and acceptance.

The Cold Civil War may just become hot.

As the GOP is now working hard to establish Republicanism as a branch of Christianity and demonize "the other faith," I fear that bloodshed will be the eventual outcome.

These are truly evil, evil people.

is on the cosponsor list. I'm gonna make a stink about this..........

This is an attack on everything this nation was founded upon.

From Merriam-Webster online:

2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

I don't think that is too harsh, I really don't, and I'm hardly a radical.

Even if you want to tax the churches, I hope you can see the danger in this bill.

The time to defeat every cosponsor is NOW. Let's make them so ashamed of themselves they don't even bother to run.

I'm sick to my stomach.

render unto Caesar, fundies.

have complete cover as "churches."

As always, it sounds good on paper.

their country?! Sorted by DATE for a rather obvious reason, Mr. Morality himself was the very first:

COSPONSORS(167), BY DATE : (Sort: alphabetical order)
Rep DeLay, Tom - 1/8/2003
Rep Blunt, Roy - 1/8/2003
Rep Hayes, Robin - 1/8/2003
Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 1/8/2003
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 1/8/2003
Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 1/8/2003
Rep DeMint, Jim - 1/8/2003
Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 1/8/2003
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 1/8/2003
Rep Weldon, Dave - 1/8/2003
Rep Pence, Mike - 1/8/2003
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 1/8/2003
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 1/8/2003
Rep Miller, Jeff - 1/28/2003
Rep Burr, Richard - 1/28/2003
Rep Hefley, Joel - 1/28/2003
Rep King, Steve - 1/28/2003
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 1/28/2003
Rep Wolf, Frank R. - 1/28/2003
Rep Whitfield, Ed - 1/28/2003
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 1/28/2003
Rep Sullivan, John - 1/28/2003
Rep Lewis, Ron - 1/28/2003
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 1/28/2003
Rep Hostettler, John N. - 1/28/2003
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 1/29/2003
Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 1/29/2003
Rep Myrick, Sue - 1/29/2003
Rep Calvert, Ken - 1/29/2003
Rep Miller, Gary G. - 1/29/2003
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 1/29/2003
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. - 1/29/2003
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. - 1/29/2003
Rep Ryun, Jim - 2/11/2003
Rep Akin, W. Todd - 2/11/2003
Rep Wilson, Joe - 2/11/2003
Rep Mica, John L. - 2/11/2003
Rep Green, Mark - 2/11/2003
Rep Sessions, Pete - 2/11/2003
Rep Baker, Richard H. - 2/11/2003
Rep Franks, Trent - 2/11/2003
Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 2/11/2003
Rep Paul, Ron - 2/11/2003
Rep Gibbons, Jim - 2/11/2003
Rep Lucas, Frank D. - 2/11/2003
Rep Shimkus, John - 2/11/2003
Rep Ballenger, Cass - 2/11/2003
Rep Cantor, Eric - 2/13/2003
Rep Radanovich, George - 2/13/2003
Rep Cannon, Chris - 2/13/2003
Rep Combest, Larry - 2/13/2003
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 2/13/2003
Rep Shuster, Bill - 2/13/2003
Rep Sweeney, John E. - 2/13/2003
Rep King, Peter T. - 3/11/2003
Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 3/11/2003
Rep Deal, Nathan - 3/11/2003
Rep Burton, Dan - 3/11/2003
Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 3/11/2003
Rep Putnam, Adam H. - 3/11/2003
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 3/11/2003
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F. H. - 3/11/2003
Rep Janklow, William J. - 3/18/2003
Rep Davis, Tom - 3/18/2003
Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 3/20/2003
Rep Foley, Mark - 3/20/2003
Rep Herger, Wally - 3/20/2003
Rep Feeney, Tom - 3/20/2003
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 3/20/2003
Rep Weller, Jerry - 3/20/2003
Rep Brady, Kevin - 3/20/2003
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln - 3/20/2003
Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 3/20/2003
Rep Renzi, Rick - 3/26/2003
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 3/26/2003
