Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.gcn.org/update0904a.html


I strongly oppose, why should churches have rights denied to other non-profits. This is clear attack on the seperation of Church and State. Remember, the Catholic center party of Germany enabled Hitler.

[A18]

How is letting religious leaders speak out about politics a violation of the separation of church and state? This is free speech.

[Jake]

If the black churches already have unwritten privelege to do this, why shouldn't all churches?

[A18]

No income that is just transferred from one group to spend on another's behalf, with no consumption, should be taxed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the black churches already have unwritten privelege to do this, why shouldn't all churches?

What? It's not black churches that have been kicking out Democrats from their church. Why should some fundie church be allowed to influence elections, but not the Sierra Club? They're both 501c3 non-profits.

[Emsworth]

It is perfectly appropriate for churches to be permitted to participate in campaigning. However, it is intolerable that such freedoms are not extended to other not-for-profit organizations. To extend free speech to religious bodies but not to other organizations would be absurd.

[A18]

Also, the use of the word churches is deceptive. It makes it sound like we're favoring Christianity. This is all religion. Here's the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.235:

Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 235 IH

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the `Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS FREE EXERCISE AND FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES, ETC.

      (a) In General- Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting after subsection (p) the following new subsection:

      `(q) An organization described in section 170(b)(1)(a)(1) or section 508(c)(1)(A) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, nor shall it be deemed to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection (c)(3) or section 170(c)(2), 2055, 2106, 2522, or 4955 because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.'.

      (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED.

      No member or leader of an organization described in section 501(q) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 2) shall be prohibited from expressing personal views on political matters or elections for public office during regular religious services, so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service. For purposes of the preceding sentence, dissemination beyond the members and guests assembled together at a service includes a mailing that results in more than an incremental cost to the organization and any electioneering communication under section 304(f) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(f)). Nothing in the amendment made by section 2 shall be construed to permit any disbursements for electioneering communications or political expenditures prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

----

I'd support extending this to any  research group, political oraganization, etc. You shouldn't be taxed again when you're just spending you're after-tax money on your own consumption.

[A18]

If the black churches already have unwritten privelege to do this, why shouldn't all churches?

What? It's not black churches that have been kicking out Democrats from their church. Why should some fundie church be allowed to influence elections, but not the Sierra Club? They're both 501c3 non-profits.

Sierra Club should too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's for every religion that the government recognizes. Under this law, Scientology gets to be involved in elections, but the Sierra Club can't be.

[Emsworth]

Also, the use of the word churches is deceptive. It makes it sound like we're favoring Christianity. This is all religion.

Religion shouldn't even be a factor. All non-profit organizations should be allowed to participate in election activities. Favoring religious bodies is ridiculous.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Allowing churches but not all non-profits is unconstitutional.

moot point though, this won't pass. It's just religious right pandering. It's been proposed many times before, and always gets shot down.

[A18]

Allowing churches but not all non-profits is unconstitutional.

Hahaha. It was like that until Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment to a bill to silence preachers, because they were speaking out about his scandals.

[Emsworth]

Allowing churches but not all non-profits is unconstitutional.

Hahaha. It was like that until Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment to a bill to silence preachers, because they were speaking out about his scandals.

Of course, prior usage does not automatically make a system constitutional. BOTF is quite correct; the legislation would be unconstitutional. Congress cannot, in effect, tax a body that participates in election activities merely because it is not religious.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If you want an even dumber example of a hilariously hypocritical unconstitutional bill, there was one in the Virginia House that would allow congregations to vote on whether to seperate their church from the main denomination. If they did so, they would gain all the assetts such as the church building with no compensation to the main denomination. This was obviously aimed at the Episocopal church and some people in it whining about more gay-friendly policies.

The bill is a load of crap on so many levels:

1-It's blatantly unconstitutional. It creates a new restriction on churches that allows their property to be seized without compensation and prohibits them from doing anything about it.
2-It violates exactly what religious right folks say the 1st amendment means about religion, protecting churches from government interference. This does exactly that, as explained above. It's not just conservative churches that are protected you know.
3-What's the point? If you don't like what your church is doing, go get a new one. If you're too homophobic to remain an Episcopalian, there's bound to be some fundie denomination in agreement with your views. That's what freedom of religion is all about.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It has been introduced in both the 108th and 109th (current) Congresses, sponsered by Rep. Jones (NC-3). The 108th Congress version has 167 co-sponsers.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00235:@@@N
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00235:@@@N

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It was also introduced and voted down in the 107th I think. It's just a lobbyist pandering bill, not intended to pass. Both sides do it all the time.

