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.
There is a saying - the more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets. You made your point about 25 posts ago.
It's time to change that.
It's time for the FairTax!!!
Dude, you're spamming now. These were not responses to you.
You can't imagine the absurd statements encountered by FairTax supporters (or, perhaps, you can).
I'd have to note, too, that the FairTax is far from being a "dead cat" as it now has more sponsors/cosponsors than any tax bill in history as well as powerful - and growing - grassroots support. It sounds to me as though you're not too current on the FairTax effort and are merely hoping to brush it off. Won't happen!
FairTax is an excellent idea.
I thought this was a public forum where people could offer up comments when they thought of the ... goes ta' show ya' ...
There are forum rules about spamming. You're doing that now. You are making basically the same post over and over to me, even though the posts you are responding to were to another poster, not to you. It's impolite. I really don't want to get thirty posts from you to me when I did not post them to you. A couple are enough.
Could you be thinking of Kent Hovind?
Yes - that is correct. My apologizes to Mr. Ham.
I see - it's OK if you do it, but you get to decide on who to shut off and who not to, eh?
Sort of like the government does using the tax laws??? Gottit!!
And when I see something in someone's post worth commenting on I plan to comment on it should the spirit move me (or do you get to grant/take away "exemptions" for that?).
Oh, and BTW, my posts are on topic about the IRS and tax system so they are hardly "spam". You may find them "impolite" and not care for them etc. but spam they ain't.
It is not a special privilege for religion to engage in political speech. It is part of religion to engage in political speech.
Honesty requires honesty about the culture and politics, too.
I think John Kerry is a lying, anti-God, pro-babykilling, anti-american, anti-family socialist. If it is the truth, then it should be said from some pulpit someplace.
True, but if government succeeds in stripping away the Church's tax exempt status it will affect the Church's ability to feed, house and care for the poor, and the government WILL take up the slack with more welfare benefits to more poor, that's a given.
The 1st Amendment says Congress can't pass any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. Since the legislation that established 501(c)(3) organizations acts to do exactly that, then that legislation violates the 1st Amendment and is therefore null and void.
You see, according to the Constitution, it's the Congress that doesn't have the right to do what it's done, not the churches.
Under the income tax:
an illegal earning 34,100 today keeps 34,100.
the illegal has no federal tax withheld - he's paid cash.
The illegal costs the employer 34,100 - the employer does not remit the 2608.75 in employer fica either).
Under the nrst:
an illegal earning 34,800 would only keep 26,800.
the illegal would provide $8000 in federal taxes. Would he work for $8,000 less?
Maybe. Maybe he'd ask for more. Maybe the employer would be just as well hiring a legal resident?
Since he's illegal, he doesn't get the monthly tax rebate to offset tax on necessities, so he bears a greater tax burden than legal residents.
A legal resident OTOH would fare much better. The same 34,100 (assuming a family of 4) would keep 32,329 as this legal family's rebate offsets much of their tax.
sorry pinged wrong poster
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.