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 3/26/2003
Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 3/26/2003
Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 4/7/2003
Rep Boehner, John A. - 4/7/2003
Rep Barton, Joe - 4/7/2003
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana - 4/7/2003
Rep Carter, John R. - 4/7/2003
Rep Cole, Tom - 4/7/2003
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) - 4/7/2003
Rep Fletcher, Ernie - 4/11/2003
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 4/11/2003
Rep Cox, Christopher - 4/11/2003
Rep Johnson, Sam - 4/11/2003
Rep English, Phil - 4/11/2003
Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 4/11/2003
Rep Kingston, Jack - 4/11/2003
Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 4/11/2003
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 4/11/2003
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 4/11/2003
Rep Vitter, David - 4/11/2003
Rep Chabot, Steve - 4/11/2003
Rep Nethercutt, George R., Jr. - 4/11/2003
Rep Shadegg, John B. - 4/11/2003
Rep Thornberry, Mac - 4/11/2003
Rep Walsh, James T. - 4/11/2003
Rep Taylor, Charles H. - 4/11/2003
Rep Keller, Ric - 5/6/2003
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 5/6/2003
Rep Beauprez, Bob - 5/6/2003
Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. - 5/6/2003
Rep Graves, Sam - 5/6/2003
Rep Bilirakis, Michael - 5/6/2003
Rep Garrett, Scott - 5/6/2003
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 5/6/2003
Rep Coble, Howard - 5/9/2003
Rep McInnis, Scott - 5/9/2003
Rep Terry, Lee - 5/9/2003
Rep Young, Don - 5/9/2003
Rep Simpson, Michael K. - 5/9/2003
Rep Peterson, John E. - 5/9/2003
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 5/9/2003
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 5/15/2003
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario - 5/15/2003
Rep Issa, Darrell E. - 5/15/2003
Rep Harris, Katherine - 5/15/2003
Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. - 5/15/2003
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 5/15/2003
Rep Nussle, Jim - 5/15/2003
Rep Camp, Dave - 5/15/2003
Rep Rogers, Mike - 5/22/2003
Rep LaHood, Ray - 5/22/2003
Rep Flake, Jeff - 5/22/2003
Rep Weldon, Curt - 5/22/2003
Rep Ney, Robert W. - 5/22/2003
Rep Hensarling, Jeb - 6/5/2003
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. - 6/5/2003
Rep Crane, Philip M. - 6/5/2003
Rep Collins, Mac - 6/5/2003
Rep McCrery, Jim - 6/5/2003
Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. - 6/5/2003
Rep Ramstad, Jim - 6/5/2003
Rep Oxley, Michael G. - 6/12/2003
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 6/12/2003
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny - 6/12/2003
Rep Dunn, Jennifer - 6/12/2003
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 6/12/2003
Rep Bonilla, Henry - 6/12/2003
Rep Granger, Kay - 6/12/2003
Rep Bonner, Jo - 6/19/2003
Rep Culberson, John Abney - 6/19/2003
Rep Gallegly, Elton - 6/19/2003
Rep Saxton, Jim - 6/19/2003
Rep McKeon, Howard P. (Buck) - 6/19/2003
Rep Northup, Anne M. - 6/19/2003
Rep Everett, Terry - 6/19/2003
Rep Hastings, Doc - 6/25/2003
Rep Crenshaw, Ander - 6/25/2003
Rep Ryan, Paul - 6/25/2003
Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/25/2003
Rep Blackburn, Marsha - 7/14/2003
Rep Kline, John - 7/14/2003
Rep Boozman, John - 7/25/2003
Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/25/2003
Rep McHugh, John M. - 7/25/2003
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II - 9/11/2003
Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/11/2003
Rep Latham, Tom - 10/7/2003
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 10/7/2003
Rep Bishop, Rob - 10/15/2003
Rep Wamp, Zach - 11/7/2003
Rep Alexander, Rodney - 11/20/2004
Rep Rogers, Harold - 11/20/2004

A true Homophobe Hateful Right-Wing Nut-Job.

After all, all of the votes were rigged in Ocean County NJ.

None of the Democrats and only two Republicans did not sponsor HR235 for the state of Texas. Glad to see at least two Republicans know the score...

http://www.hr235.org/Sponsors.asp

:kick:

Wait until these fools understand that religious exceptions include Muslims, witches, animists,etc.

