Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Refuses To Free Churches From Lyndon Johnson Gag Order
Traditional Values Coalition ^ | Tuesday, October 8, 2002 | Louis P. Sheldon

Posted on 10/08/2002 1:19:41 PM PDT by Polycarp

Congress Refuses To Free Churches From Lyndon Johnson Gag Order

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC – On October 2, the House of Representatives voted 178-239 to defeat the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act (H.R. 2357) offered by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC).

H.R. 2357 was designed to revise IRS code to remove restrictions placed on churches and non-profit organizations in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. Prior to 1954, churches and non-profits had no such restrictions on their freedom of speech or their right to speak out in favor or against political issues or candidates.

The history of this IRS gag order is instructive. It began with the fraudulent election of Johnson to the Senate in 1948. It has been well established by both conservative and liberal historians that Lyndon Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948 was won by massive voter fraud. Known as “Landslide Lyndon,” this mean-spirited political operative was “elected” by only 87 votes. His challenger, Coke Stevenson challenged his election and presented credible evidence that hundreds of votes for Johnson had been faked. Johnson, however, was successful in blocking Stevenson’s effort by the clever use of court injunctions.

In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnson’s liberal agenda. In retaliation, Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, this thoroughly corrupt man used the power of the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked.

The legislation proposed by Rep. Jones was designed to overturn Johnson’s vindictive gag order against his political opposition. There is no reason for this gag order to remain in effect, but Congress apparently thinks it must perpetuate bad public policy simply because it exists.

Organizations like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State continue to claim that this Johnson gag order must be upheld to protect “church/state separation.” This is irrational and fails to take into account the entire history of religious freedom in the United States.

Throughout our nation’s history—both before and after the American Revolution—our nation’s pastors freely spoke out on the political and moral issues of the day. It was their duty and their right under the Constitution to preach against immorality and corruption in the political and the moral realm. Historian James H. Hutson, writing in Religion and the Founding of the American Republic notes: “Preachers seemed to vie with their brethren in other colonies in arousing their congregations against George III.” And, as Hutson discovered, the House of Representatives sponsored church services in its chambers for nearly 100 years. These services only ended when convenient transportation was available to take Members of Congress home for the weekend.

It is interesting to observe that our Founding Fathers and our first elected officials didn’t have any notion of “church/state separation” so vehemently endorsed by Americans United and other modernist groups. Our Founders valued religion and wrote the First Amendment to protect the free expression of religious beliefs—and the freedom to speak out on the moral issues—including those involving politics and politicians.

The disservice that Lyndon Johnson did to religious freedom has yet to be undone, but in the next session of Congress, perhaps H.R. 2357 will be passed—as it should be—to undo Johnson’s vengeful action against his political opponents. Let’s finally exorcise our public policies of the sad legacy of Landslide Lyndon.

Traditional Values Coalition is an interdenominational public policy organization representing more than 43,000 churches across the United States. For more information, contact Katie Bruton at 202-547-8570. TVC's Web site is: www.traditionalvalues.org.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: catholiclist

1 posted on 10/08/2002 1:19:41 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Antoninus; aposiopetic; Aquinasfan; Aristophanes; ...
ping
2 posted on 10/08/2002 1:20:51 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The Republicans had a majority of both the Senate and the House as well as the Presidency in 1954. These changes may be due to LBJ, but they were approved by the GOP and signed by Eisenhower.
3 posted on 10/08/2002 1:27:42 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Liberal churches and nonprofits never had to follow that limitation.
4 posted on 10/08/2002 1:28:14 PM PDT by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The greatest injustice in this matter arises from the selective enforcement of this law. Black churches, which favor liberal politicians, have acted as centers of political activism for decades. After all, a large number of black leaders (Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Abernathy, Al Sharpton) have been ministers. Democratic politicians have appeared at black churches during Sunday morning services during election season as a matter of course. The whip is cracked whenever conservative Christian churches or parachurch ministries take a stand in political affairs, at least when Democrats are in office. Witness the IRS crackdown on several churches and ministries (notably the Christian Coalition) during the Clinton Administration. Yet no action against liberal black churches has been taken by any GOP administration, from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush, either out of fear of being called racist or because someone in the Democrat Party has the goods on prominent Republicans.

