Posted on 03/04/2005 6:54:29 AM PST by Crackingham
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.
Coburn said those rules violate the Constitution. He said the First Amendment exists "to protect two vital freedoms: speech about political subjects and religious worship. Those who want to silence religious leaders have turned the Constitution on its head."
If Jones' bill becomes law, pastors would be able to discuss political issues and explicitly endorse candidates from the pulpit, so long as church money, which remains tax-exempt, wasn't used to distribute political or campaign messages.
But Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the relevant debate is not over the freedom of religious leaders to address political issues. Instead, he said, it concerns whether tax-exempt organizations should be allowed to campaign.
Boston said he doesn't think the current regulations "in any way stifle a church's ability to discuss compelling issues of the day like gay marriage and gun control and abortion.
"That's all protected," Boston said. "They just have to stop short at telling people who to vote for or not to vote for."
Churches are not restricted per se. If you want Uncle Sam's tax exemption, you take his terms for the tax exemption. That applies whether you are a church or a soup kitchen - or at least it is supposed to.
I personally think that the entire structure of campaign finance laws should be overhauled with an emphasis on disclosure rather than prohibition. But tax exempt status is an entirely different animal.
Correct. Any church that agrees with being tax-exempt knows full well what the rules are.
If churches want to electioneer they can incorporate in a different manner. Or form a PAC. It's what normally 501(c)(3) orgs from Planned Parenthood to the NRA have done.
Problem solved.
And I disagree with the scope of this proposal - it should apply to all tax-exempt organizations, or none.
Agreed.
False. They are prevented from electioneering (endorsing & raising money for candidates).
"And any change should apply to all groups or to none."
Remember, his name is the REVEREND Jesse Jackson.
He already has a de facto exemption, so I'm not sure what your point is. If anything, your point is a case for actually enforcing the existing laws against Jesse.
I agree, but in the meantime, which could be a long time for our government is designed to be slow, the removal of illegal and unconstitutional prohibitions on freedom of speech registered against churches has to be removed.
We also need to repeal the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Steve King has a bill in the House RIGHT NOW that begins that process.
I agree.
We also need TRUE campaign finance reform: Remove the caps on how much an individual can give to a candidate and demand full reporting...on the internet for all to see.
The so-called campaign reform as it stands now is also a restriction of freedom of speech/expression. There should be no restrictions on who or how much anyone contributes. There have been laws against influence buying for a long time that can be enforced rather than pass unconstitutional laws.
Good enough reason to abolish the gestapo IRS
"He already has a de facto exemption, so I'm not sure what your point is. If anything, your point is a case for actually enforcing the existing laws against Jesse."
No, my point is Jesse has been shilling for the Dems for so long that this shouldn't even be an issue. If Churches want to do this, then they should. I am not for shutting Jesse down, I am for enabling Churches to do the same.
False! Churches are restricted. LBJ had that restriction pushed through in the 60's to keep pastors and churches from addressing political issues and candidates from the pulpit. Until then there were no restrictions. Churches were tax exempt following a tradition by governments dating to the middle ages. Until the 60's there were no such restrictions of speech on churches by the gubmint.
If you want Uncle Sam's tax exemption, you take his terms for the tax exemption.
That is a totalitarian means to an end, and no such strings are permitted under the Constitution.
Again, what you promote is unconstitutional. Are you a liberal? You sure sound like one.
And there were lots of other restrictions pushed through as well on free speech since. However, either you lift this restriction for all tax-exempt groups - or for none.
That is a totalitarian means to an end, and no such strings are permitted under the Constitution.
Once again, if you don't want the restrictions, don't take the tax break. No government entity restricts what I can say on FR (yet). But if JimRob were to accept tax breaks for FR, he would have to adhere to the terms of that tax break. Which is why he doesn't take any.
Again, what you promote is unconstitutional. Are you a liberal? You sure sound like one.
Typical. Because I, someone with a long posting history on FR and solid conservative credentials, disagrees with you on this particular issue, I must be a liberal. I'm in favor of much broader lifting of restrictions on political speech than this one targeted matter. I don't see in the First Amendment where freedom of speech only applies to religious organizations. I also see the concept of equal protection - where if you are going to grant this to churches, you should grant it to all groups.
But I'm the liberal.
Boy, you are as dense as dirt. ANY irs rule as applied to religious establishments is blatantly UN-CONSTUTIONAL on its face, reread the First and in may sink in...and that means the rule needs to be to be gone. Remember the rat candidate pandering in black churches in the last election? What did the irs do to those Churches, not a damn thing. No other organizations are singled out in the Constitution, as are religious establishments for hands off treatment by congress. To justify the irs, you have been brainwashed on this issue for tooo long.
Please knock off the personal attacks.
ANY irs rule as applied to religious establishments is blatantly UN-CONSTUTIONAL on its face, reread the First and in may sink in
I am quite familiar with the First Amendment, thank you. However, freedom of speech is not coupled to freedom of religion in the First - they are separate clauses. Churches should get no more exceptional 1st Amendment right to political speech than any other group. And there is that part of the Constitution about equal protection under the law.
However, in the day and age of McCain-Feingold, your Constitutional arguments and my Constututional arguments are moot. What is Constitutional any more is what Justices O'Connor or Kennedy decide is such, the actual words of the Constitution be damned. So we are reduced to more basic concepts of fairness - and if churches are going to be able to politic and remain tax-exempt, then that should apply to other groups as well. And I am in favor of far more broad opening up of political speech than just granting special dispensation to churches.
No, it is targeted specifically to churches.
You don't get it do you? The original 501(c)(3) IRS status did NOT have any such restrictions, they were pushed through by liberals who wanted to restrict the speech of conservative Christian churches and did so unconstitutionally!
It applies to all tax-exempt groups, not just churches.
What a kneejerk reaction. I am a newbie here too dirtboy.
I'm not a newbie.
Your being "new" has nothing to do with my asking you if you are a liberal. Your support of an unconstitutional law that restricts the speech of Christian churches does though.
Sorry, but accepting tax exempt status is not forcible restraint of speech, and fails the censorship test.
I suspect you are also anti-Christian and believe in evilution.
I think you should learn to search first and acccuse second. I happen to believe in evolution, but I am a solid supporter of Christians on this website and in society, even though I am more of a Deist.
No, but religion has no more right to unfettered political speech than any other group under the First. Try again. And knock off the crap and debate while you are at it.
To become a real hillbilly, come on down to NC, we are proud of our hillbilly status. :-)
Cool it.
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.