Political free speech is already protected in their churches as long as they forgo their tax exempt status, so it's really about retaining the right to worship the almighty dollar.

Now the real question: will our fine MSM start talking about this bill?

Sorry, but I have to correct people everytime I see the words mainstream media or MSM on this site. The corporate media does not represent the mainstream they represent the corporate elites. To call them mainstream gives them credibility which they do not deserve. Remember language is important, so always remember to call them the corporate media.

believe we should tax them like any other entity. If they are on the public record advocating one political philosophy over another then they will have to live with the consequences of their views. Whole congregations will turnover and this could be a serious means to allow political discourse and confront hypocricy in the pulpit. I truly think that the fundies will be making a big mistake in doing this since they are already promalgating the view that GOD is a Republican through their mega church, Falwell, Robertson et al bullshit network. Gotta go but I will try to finish thought later.

This will be the death of democracy when you allow the bogey-man religion to be a part of the political process. Unacceptable.

can't see the similarities? Priests and preachers on both sides railing against the other, saying that they were on the side of God, and whipping up their congegrations, and before you knew it those congegrations were blowing each other up, IN THE NAME OF GOD.

We've seen it thousands of times over thousands of years, that when the churches sieze political power, the result is war.

Of course, there will always be those who want to violently impose their religion on their neighbors, but we don't need to give them a base from which to do so.

in regard to religion has ALWAYS existed...just not overtly.I got sort
of a wink-wink,nudge-nudge sort of response whenever I tried to talk to his relatives about John Kerry during the 2004 campaign. My Mother-in-law actually said "we believe Our Lord will choose the right man".(I think I just threw up in my mouth a little)
They don't come right out with it...after all, they were run out of many eastern states for fear of their voting in blocs, and seizing control of local governments( that,and of course, polygamy).
Churches should not, nor should they ever have had, tax-exempt status....or ANY other special considerations.

It was not overt either, but also in a wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way. He never actually said that Bush and the war in Iraq were wrong, but there was quite a bit of referencing the blessed peacemakers during the lead-up, and always a focus on the plight of the poor and the stewardship of the environment.

Of course, Evangelical Lutherans also teach evolution, accept gays, are anti-war, and provide their employees w/ a health care plan that includes abortion.

some of the more moderate Christians in church to leave their congregations? I surely think that if this bill comes to pass that this would be suicide for the Christian faith. Most people will not allow having another's personal opinions shoved down their throats.
Ah well, we're entering the Age of Aquarius, so...

Dee

BTW, how do I get a hold of Congress people and make them aware of this bill?

that bill and HR 235 are designed to ensure the growth of a theocracy in the US.

Oh my. THIS is certainly setting up an interesting little situation. The Feds can say that churches can be political, however the states define what constitutes eligibility for property tax exemption. This little bill is setting it up (if passed) that a church can be politically active from the pulpit, and retain exemption from the IRS, but still be liable for property taxes and sales taxes from the individual states...

Imagine this: The local fundy wingnuts are launching a campaign for a fundy politician. The minister is up there preaching away that the only man for the job is his fundy candidate. THAT is very likely under that bill.

What is ALSO equally likely, is that each individual state can then send a property tax bill to those same churches because they no longer qualify for property tax exemption or state sales tax exemption.

They may be (unwittingly) opening up a huge source of revenue for local taxing bodies with this bill.

I can't imagine it'd be worth loss of property tax exemption to venture into the political arena in most cases. Knowing what it'd cost to build some of those massive churches and knowing what that land is worth that some of them sit on, I'd think it could be mighty expensive for them to be TOO politically active...

Suddenly, that pesky tax board that was such a pain in the ass to the local hospital that didn't do enough charity care is now able to be a pain in the ass to the local fundy church too...

I DO love my job some days!


Laura

that a lot of what gets proposed by Congress e.g., nuke the filibuster; this bill; others which have the 'patina' of creating more 'religious freedom' actually throws their ass on the grill re:

1. what happens when they have nuked this filibuster and it comes back to bite them in the ass some years in the future

2. they have to pay taxes on all that expensive property

BRING IT ON: yes, go ahead and talk openly about your candidates/ promote them.