Like the "Fairness Doctrine," which was used to thwart conservative presence on the airwaves for 20 years, the restriction on churches in the area of political speech is a form of liberal oppression that must be abolished.

5 posted on 10/08/2002 1:33:47 PM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Maybe they, like the Republican-controlled House that just shot that bill down, figured that theocracies wouldn't work any better here in the USA than they have in places like Iran or Afghanistan.

Regardless, though, if there's a double standard in terms of how this gag order is applied to LIBERAL churches, then we need to raise Caine with the IRS for not enforcing the law objectively. Fortunately President Bush's homeland security initiative is making it easier to fire parasitic bureaucrats across the entire federal government.

Jerry Falwell firmly believes that Jesse Jackson has been allowed to behave politically in churches in ways that conservatives could never get away with doing. Now that this bill has been defeated even in a Republican-controlled House, isn't it time to move on to plan B: better enforcement of the existing rule so that Liberals can no longer get away with illegal mischief while still claiming tax-exempt status?


6 posted on 10/08/2002 1:35:22 PM PDT by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
Between 1776 and 1955 we did not have a Theocracy. In fact we did not have a theocracy during the late 18th and early 19th century when some states had official churches.
What basis do you have to presume taht we will have a Theocracy if we go back to the freedom of speech we had from 1850-1955?
The factis that we are a very diverse country with regard to religion. There are hundreds of sects in this country. To assume that once would dominate is preposterous.
What I do so is a domination by the state for the purpose of a particular beliefs system: Atheism, under the guse of seperation.
7 posted on 10/08/2002 1:56:29 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
>>>Between 1776 and 1955 we did not have a Theocracy. In fact we did not have a theocracy during the late 18th and early 19th century when some states had official churches.<<<


Various states had STATE laws which made sure that the state and church were separate during that time. In Virginia, for example, Jefferson authored his state's religious independence bill.

The US DOES, indeed, have numerous religions. The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not?
8 posted on 10/08/2002 2:10:32 PM PDT by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dialup Llama
Just listen to Pacifica Radio and tell me that they don't violate their 501c3 non-profit status. They just had an internal coup to overthrow the music programmers and replace programming with left wing propaganda (they still keep some music on the air because that is where they get a response to their fundraising efforts).
9 posted on 10/08/2002 2:25:31 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
The US DOES, indeed, have numerous religions. The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not?

I can say with confidence that God does not sanction the slaughter of the preborn. In fact, God is ProLife! It therefore follows that God is not in favor of proabort/prochoice politicians and political parties. It therefore follows that God is not in favor of nations that have legalized baby shredding. Those that oppose what God favors, such as live babies instead of dead shredded babies, are enemies of God.

10 posted on 10/08/2002 2:31:22 PM PDT by Lester Moore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Actually, the title is misleading. Churches are perfectly free to endorse candidates and to lobby for legislation (such as anti-abortion laws). What they are not free to do is to retain their tax-exempt status upon doing so. No one's being gagged. It's their own desire to suck at the government teat that is plugging their mouths.

This law doesn't prevent churches from hosting politicians to speak to their congregations, nor does it prevent pastors from speaking out on abortion, or other issues of the day. Churches supporting conservative causes are as welcome to do this as those supporting liberal causes. Certainly there are plenty of conservative pastors speaking out against abortion.

What it does do is prevent said churches from donating money to a party, or to a candidate. It also prevents a church from campaigning, as a church (as opposed to individuals) for a candidate or from endorsing a candidate, while still retaining their tax-free status. Political organizations (GOP, Dems, etc.) are not tax-exempt, and your donations to them are not tax-deductible (as opposed to donations to churches). If a church starts acting like a political party or a PAC, then they become taxable.
11 posted on 10/08/2002 2:31:44 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
I wrote:
Between 1776 and 1955 we did not have a Theocracy. In fact we did not have a theocracy during the late 18th and early 19th century when some states had official churches.

