H.R. 235 - Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (aka 1st Amendment v. IRS)

[Ladewig]

Walter Jones (http://clerk.house.gov/members/inter_mem_list.php?statdis=NC03) (R. North Carolina) has introduced a bill to prevent churches from losing their non-profit tax status if they engage in political endorsements. The bill specifically follows current law regarding campaign donations, but changes Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow any type of political statements during services or gatherings.

I've considered both sides and I don't agree with the bill.

Current law allows statements such as "gambling is evil and we must vote against any politician who wants to introduce it into our state." The line is drawn when specific candidates are mentioned favorably or unfavorably. I see the core of the issue as why do churches receive tax-exempt status in the first place. If they are promoting a religion, then they are following their primary purpose. If they are endorsing specific political candidates, then they have strayed beyond their purpose and have become political entities that should be treated as all other political entities.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Walter Jones (http://clerk.house.gov/members/inter_mem_list.php?statdis=NC03) (R. North Carolina) has introduced a bill to prevent churches from losing their non-profit tax status if they engage in political endorsements. The bill specifically follows current law regarding campaign donations, but changes Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow any type of political statements during services or gatherings.

I've considered both sides and I don't agree with the bill.

Current law allows statements such as "gambling is evil and we must vote against any politician who wants to introduce it into our state." The line is drawn when specific candidates are mentioned favorably or unfavorably. I see the core of the issue as why do churches receive tax-exempt status in the first place. If they are promoting a religion, then they are following their primary purpose. If they are endorsing specific political candidates, then they have strayed beyond their purpose and have become political entities that should be treated as all other political entities.

Look, the clergy already knows the left simply hates them. All this bill will do is allow the clergy to explain to people that they know the left hates them.

JK

[Gideon S]

Awesome then it really *would* be Christianity versus Islam, all pretense would be lost, and the US would be just as repressive and controlling as the "enemy".

It would be the cold war again! I for one can hardly wait, because it seems like every time the US gets oppressive, the eventual rejection gets more and more spectacular.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gideon S
Awesome then it really *would* be Christianity versus Islam, all pretense would be lost, and the US would be just as repressive and controlling as the "enemy".

It would be the cold war again! I for one can hardly wait, because it seems like every time the US gets oppressive, the eventual rejection gets more and more spectacular.

Let's be real for a moment. We know we are going to be at war with Islam for at least 50 years. You will have grandchildren joining the army to fight them by then.

So let's take off those rose colored glasses and look at the world with a little reality.

JK

[Gideon S]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Let's be real for a moment. We know we are going to be at war with Islam for at least 50 years. You will have grandchildren joining the army to fight them by then.

So let's take off those rose colored glasses and look at the world with a little reality.

JK

50 years or until Bush leaves office, whichever comes first.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Gideon S


50 years or until Bush leaves office, whichever comes first.


:rolleyes: This is just stupid. Islamic terror didn't magically appear when Bush took office.

[jj]

If Churches want to be secular, they pay tax.

It's that simple. Anything else is an act of treason.