What was secretive (which was not secretive at all for ANY of these churches for decades; I grew up Baptist in the era of Goldwater and hell yes, they said vote for him; and hell, yes, they supported Ian Paisley; and hell yes, they said vote for Ronny Ray-gun) was that they knew they were supposed to NOT talk about it----too openly---but the covert pressure was always there.

This bill was introduced back in January, 2003, and I don't see anything at the Ways & Means Committee site indicating that it's scheduled for a hearing.

Doing some poking around through links I found this article:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20646

So I don't think it's going anywhere, anytime soon. Here's just a portion of that article on 4/25/05:



Having said that, it's still not a bad idea to keep our eye on it.

It provides special and preferential tax status to Political organizations masquerading as Churches. It would not survive a Supreme Court challenge.

I don't think they care if it's constitutional. This Bill is designed to generate media talking head blither and whip the Christofascists into a righteous foam-at-the mouth frenzy.

I give it 5-to-4 odds of being constitutional.

Passage of this law would open the door wide to a challenge to all Church tax exemptions. The 501c3 provision is a questionable government endorsement of religion anyway. In a sane country, 501c3 provisions would have been struck down decades ago, but it's survived because Churches have been successful at portraying themselves as non-partisan, it applies to all groups that can more or less call themselves a Religion and are willing to file the necessary paperwork each year.
Expressly allowing Churches to be openly politically partisan and leaving them tax exempt won't float even in today's Supreme court. I don't expect this to pass. The RNC doesn't really care if this passes or not. I think it's just another way to fire up the Christofascist wing that's doing such great soldiering for the Rupugs right now. Watch for Wingnuts to characterize Dem opposition to this as an "attack on Faith" etc.

If it does pass, it will go to court and be a Right Wing circus and media feeding frenzy. When the court strikes it down, then it fuels the Wingnut jihad against "activist judges". It will be another distracting wedge issue designed to keep people from noticing flag draped coffins, skyrocketing deficits, a shitty economy, and dump trucks full of cash being delivered to Corporations and the Uber-wealthy.

Is this something we should fight now? Is there a way to win this one right now? Most churches aren't openly political and most members of those churches think the 501c3 exemption is noble and good. No Democrat should vote for this but of course many will. How do we defuse this without giving ammo to the right?

my own motives. I feel hoisted on the petard of:

1. express openly have very incensed about this having taken place for literally decades----this little dance re: the churches advocating candidates-----and taking a dead aim at their hypoChristian attitudes....

or

2. trying to find a path to agreement.

If the matter had not been so disingenuouosly promoted; if people had not so determinedly looked the other way; if Bush II had not spun the government so far into a right wing orbit....

I might be tempted to think about Wayensville, that I know well, and just continue this little charade.

dunno: its the 60's all over for me: its the tanks in the streets; its one set of people set hard against another.

I dunno the 'compassionate' way out of this. I'm willing to be the Dalai Lama and wait around for my country to come back to me.

"Pastor Robert Prince III of First Baptist Church of Waynesville said he was appalled to hear about the claims but noticed a lot of Southern Baptist ministers endorsing President Bush in November’s election."

I SAY TAX THEM.

I THINK NOT.

Article in Citizen Times is in keeping with my experiences for over 15 years with Baptists and is underlined by my relatives participation in Baptist churches NOW:


"Pastor Robert Prince III of First Baptist Church of Waynesville said he was appalled to hear about the claims but noticed a lot of Southern Baptist ministers endorsing President Bush in November’s election."


FROM THE NC BAPTISTS:
http://www.bscnc.org/insidebscnc/pressroomnewsletters/membersousted.htm


East Waynesville Action 'Highly Irregular'

An action of East Waynesville Baptist Church pastor Chan Chandler to require from his members written agreement with his personal political viewpoint would be “highly irregular” if it is true as reported, said Jim Royston, executive director-treasurer of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC).

East Waynesville is a cooperating member of the BSCNC by contributing financially to the BSCNC’s state, national and international missions efforts. As with any member of the BSCNC, churches are autonomous and decisions they make are neither directed by, nor directive to the Baptist State Convention.

