GOP Congressman Seeks to 'Restore Free Speech' in Churches

CNS News ^ | March 03, 2005 | Nathan Burchfiel

[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."

[jackbob]

These gutless wonders don't deserve their 15 minutes of ill-gotten fame.

Good! Then in pulling the reply, the moderator ought to at least copy it, paste it, x-out profanity, and re-post it, with an explanation on its unacceptableness. And of course, no mention of the "gutless wonders" screen name, so as not to give any ill-gotten fame. The reader is then respected as an adult, and not sheltered as a child.

[Caleb1411]

Good! Then in pulling the reply, the moderator ought to at least copy it, paste it, x-out profanity, and re-post it, with an explanation on its unacceptableness. And of course, no mention of the "gutless wonders" screen name, so as not to give any ill-gotten fame. The reader is then respected as an adult, and not sheltered as a child.

I'd be OK with that, too. Sounds like it'd be a lot of work for the moderator, but if he/she's got the time, we could all see the off-topic object lesson in incivility.

[aspiring.hillbilly]

No, no, no,,,, you just don't grasp this issue. The "whole concept" of government regs affecting churches or Establishments of religion in any way, be they voluntary or not--is UN-Constutional, by virtue of the "make no law" clause. Make no law means just that, Congress cannot make rules, either for churches to accept or to opt out. The lower courts are not addressing the constitutionality of the rules themselves, only applying the written rules. There should be no options for churches to even deal with, the fact that these exist at all runs afoul of the "make no law" clause...

[jackbob]

What all but about 10 or 15 seconds for most offending posts. I don't think that be long.

[Joe.E.Sixpack]

The "whole concept" of government regs affecting churches or Establishments of religion in any way, be they voluntary or not--is UN-Constutional, by virtue of the "make no law" clause. Make no law means just that, Congress cannot make rules, either for churches to accept or to opt out. The lower courts are not addressing the constitutionality of the rules themselves, only applying the written rules. There should be no options for churches to even deal with, the fact that these exist at all runs afoul of the "make no law" clause...

Exactly! I wonder precisely which part of "make NO law" they do not understand?

[aspiring.hillbilly]

(there are a few dolts on freerepublic just like anywhere else---we need to get their minds right, especially about Constitutional issues, knowledge of which is sadly lacking right up to the lackeys in government.)

[aspiring.hillbilly]

The same bunch a shiiiitheads who don't understand "no law" don't understand "shall not be infringed" either.

[Polybius]

endorsing political candidates in church is only a problem if the church endorses a republican. how many times have we seen prominent democrats at some church using the altar to give stump speeches?