ETH responded
Various states had STATE laws which made sure that the state and church were separate during that time. In Virginia, for example, Jefferson authored his state's religious independence bill.
Thank you for citing the exception, which proves the rule. MA and CT Congregationalist, NY NJ NC SC and GA were Anglican/Episcopalian. In these states, all citizens were taxed to pay for the Established STATE CHURCH. I'm not sure about the others. I certainly don't support State Churches, but the point remains that your fear is ahistorical.

The US DOES, indeed, have numerous religions. The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not?

Nope. A Theocracy is a place where the Established Church runs the government. Having various congregations get involved in political controversies or even endorsing candidates does no such thing.

12 posted on 10/08/2002 2:40:17 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RonF
What they are not free to do is to retain their tax-exempt status upon doing so.

Well, Jesse Jackson gets to keep his, and go on preaching regardless. I believe this is the point: conservative churches get harassed while liberal churches don't. The law is supposed to be applied fairly and it is not.

13 posted on 10/08/2002 2:55:17 PM PDT by pray4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD


14 posted on 10/08/2002 2:57:30 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RonF
The tax-exempt status of churches and other nonprofit organizations is a baited trap for those organizations. A few years ago, a Catholic bishop spoke about the possibility of excommunicating the numerous Catholic politicians who favored abortion on demand. Rep. Charles Rangel, of the House Ways and Means Committee, a pro-abortion Democrat and a communicant Catholic, questioned whether his church would retain its tax-exempt status if the bishops started excommunication procedures. Not one pro-abortion politician has been excommunicated from the Catholic Church, to my knowledge. Not that this is a Catholic problem alone; the Southern Baptist Convention has yet to condemn First Baptist Church of Little Rock, home church of President Clinton, for failing to exercise church discipline against X42.

Since the law was passed 48 years ago, the Executive Branch has been held by the Republicans for 28 of those 48 years. If any enforcement of the political prohibition against nonprofits, churches or otherwise, was conducted by the Justice Department or the IRS at any time from Eisenhower to Bush II, I am not aware of it. Black churches are the most flagrant violators, but environmentalist groups like the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club are equally guilty of advocacy of liberal causes. Unfortunately, prosecuting a black organizaion, even a corrupt one like Jesse Jackson's Operation Push, is perceived as political poison. Likewise, going after environmental groups, especially ones like the Nature Conservancy, with its facade of moderation and cash payments to landowners, is also seen as political poison.

Sometimes, I have to agree with the cynics who point out that our two party system consists of the Evil Party (Democrats) and the Stupid Party (Republicans). In any case, the law muzzling churches' political speech at the expense of losing their tax exempt status has never been enforced equitably, nor is it likely to be enforced fairly. The law is bad public policy and needs to be repealed.

15 posted on 10/08/2002 3:09:42 PM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
I sed: >>>The US DOES, indeed, have numerous religions. The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not? <<<

You sez: >>>Nope. A Theocracy is a place where the Established Church runs the government. Having various congregations get involved in political controversies or even endorsing candidates does no such thing.<<<


Dictionary.com sez: "theocracy: 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance."


We respectfully disagree.


16 posted on 10/08/2002 3:18:31 PM PDT by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I imagine Mosque is allowed to say whatever it wants, huh?
17 posted on 10/08/2002 3:21:32 PM PDT by YoungKentuckyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Let's see!

Amendment I, U.S. Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The IRS code is a law made by Congress. Tax laws, whether to tax a religion or to prohibit political speech because of tax exempt status, is "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The tax code, as applied to religion's, is blatantly and categorically unconstitutional.

Just because a "benefit" may accrue from a federal law, "...desire to suck at the government teat...," as you put it, the law(s) still cannot violate the Bill of Rights.

18 posted on 10/08/2002 4:48:39 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
 Prior to 1954, churches and non-profits had no such restrictions on their freedom of speech or
their right to speak out in favor or against political issues or candidates.