Royston has not spoken with Chandler about the issue and hesitated to make any statements with implications wider than the issue in the local church. He did say that such a position as the one Chandler is reported to have taken could threaten a church’s tax exempt status because it could be interpreted as stepping into political advocacy, an action prohibited by IRS rules.

Royston, in his seventh year in BSCNC leadership, said nothing similar to the reported East Waynesville Church action has ever come up. It is so unusual that he doesn’t expect any similar controversies to arise in other North Carolina Baptist churches.

TAX THEM

Does his district include the East Waynesville Baptist Church by any chance?

"Since entering office, Congressman Jones has worked to fulfill his promise to represent the citizens of Eastern North Carolina with both honor and integrity."

http://jones.house.gov/html/bio.cfm

I think Waynesville is in western NC, out towards the mountains/Asheville.

May 7, 2005

Dear. Ms. Wickham:


I picked your phone number off the http://www.bscnc.org/insidebscnc/contactus/staffdirectory/ web page. You are the only one with the 828 area code. I have cc'd this to others on that list, however, in case you did not respond.

I am writing specifically re: this matter taking place in this church in Waynesville. http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050507/NEWS01/50506036/1001

Indeed, this is not just getting attention in Asheville; it has exploded on the blogosphere inclusivve of MSNBC; CNN, etc.:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr003=2u49khpxv3.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7353&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1451745
http://www.spiffarino.completelyfreehosting.com/images/wlos.wmv

I grew up Baptist, independent Baptist and Southern Baptist. I was a G.A. My father was the minister of music. I know the Baptists very well.

As I grew up in the 1960's, I heard loudly and clearly that our pastors told us to vote for Barry Goldwater; to support Ian Paisley; to vote for Ronald Reagan. The Baptists cannot backtrack and pretend they didn't do this. There are many people who would call you to task. You need to pay your taxes as you have engaged in electioneering---undeniably----for decades.

This is not an isolated event for the Baptists as reiterated by another Waynesville, NC pastor per the Citizen-Times article: "Pastor Robert Prince III of First Baptist Church of Waynesville said he was appalled to hear about the claims but noticed a lot of Southern Baptist ministers endorsing President Bush in November’s election."

Moreover, it is, in my opinion, 'hypoChristianity' for Bush and Frist and Delay and Charles Taylor (my Congressional rep in Western NC) to promote their agenda to the detriment of common people.

I am a psychologist in Waynesville: I see mostly Medicaid and Medicare clients. Can you imagine what its like to live in indigent housing (no heating and no money from DSS to pay for heating); to have your Medicaid come up for review every 6 months, causing you to lose it for a period of time while you beg practitioners to see you w/o Medicaid so that you can create deductions for your family's income of $5000.00/ anum so that you can have your Medicaid reinstated??

The Baptists cannot speak from one side of their mouths and advocate for President Bush and pretend to be concerned about people's welfare: it doesn't wash.

Frist's own church, the Presbyterians stated:

******** "Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith......" ********
(NY Times: Religion at issue in judicial fight; by David D. Kirkpatrick and Sheryl Gay Stolberg)

Moreover, it is not OK to advocate stances that demean, demoralize, destroy people and their families. To suit, this is the way the fundamentalist representative of Congress have voted:

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/18/11719/9579

drop Veteran's health care
Republicans Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, *******Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against $2.8 billion for veterans health care and $2.8 billion for deficit reduction. That’s a commercial.

voted against funding Medicaid
Republicans Allen, Burns, Ensign, ********Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas Voted against restoring $14 billion to Medicaid and establishing a bipartisan Medicaid commission. That’s a commercial.

voted against Homeland security
Republicans Ensign, ***********Frist, Hatch, Kyl, Lott, Santorum and Thomas voted against $855 million for Homeland Security grants for first responder programs, port security grants and border patrol agents. That’s a commercial.

voted against restoring Community Development Block Grant Programs
Republicans Allen, Burns, Ensign, *********Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas (funny how the same names keep coming up) voted against restoring $1.9 billion in cuts to the Community Development Block Grant Program. That’s a commercial.

voted against Vocationa Education Act (which helps people get jobs who are disabled or have been unemployed)
Republicans Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, **********Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against $7.46 billion for the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and deficit reduction. Commercial.