Anyone realize the giant loophole this would create if it did anyway? All the Sierra Club would have to do is declare itself a church and start calling itself The Church of the Sierra Club or something and it'd have the same status.

[A18]

Allowing churches but not all non-profits is unconstitutional.

Hahaha. It was like that until Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment to a bill to silence preachers, because they were speaking out about his scandals.

Of course, prior usage does not automatically make a system constitutional. BOTF is quite correct; the legislation would be unconstitutional. Congress cannot, in effect, tax a body that participates in election activities merely because it is not religious.

If anything, giving conditional tax-exempt status itself is unconstitutional, because it violates free speech and censors the free exchange of ideas.

All non-profits should be exempt.

[opebo]

All non-profits and churches should be taxed just like any other entity, individual or business.

[A18]

All non-profits and churches should be taxed just like any other entity, individual or business.

There's a difference between real income derived from consumption, and the neutral transfer of wealth from one party to another for the original holder's purposes with no exchange of productivity.

Anyway, these organizations are ALREADY tax-exempt. The issue is whether they should all be allowed to influence elections, and I think any good conservative or liberal alike would say yes.

[opebo]

All non-profits and churches should be taxed just like any other entity, individual or business.

There's a difference between real income derived from consumption, and the neutral transfer of wealth from one party to another for the original holder's purposes with no exchange of productivity.

Anyway, these organizations are ALREADY tax-exempt. The issue is whether they should all be allowed to influence elections, and I think any good conservative or liberal alike would say yes.

Yes, but only if their tax-exempt status is revoked.

And their income is derived from 'consuption' - they sell a con, in other words dupe for a living.

[A18]

Look, if you don't know what the difference between having your friend by you each a coke with a dollar bill, and real income, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

[Blue Rectangle]

This bill's protection of "involvement" in elections only extends to speech occurring within the church.  It specifically omits any speech that extends beyond the members from this protection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have absolutely no problem with this.  I also have no problem if Sierra Club members get together at a meeting and complain about Bush.

Churches have been threatened with loss of tax-exempt status because of what was said by members to other member in a private setting.  I don't recall the NAACP, NOW or the Sierra Club being threatened with the same after those organizations have had heavily political meetings of their members.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This bill's protection of "involvement" in elections only extends to speech occurring within the church.  It specifically omits any speech that extends beyond the members from this protection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have absolutely no problem with this.  I also have no problem if Sierra Club members get together at a meeting and complain about Bush.

Churches have been threatened with loss of tax-exempt status because of what was said by members to other member in a private setting.  I don't recall the NAACP, NOW or the Sierra Club being threatened with the same after those organizations have had heavily political meetings of their members.

No, it's a law that only applies to churches with 501c3s, and not other non-profits with 501c3s. The Sierra Club will be held to a higher standard than Scientology.

[Blue Rectangle]

This bill's protection of "involvement" in elections only extends to speech occurring within the church.  It specifically omits any speech that extends beyond the members from this protection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have absolutely no problem with this.  I also have no problem if Sierra Club members get together at a meeting and complain about Bush.

Churches have been threatened with loss of tax-exempt status because of what was said by members to other member in a private setting.  I don't recall the NAACP, NOW or the Sierra Club being threatened with the same after those organizations have had heavily political meetings of their members.

No, it's a law that only applies to churches with 501c3s, and not other non-profits with 501c3s. The Sierra Club will be held to a higher standard than Scientology.

Is the Sierra Club currently at risk of loosing its tax-exempt status because of what members say behind closed doors?

[Erc]

The last four sermons at my church have essentially been four political speeches against Bush's policies.

My mother told me of a late October/early November mass at her church in which the gist of the sermon was essentially "Just because Kennedy's Catholic doesn't mean you should vote for him."

Churches have always been political...people are always political.