1954.  Wasn't that about the time 'under God' was shoe-horned
into the Pledge of Allegiance?    Politics was plucked from
the pulpit, and the pulpit was poked into the Pledge.  Priceless.
And now what's is, is.  Bwahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

19 posted on 10/08/2002 4:50:42 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: gcruse
Sounds like Christians of the time traded meaningful policy for a feel-goodism.
21 posted on 10/08/2002 5:40:05 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pray4liberty
Well, Jesse Jackson gets to keep his, and go on preaching regardless. I believe this is the point: conservative churches get harassed while liberal churches don't. The law is supposed to be applied fairly and it is not.

Now, you know full well that Je$$e Jack$on has nothing to do with God, Jesus or religion.

22 posted on 10/08/2002 5:46:40 PM PDT by Thumper1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
The Republicans had a majority of both the Senate and the House as well as the Presidency in 1954. These changes may be due to LBJ, but they were approved by the GOP and signed by Eisenhower.

And it's Catholics who were the primary thorn in the side of the pols ... particularly those champing at the bit to "educate" the nation about Environmental issues and population control once their trials of exterminating black and Puerto Ricans had proven successful.

23 posted on 10/08/2002 6:36:02 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
I bet the vote was pretty much aloing party lines.This is a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech should not be denied anywhere. I say take this issue to court.I agree with you on holding the liberal churchs to the same standards.
24 posted on 10/08/2002 7:49:41 PM PDT by moteineye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: moteineye
Your posting is quite sensible, although the GOP controls the majority of the House and yet substantially less than half voted for the bill:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20021003-36760510.htm

October 3, 2002

House defeats effort to allow tax-free politics in churches

ASSOCIATED PRESS
The House yesterday rejected a bill that would have let religious
leaders talk freely about politics without endangering their organizations'
tax-exempt status.
The bill, which caused splits in the religious community and inside the
Republican Party, was defeated on a 239-178 vote.


25 posted on 10/08/2002 7:56:26 PM PDT by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
>>>So it's ok to get your ideas from the Washington Times, but not from the bible? After all, if no one religion or religious leaders are in charge of the government, that's really the only difference.<<<

Another difference: tax exempt status.

26 posted on 10/08/2002 7:57:47 PM PDT by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
In essence we are hoping to make it legal for Republican candidates to speak from the pulpit just as the dems have done for decades.

Unbelievable.
27 posted on 10/09/2002 4:34:09 AM PDT by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Tax laws, whether to tax a religion or to prohibit political speech because of tax exempt status, is "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I'm afraid that I must disagree with this statement. Certainly, tax laws can be unfairly structured so as to kill off an entity or activity. But in and of itself, simplying applying a tax to an activity isn't considered prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Freedom of speech is another activity that is also protected on this basis, yet putting corporate or sales tax on newspapers isn't "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So why would taxing a church at rates common to those of other landowners or corporate entities be viewed as such? My understanding is that non-profit entities such as churches, hospitals, charities, etc.., are not taxed because the operation of such entities is seen as a public benefit, and taking their money makes less sense than allowing them to keep it and use it for purposes that are in the public interest. I imagine that this is why there are there are multiple different types of NFP's, so as to weigh the level of public interest there is in allowing them particular tax privileges, and why contributions to them are treated differently (some are tax deductible, some are not). What I don't believe is that NFP's in general, or churches in particular, are relieved of taxes because to tax them would prevent them from the "free exercise" of their activities.

28 posted on 10/09/2002 1:23:51 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pray4liberty
Organizations that Jesse Jackson heads, or is a member or officer of, may well retain their tax-exempt status, but Jesse Jackson himself certainly does not. The fact that Jesse Jackson, or Jerry Falwell, are politically active doesn't mean that their organizations would or should lose their tax-exempt status, as long as those organizations, as corporate bodies, are not politically active.
29 posted on 10/09/2002 1:26:35 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
The Congress of 1954 passed a new Internal Revenue Code which was substantially different from its predecessor. It was called the "Internal Revenue Code of 1954" at least until the time of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This provision may have been the price of LBJ's support for that Code.