voted against education and deficit reduction
Republicans Allen, Burns, Ensign, **********Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against $4.75 billion for education and $4.75 billion for deficit reduction. Commercial.

voted against increasing Pell Grant (allowing people to move through college)
Republicans Allen, Burns, Ensign, ***********Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas voted against restoring $5.4 billion to education program cuts and increasing the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,500. Commercial.

voted against agricultural programs
Republicans put the bricks to farmers: Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, **********Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against restoring $2.8 billion to agriculture programs. Midwest commercial.

voted against family planning
Republicans Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, **********Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas voted against a resolution supporting $1 billion for family planning programs, such as teen pregnancy prevention. Moral values hypocrisy commercial.

wants to allow prepackaged news to come your way
Republicans Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, ***********Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against refusing to establish any appropriations bill that allows funds to be provided for "prepackaged news stories" that do not have a disclaimer stating "Paid for by the United States Government" running throughout the presentation. Commercial.

voted against special education programs
Republicans Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, ************Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against a reserve fund that would provide $71.3 billion for special education programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Commercial.


In the strongest possible language I would like to say that THIS IS NOT OK. THIS IS APPALLING.

It is not OK to use your church to promote these agendas. And now I will pursue the taxation of Baptist churches in North Carolina. I am very incensed and this is certainly not disconnected from years and years and years of hearing this hypoChristian rhetoric.

**********If Christ were alive today, he would walk into your Southern Baptist Conventions and turn over the money-changers tables. **********

Sincerely,


cc: Softmoneyhard law; ACLU: NC; Americans United for separation of church and state

:thumbsup:

Thanks!

Thank You for this real reasoned treatise on the subject. The question is, "Can I identify myself as Christian? Have they trademarked the name?" As a Sojourner, I feel my politics should reflect my own values. But my Jesus exhorts me to be a vessel not a barrier to the Way. So is the State coopting Religion or is it vice versa. It's a bitch either way, this Whore of Babylon.

insuring social security or national health insurance.

so, of course they won't do that.

based in their perceived wealth due to grants from the government given in gratitude for their pulpit politiking and preaching for the candidate that will give them that money, do not realize that once they are under or obliged to a government due to that welfare money, they have, indeed lost their freedom of religion.

It may not sink in immediately as they rejoice in the newfound taxpayer money and build an addition onto the parish house, but sooner or later, under the auspices of the state, they will realize they have been skunked, and must preach that which the state demands they preach.

Some may be offended by that--others may be so corrupt that as long as they get money, they don't care, because freedom of religion is secondary to their lust and greed.

They will NOT be free any longer once they travel that road.

Only big media coverage I've seen so far. Hoping for more (same as post on the original Waynesville thread):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7769149/

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - Some in Pastor Chan Chandler’s flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP.

Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn’t support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte.

“He’s the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out,” said Selma Morris, the former church treasurer. “He’s real negative all the time.”

Chandler didn’t return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS-TV in Asheville that the actions were not politically motivated.

The station also reported that 40 others in the 400-member congregation resigned in protest after Monday’s vote.

During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton.

Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said.

George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church’s bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership.

“Membership is a local church issue,” he said. “It is not something the state convention would enter into.”

He added that the nine members were not legally terminated because Monday’s meeting was supposed to be a deacons meeting, not a business meeting. They have a lawyer looking into the situation, he said.

The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church’s tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

“If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law,” Chairman Jerry Meek said.

Doris Wilson, one of Chandler’s neighbors and a member of First Baptist Church in Waynesville, said God doesn’t play partisan politics.

“I hate to see the church suffer like that,” she said. “God doesn’t care whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat. It just hurts to see that going on.”

---

HB 235. What ensued was an exchange of letters that covered several months. It really pissed him off when I called them the American Taliban and quoted from some web sites that call democracy the 'source of all evil in the world' and claim that ALL men must live by God's law alone. I have several hand-written letters from the 'good' Congressman (has voted GOP party line 98%).

In the last letter, he asked if I really believed the folks at *** First Baptist Church (2 blocks from my house) wanted to create a theocracy. I wrote back and told me 'yes' I did and asked what he was going to do to protect me and the Constitution. He didn't reply to that one.

