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.
This "massive expense" is no proper business of government.
They can be. If they wish to engage in political activity, they can simply separate that from their tax-exempt activities like the NRA does.
Noncommercial and non-political. It's that simple.
I think it's far better not to have such a "choice" at all by voting in the FairTax. It will also greatly benefit the country's economy.
If this bill passes, expect there to be a Church of Soros by the 2008 elections. There is a damn good reason for not exempting political activities.
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.
In this you and I can fully agree!!!
The IRS needs to be dismantled. A more intrusive useless government agency can't be found.
There is no valid justification to infringe upon the free speech activities of any noncommercial org with taxation. The 1st Amend prohibits infringement of any kind in matters of association and expression. These activities are not commercial enterprise.
Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets regularly spoke about politics. Got them in a lot of trouble, as a matter of fact.
John the Baptist lost his head over the subject.
You are really asking a fair question, though. How does one prevent the abuse of religion such as perpetrated by Jim & Tammy Baker?
My sense is that there would be two types of fraud: one would be morally wrong but not illegal. The other type would be the kind that breaks fraud laws.
In the case of the first, the church trial process for that religious body will be what handles the situation.
Of course, anyone who breaks a law against fraud will be prosecuted for illegal behavior.
I love how this topic starts an internecine war about which group(s) should be taxed, bringing out people's envies and resentments, instead of focusing us on why the government has, or believes it has, the power to deem certain speech or assembly taxable. I think a lot of talk here missed the point, that the government is the enemy of freedom and liberty.
Churches are not subject to taxation per the 1st amendment provision about free exercise. You can't take some of my worship and say it was free; it wasn't free, it was curtailed. And that by act of congress, if they ever get around to doing it.
The NRA is a great organization, nonetheless. I applaud your support of them. :>)
They don't have the protection in the 2nd amendment of specifically being mentioned, though, as the church does in the 1st amendment.
The 1862 tax act also created what is now the IRS but it was then called the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whose first commissioner, George Boutwell, described it as "the largest Government department ever organized."
He seems to have been quite right and it's still with us today ... and still growing.
Noncommercial only. Politics is the art and science of guiding and influencing govm't policy. Outside of the 2nd Amendment, the first's prohibitions on ANY infringemnet apply. There is to be no taxation, or restriction whatsoever. Freedom requires that.
Great comment.
The constitution was created to limit the abuses that governments normally get around to engaging in.
You are confusing free expression with tax free.
The 1st Amend applies to everyone and anyone equally. There is no distinction regarding org contained in it's clear English words.
review
"It is my religion to say from the pulpit: "Abortion is Sin because it's murder. John Kerry supports abortion. Don't support John Kerry."
Jesus would say far more cutting than that. He'd tell John Kerry a parable about a rich, inconsiderate guy that ended up in the burning fire of hell."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right on~! (He'd also probably tell JK to get ready, cause that's where he's headed!)
One means of my expressing my faith is the religious act of giving to God.
It is a religious act. The money is thereby set aside as sacred to God. It is no different than if I gave volunteer hours or a box of altar candles.
Should the IRS charge a percentage of market value for volunteer hours? Should they take one out of every five candles?
They CURTAIL my religious act by preventing it from achieving its worship purpose. Therefore, my expression of my religion is not free, but rather, it is curtailed.
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.
What sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If some churhc claims to be a non-profit, then uses the pulpit to politicize, it should be a taxable entity.
This has nothing to do with free speech in this context, just equality of treatment before the law.
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.