What makes the provision on tax exemption particularly objectionable is that it isn't enforced impartially. Black churches have long been blatantly political. The NAACP has now dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship. If the provision isn't going to be applied to some organizations for partisan reasons, it's unfair to retain the provision in the law.

30 posted on 10/09/2002 1:31:14 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy; Taxman
And then there is the third possible course of action: get rid of the income tax.
31 posted on 10/09/2002 1:32:59 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

The Freeper Tagline Challenge!
For every dollar donated to FR in support of bringing back the Tag Line
I will match those donations up to a total of $500

Please let me know the amount you donate, thanks.

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Fund Raiser thread here

32 posted on 10/09/2002 1:40:29 PM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Well thought out, aristeides.

I have been singularly unsuccessful in convincing major religious leaders that the National Retail Sales Tax will FRee their churches from their IRS chains.

The NRST renders moot the distinction between various types of (taxable or non-taxable) corporations, and by abolishing the IRS, eliminates the agency which enforces the "Thou Shalt Not Talk Politics FRom the Pulpit (unless you are Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or one of their ilk)" rule.

Works for me. Does it work for any of you Ministers out there?
33 posted on 10/09/2002 5:14:18 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RonF
"...so as to weigh the level of public interest there is in allowing them particular tax privileges,..."

It is because of biases such as these, that our liberties have been eroded and are so blatantly and brazenly violated by our elected representatives and police without fear of retribution by their fellow citizens.

Phrases such as "public interest" and "tax privileges" are the main lyrics to the socialist and communist anthem.

The Bill of Rights, is not the Bill of Privlileges.

Amendment I states clearly, precisely, and unambiguously, "Congress shall make no law..."

If an interpretation is needed to determine its meaning, which in this case "no" means "no," what is there to interpretate, why would you not advocate erring on the side of liberty instead on the side of socialism/communism?

You have been "trained" well as an unabashed socialist/communist, most probably inadvertently, because female school teachers constantly drummed into your head that it is important to "share" and "get along."

So when your government wishes to violate your liberties in the name of "public interest" you are already biased to support that irreprehensible suggestion and behavior without question.

Live the liberty paradigm.

34 posted on 10/10/2002 5:48:08 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
If an interpretation is needed to determine its meaning, which in this case "no" means "no," what is there to interpretate, why would you not advocate erring on the side of liberty instead on the side of socialism/communism?

Do me a favor, would you? Review the last posting I made again and explain where I advocated any such thing, or anything at all?

Your posting accuses me twice of being biased, of advocating a particular viewpoint, and of having been being trained as a communist and socialist. Strong words, but unfortunately the thought process behind them is quite sloppy.

What I did do is report on the information I have learned from the process of being involved in multiple not-for-profit organizations, and by going through the process of incorporating one under the laws of Illinois and gaining 501(c)(3) status for it under the Federal Tax Code. I reported what the law is, and the rationale that's been given for why it was written as it is and how it's being interpreted. I don't recall giving my opinion on the fitness of any of that, or it's conformance to the Constitution.

You clearly are of the opinion that such law violates the First Amendment. Fine. This is certainly the proper forum for offering and defending such an opinion. But don't put words into my mouth, just because you don't like the information I've presented.

In fact, the first posting I made to this thread was that my opinion was that taxing churches, etc., should not be interpreted as interfering with the free exercise of religion. That would seem to support your contention, not oppose it.

35 posted on 10/10/2002 7:15:47 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EODGUY
In essence we are hoping to make it legal for Republican candidates to speak from the pulpit just as the dems have done for decades.

Excuse me. Are you then contending that Republican candidates and officials don't appear at the pulpits of churches? I seem to recall a number of appearances by politicans such as John Ashcroft, etc., at Southern Baptist churches. You might want to check that.