I hope with some consciousness raising we can catch up to you.

If you hav a chance, pass the letters on to us.

due to his co-sponsorship of this bill. I think I know which church you're talking about.(Hmmmm...could it be the gigantic one that is "franchising" itself into the wealthy part of Rogers?) If it is, I am absolutely shocked it hasn't lost its tax exempt status.

I'd be surprised if they didn't participate in Frist's Justice Sunday shenanigans.Then again, the pastor seems to have a massive ego so he probably didn't want to share the pulpit with the Fristians. He probably had his own Justice Sunday program!

the key is that churches will be singled out for special treatment. All 501-c-3 charitable/educational organizations are prohibited from politicking and electioneering, including AU itself and the Interfaith Alliance.

If this bill were to pass and be signed into law, only SOME 501(c)(3)'s would be permitted to electioneer - CHURCHES - and, let's face it, we would essentially be talking conservative hard-right fundamentalist churches.

This is key - the disparate treatment given to various charitable institutions.

Shameful.

They don't want all orgs able to speak freely - just the ones that serve them - and they want to be able to use their tried and true 'voter guide' technique again.

The relentless need to hide behind religion should be a good barometer to how close to bone this movement to right is. The more they try to shove religion down someones throat the less susceptible they are to it.

I kind of hope they keep it up, soon that 80% that don't think a theocratic government is a good way to go will be all up in these people's grill. Keep pushing you people, you are making a lot of friends that way :hi:

doing illegally for years and getting away with it. Apparently they are getting paranoid.

the logical conclusion to this is everyone is their own church and we are right back at anarchy.

I honestly believe not 1 Rethug has a spine, a heart, a brain, nor a conscious. Sounds like the 3 from the "Wizard of Oz."

You know we've been Bushwacked when major Churches are fighting as well, and preachers toss their members out because of politics.

Still, rationality tells you that lawyers should be all over this one.

Cool. In that case, let's make DU a church. Fan-fuckin-tastic. I now belong to the Church of Moveon.org

Bastards.

About 7 press people there: AP; CNN; Asheville Citizen Times newspaper; local Sinclair station who did the original recording of the older/ ousted members of the church, etc.

I stood there with my sign:

"Who would Jesus exclude" wearing my BUCK BUSH T-shirt.

The other side of my protest sign read: "Fristians are not Christian" and there was a reference to www.democraticunderground.com.

Many of the Press knew about DU. I suppose it is becoming something of a reference point.

The woman from Charlotte who is writing a book, Southern Cross(es?) was there also.

Should be around, that picture, with those signs. I glued a bunch of glitter on them hoping for a photo-op.

About 30 older people and their associated families stood around from about 10:30 until just before the church opened its doors. Their attorney was there, hanging out with the press with their cameras, in this sleepy little town. The neighbors and Waynesville police were watching from afar. I walked up the road to speak with 3 of the neighbors; across the board people were interested and seemed to be in agreement that the church 'been a messin where they shouldn't been a messin.' One woman stated that many of the church members had stayed away today, anticipating that there would be trouble.

We sat down to a lot of singing (4 full verses of "How Great Thou Art") and the pastor emphasizing that there 'will be a business meeting on tuesday evening and ONLY MEMBERS will be welcome and able to vote.' (I guess that excludes the 9 who were dis-membered and the reportedly 40 who walked out in support of them.

Clearly, he was throwing down the gauntlet.

I couldn't stay for all that preachin' and so stood outside with the press people who were pretty funny to hang with.

I used it as a consciousness raising opportunity. The press asked me about why was I here (concern re: fundamentalism intruding into the public life too much of the time).

I handed out some talking points re: Charles Taylor (R-NC: Western NC) and Senator Frist's voting record, making the point that I did not understand why many people would vote against their own best middle-class interests.

Will be interesting to see what gets picked up.

Great that DU was in all of this.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to be there and show what sane people look like.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050509/NEWS01/50508008/1001

"I couldn't stay for all that preachin'"... haha - yup, think that pretty much sums this entire controversy up. way to go.. I guess..

Sad to see there are so many interested in torching the church rather than offering a helping hand.

