Posted on 07/27/2006 8:20:43 AM PDT by xzins
Five years ago, I wrote about threats made by the Internal Revenue Service against conservative churches for supposedly engaging in politicking. Today, the IRS is again attempting to chill free speech, sending notices to more than 15,000 non-profit organizations—including churches—regarding its new crackdown on political activity.
But what exactly constitutes political activity? What if a member of the clergy urges his congregation to work toward creating a pro-life culture, when an upcoming election features a pro-life candidate? What if a minister admonishes churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful, when an initiative banning gay marriage is on an upcoming ballot? Where exactly do we draw the line, and when does the IRS begin to violate the First amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion?
I agree with my colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina that the political views of any particular church or its members are none of the government’s business. Congressman Jones introduced legislation that addresses this very serious issue of IRS harassment of churches engaging in conservative political activity. This bill is badly needed to end the IRS practice of threatening certain politically disfavored faiths with loss of their tax-exempt status, while ignoring the very open and public political activities of other churches. While some well-known leftist preachers routinely advocate socialism from the pulpit, many conservative Christian and Jewish congregations cannot present their political beliefs without risking scrutiny from the tax collector.
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine.
The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never envisioned a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths.
The political left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. Many Democrats, not all, are threatened by strong religious institutions because they want an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
The Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats. Religious institutions cannot freely preach their beliefs if they must fear that the government will accuse them of "politics." We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced. Free societies always have strong, independent institutions that are not afraid to challenge and criticize the government.
In talking about religion it talks about the church.
To say Jesus wasn't engaging in religion would be a ridiculous comment.
Everything Jesus did is religious: every lesson, every act, every word.
They could speak, ventriloquate, or fart as much as they want. They might have to start paying taxes, though.
OTOH "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the feedom of speech"
Hobson's choice requiring a choice to be made between speech and taxation is an abridgement of speech; a lien upon an unalienable right by taxing its exercise.
Whether a choice be required of an individual, church or any peaceful assembly of individuals to exercise unalienable rights, for Congress to make a law as a defacto tax on the exercise one's right to speech is forbidden.
Congress shall make no law, is not a maybe, it is an absolute restriction on government as regards the unalieanable rights of all individuals and assemblies to the freedom of political and religious speech.
That's an entirely different debate. But if we are going to have voluntary tax-exempt status, the same rules should apply across the board.
Absolute, eh? Explain that to American Indians & Rastafarians who can't use drugs as part of their worship or Mormons who can't practice bigamy in the U.S.
Scatch the word speech and insert the word exercise. The 1st is given below. I've bolded what applies "to the people", regardless of any condition whatsoever. Notice the 1st applies to neither the church, or the press. It applies "to the people".
Amendment I
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.
WWTFD*
(*see tagline)
The only orifice of theirs which could be restricted is their pockets - and this is not a sound producing orifice. They could fart [per Aristotle, it is ultimately the same as burp] as much as they want and are able to stand the smell of.
An interesting point and one I have wondered about which probably has a simple answer that I don't see. If the law gives a tax break to one group, say homeowners, then all in that group are treated equally. What about those outside that group? Were they treated equally to those inside it?
The FairTax is a VERY clear example of that and it boosts the economy of he country and benefits individual taxpayers as well.
Why is it that political speech is what causes the church or group to be taxable? If it were fashion tips or scifi book club recommendations, would that cause them to lose their tax status. I believe that the reason it is political speech is that the government wants to squelch sources of political speech. The saying says somethign to the effect of "tax what you want to destroy". It's better for the politicians if people aren't criticizing them. And if the peons deign to criticise their betters, those betters are going to try to make it as uncomfortable as possible.
My vote would be to do away with all tax exempt everything. I don't believe that these companies need this. Why should we support groups we don't believe in or even want to give to. That is what donations are for. Yes they will have to pay taxes on donations but will still have enough money to do good. Once this happens than all that extra funds would/could be given back to tax payers and some would give even more to charity.
I agree with you on that subject, but the issue here is about SINCE we HAVE a tax on political entities, why the heck should churches be exempt when they use the pulpit to proselytize for political issues and politicians?
Its a mute point anyway because traditionally the liberal black churches have supported actively - Democrats and their key left-wing issues like gun control.
Consequently the emasculated white capons in Washington won't do anything to challenge that because it would result in the dreaded scarlett letters "BIGOT" on their brain numbed foreheads.
A church is not a building. It's a bunch of people who've gathered together for mutual support through faith in Christ.
Therefore, any act of religion that I make is a personal act of religion, so to take even a dime of my act of religious giving, is to curtail my act of worship. That makes my religion "curtailed." If something is "curtailed," it is not "free."
If I block the stream behind my house, it is "curtailed," it is no longer "free" flowing.
If you are I form a non-profit organization and use that organization, e.g.the NRA, to make political statements and all of a sudden we are taxable.
Under the constitution political speech cannot be made taxable.
That my blind friend is a charge on the freedom speech. a lien on an unalienable right to be guaranteed under the Constitution.
Congress can make no law, is a clear prohibition against such regulation whether it is a church, or the NRA, or any peaceful assembly of individual exercising their clear and unalienable rights.
This has nothing to do with free speech in this context, just equality of treatment before the law.
It has everything to do with free speech and assembly in all contexts. Just and equal treatment requires that none be taxed in the exercise of inalienable rights, especially that such are so clearly held in guarantee under the Bill of Rights.
Many don't realize it, but pastors do.
The church is a form of mass communication.
Our connections with one another can transmit opinions, attitudes, and info through shared beliefs almost as fast as newspapers can do it.
Moreover, it comes wrapped in a moral package.
If you want a whispering campaign, get the right info at the right time to a local church.
That terrifies many politicians.
"... if we are going to have voluntary tax-exempt status ..."
Ah, but that's just the point!!! There's no valid reason for retaining such an income tax system as our tax revenues can be raised more efficiently and more cheaply with the FairTax while benefiting almost all taxpayers as well as the economy of the country.
For those of you not familiar with the FairTax, here's the bill (HR25). And it's a very interesting read.
In addition, there's a world on information on FairTax website.
There's lots of helpful information there on many, many different topics. Check the FAQs and Rebuttals for example.
Don't interfere in my worship of God and tell me it's free.
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.