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.
So you would be OK with a priest saying that if you don't volunteer or at least vote for a certain person or party they will then deny you sacraments?
I have no problem with churches speaking out on moral issues, but when they equate being faithful to God with supporting a party or person (or appear to do so) they cross the line, the same line that keeps the government from establishing a state church. Do you want a state religion?
That is not the traditional and historical view that our government and populace have had toward houses of faith.
Why should it change now?
What if the IRS comes up with some rule that you can't engage in political speech and keep your mortgage deduction?
Give it up, and you can say what you want. In the meantime, they're giving you a benefit, so you better shut up.
Of course, we have seen in recent years that some animals are more equal than others. Bubba, Jesse, Al, and that ilk routinely held what can only be called partisan campaign rallies in ostensible houses of worship.
As long as the "right" people benefit, the practice will continue.
The only way that it's relevant is that most churches have voluntarily decided to cede what would otherwise be a constitutional right to free speech in order to be tax-exempt. Once again, no one forces them to do so.
Sounds like your beef should be with those churches, not me.
It's nice that you are allowed to think that.
But what if it IS THERE RELIGION to comment on politics from the pulpit?
That was the religion of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, all the other prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus.
They didn't have income taxes back then, or my guess is they would have been taxed if they preached politics - which I'm not sure all of them did anyway.
Remember, its only the SECOND oldest "profession"
In addition, the IRS would be eliminated (and for good measure defunded), the income tax records would be required to be destroyed and the 16th amendment is identified as being something that should be repealed (the FairTax bill is a tax bill and cannot also be a constitutional amendment repeal bill). There is, however, such a repeal bill before the House at present.
So you took LBJ's bait hook line and sinker. Churches in this country ALWAYS enjoyed tax exempt status without applying for anything. It was not until LBJ wrote an amendment to a bill that became law that made it a quasi-requirement that churches register. Prior to 1954 it was an assumed right of the church to be tax exempt. Now people assume this is some special previledge, but it is not. If there is going to be a separation of Church and State, there better not be any taxes on Churches.
their...not there
Let's review.
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 not establish a national religion. Check.
Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Check.
Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech or of the press. Check.
Yes, I believe all of these take precedence over anything the IRS is planning to do. Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue in 1862 (Revenue Act of 1862). Therefore, an agency created by Congress cannot infringe on these rights.
Frankly I hope they do revoke the Church's tax free status, because then the Church would be free from the corrupt influence and pressure that the government exerts on it to remain silent on issues that affect not only our lives, but our souls. The Church would feel free again to speak its mind about evil, something that exists everywhere, even in the IRS.
Actually yes, but you are unwilling to acknowledge why tax-exempt status is granted - for charitable works. And that transcends churches - non-religious organizations can get tax-exempt status as well.
Passing the FairTax into law for taxation would eliminate their ability to use this threat since income - no matter the source - would not be taxed; only consumer consumption. Churches would then be free to have free speech under the Constitution as originally intended (and not now practiced).
B R A V O ! ! !
I simply cannot be said any better than that!
Railroad? Tax-exampt status is voluntary. Churches can be like the NRA and separate their political and non-political activities.
Sorry.
Their, not there, or even they're.
Sometimes English can be annoying.
If you read the IRS publications concerning 501(c)(3) organizations, even without applying for such status, Churches are still presumed to be tax exempt. Most people including accountants don't realize that, but it is how the IRS rules read.
It's called FREEDDOM!! And the FairTax gets us there quickly and reasonably.
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.