Keep up the good work. Judge on.. because we all know the entire story.

good greif

Kos has a good discussion of HR 235 and the real bad boy, HR 3799

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/5/7/19155/80804

Check out this bill, HR 3799

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.r.3799:

A portion:
Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

There's quite a bit more in there that looks awful. I'm not a lawyer. maybe some of you legal eagles can disect this as tell us if it's as horrible as it sounds.

This bill is a changed bill from its previous introduction and is no longer supported by the Southern Baptist Churches as it narrowly defines allowable "free speech" to those in attendence during the service only and would restrict mailings and additional advertisement.

and the Southern Baptist are now ready for roastin': skewer them with the 'and now the Fedds will have to intervene to see if you have violated the law and your 501c3 status:

and if you read it, if this is true, you recognize that McCain protected us somewhat:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20646


Those changes, in essence, nullify much of the original intention of the bill and potentially open churches up to government intrusion, according to the ERLC.


The Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy entity has withdrawn its support for a bill it says no longer protects the free speech rights of churches.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission announced April 25 it would not back the latest version of the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, H.R. 235, because of revisions the ERLC sees as increasing the likelihood of government intervention in churches and other religious bodies.


“In addition, the bill does not even allow a third party to disseminate this information,” Duke said. “You have to wonder who is liable if someone does disseminate these opinions beyond the gathered assembly. I suspect that the church itself would have to prove that it had nothing to do with the dissemination, and the government would be the one deciding whether or not the church should be held harmless.”

http://www.irs.gov/help/page/0,,id=13148,00.html

tell them you want their 501c3 tax exemption status investigated on the basis of what has taken place here. East Waynesville Baptist Church: Waynesville, NC 28786

I'm sure the repukes will see to it that it gets pushed through on the floor

:grr:

Anyone tries to tell you the Republican Party isn't the party of theocrats show them this vote:

The yeas are the theocrats.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll429.xml

I believe the proper term is "Theofascist" when you add it all up...


Excerpt from:

http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/

In October 2002, Republicans proposed and Congress voted on HR 2357, The House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, which would have allowed churches to spend up to 20% of their collection plates on partisan politics and still remain tax exempt.

It isn’t hard to figure out which churches would take advantage of that bill. The Episcopal Church, USA and the Interfaith Alliance view HR 2357 and its latest incarnation before Congress, HR 235, as doing roughly the same thing. Commenting on HR 235, the Alliance said the “bill would turn the inner sanctuaries and pulpits of America’s houses of worship into partisan political rally halls.” (21)

These unnecessary bills over time would destroy any separation of church and state, something Moon says is “what Satan likes most.” (22) It’s hard to imagine a bill such as HR 2357 even being proposed 25 years ago. It certainly wouldn’t have received any significant support. The vote was in essence a vote to provide the funding for the theocratization of the American government.

Has Moon’s influence helped to make our country more theocratic?

Although defeated, 168 out of 214 Republicans in the House voted for HR 2357, the so-called House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act.

Here’s the link to the 2002 vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll429.xml

That’s 168 out of 214 Republican House members, a mind-boggling 78%, who voted for the theocratization of our government. The hard-line Republicans voted for this when in fact, the majority of the clergy in America do not want to see a situation where preachers are endorsing politicians from the pulpit, which is precisely where this type of legislation would lead. The Republican theocrats don’t care what the majority of the clergy think; they want to empower the small percentage who will use their church’s collection plates to support theocratic and extreme right-wing agendas.

Here’s the Interfaith Alliance, commenting on HR 235, the latest bill currently being proposed by the Republicans to make us a more theocratic nation. This legislation travels under the deceptive name, "Houses Of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act.” This bill is unwanted and unneeded by America’s clergy. In a recent Gallup/Interfaith Alliance Foundation poll, a full 77% of clergy were opposed to their fellow clergy endorsing political candidates. Another poll conducted by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, found that 70% of Americans feel that houses of worship should not come out in favor of one candidate over another during political elections. (23)
_____

There's a reason this is happening to our nation and it isn't the product of the free market of ideas nor any democratic process.


http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/

Then churches can keep their tax exempt status and preach politics. It would also mean DU would be tax exempt, and Southern Dems could campaign in churches without a problem.

Just a thought.