36 posted on 10/10/2002 7:19:43 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RonF
RonF you stated,

"Your posting accuses me twice of being biased, of advocating a particular viewpoint,"

I did not accuse you of being biased, I said you have a bias towards your government's interest versus the individual's interest.

And your words indicate that bias:

"...to weigh the level of public interest there is in allowing them..." (your first post)

"Weighing...public interest..." and "...allowing them..." are not phrases of liberty and a bias towards individual rights which are so clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I, U.S. Constitution, bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Only those who are biased towards the revenue needs of our government versus the clear, unambiguous, and categorical declaration, "Congress shall make no law...," interpret this amendment to mean, " So why would taxing a church at rates common to those of other landowners or corporate entities be viewed as such?" (your words in post one)

"Review the last posting I made again and explain where I advocated any such thing, or anything at all?"

I believe I have.

37 posted on 10/12/2002 6:00:00 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Does this mean that demoncrats can no longer use black pulpits to preach their racism and anti-Americanism from? Because if it does we should sue a church blind in one eye for allowing a politician to use it's pulpit.
38 posted on 10/12/2002 6:29:48 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Let's try this again:

"What I did do is report on the information I have learned from the process of being involved in multiple not-for-profit organizations, and by going through the process of incorporating one under the laws of Illinois and gaining 501(c)(3) status for it under the Federal Tax Code. I reported what the law is, and the rationale that's been given for why it was written as it is and how it's being interpreted."

I reported on information in the tax laws; that is, I stated information that I've discovered in reviewing Federal and Illinois tax codes. In them, they give the rationale that I've reported; that the State of Illinois and the Federal Government believe that it's in the public interest to provide certain benefits to organizations that behave in certain fashions, and don't behave in others.

That's a factual statement; that's the rationale they use. Wherein do you find that I endorse it?

I don't recall giving my opinion on the fitness of any of that, or it's conformance to the Constitution."

39 posted on 10/13/2002 2:11:49 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RonF
"I seem to recall a number of appearances by politicans such as John Ashcroft, etc., at Southern Baptist churches. You might want to check that."

Just read your post. Since you "seem" to recall a number of appearances, you "might want to" supply the evidence that Republicans have campaigned from the pulpit. Giving testimony of their religious beliefs is not germaine to my comment.
40 posted on 10/13/2002 11:07:31 PM PDT by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: All
bttt
41 posted on 11/20/2002 7:56:22 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
For a number of reasons, including this one, I support a Nat'l Retail Sales Tax and the abolition of the IRS.
42 posted on 11/20/2002 8:03:38 PM PST by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev
Thanks for the ping.

This is the e-mail I just sent to Dr. Sheldon:


Dear Dr. Sheldon,

I have just finished reading your article "Congress Refuses To Free Churches From Lyndon Johnson Gag Order."

Might I suggest that the Traditional Values Coalition investigate supporting the National Retail Sales Tax initiative that has been proposed by Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) (H.R. 2717) and Rep. John Linder (R-GA) (H.R. 2525)?

The effect of replacing the progressive income tax with a National Retail Sales Tax will be to FRee the church from the iron grip of the IRS.

For more information on this most important initiative, please go to http://www.salestax.org and http://www.votr.org.

I would urge you to carefully study our idea, and if you agree with us, join the National Retail Sales Tax Alliance and encourage your members to do likewise. We can repeal the income tax and FRee the church from the IRS, but we need your help to do so.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me, toll free, at 877-937-6778.

God Bless you and your organization for what you are doing.

We look forward to your help.

Sincerely,

Frank L. Davis, Jr., USNR (Ret)
Executive Vice President
National Retail Sales Tax Alliance, Inc.
43 posted on 11/21/2002 8:10:15 AM PST by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
The idea that any churches could continue having tax-exempt status while potentially suggesting to their congregations that "God[s] told me we must vote for this politician" brings theocracies to mind, though, does it not?

No it does not bring Theocracies to mind.

Free speech for all produces as a great a diversity as you can get. Most Christians such as myself would never want a man-made theocracy.

44 posted on 11/03/2014 12:56:57 PM PST by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson