Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-04-2002, 02:52 PM

Newsletter from the Interfaith Alliance(TIA):

H.R. 2357 ACHIEVES RECORD CO-SPONSORSHIP

In early October, The Interfaith Alliance (TIA) alerted you to the introduction of two stealth Religious Right bills in the Congress: H.R. 2357, The House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, and H.R. 2931, The Bright-Line Act of 2001. Both of these bills would allow houses of worship to actively participate in - and contribute church funds to - political activities.

At the time of TIA`s alert, U.S. Rep. Walter Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), the architect of H.R. 2357, had managed to attract 76 congressional colleagues to join him as co-sponsors.

In an alarming development, Jones has now managed to achieve the co-sponsorship of 113 members of Congress. Through means such as Pat Robertson`s 700 Club and the direct mail solicitations of the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition, Jones has effectively built conservative grassroots support for H.R. 2357.

While the bill is still sitting in the House Ways and Means Committee and there has not been an official date set for a vote, it is being reported that the bill will possibly be voted on sometime in April. There are seven members of the Ways and Means Committee that have signed on to co-sponsor the bill.

TIA is monitoring this bill closely and will alert you to further opportunities for grassroots advocacy.

To see if your member of Congress is a co-sponsor,
please visit: <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquerytr/z?d107:HR02357:@@@P" target="_blank">this site</a>.

ohwilleke · 04-05-2002, 10:33 AM

I wonder if the Bill would make the same progress if it included all non-profits?

Zimyatin · 04-05-2002, 03:34 PM

I think this is crap. It's very good policy to prevent tax-exempt religions from advocating political issues. Because they don't contribute to the public treasury they shouldn't be able to affect it's possible distribution. Of course, the separation of church and state easily comes into play here.

theyeti · 04-06-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zimyatin:
<strong>I think this is crap. It's very good policy to prevent tax-exempt religions from advocating political issues.</strong>

Actually, they're not prevented from advocating political issues. Hell, half of them won't shut-up about political issues. It makes you wonder when they find time to pray, or what exactly they pray to. What they're prevented from doing is advocating for political parties or candidates, and specifically from giving money to the campaigns of the aforementioned. This is no different from any other non-profit, even those that focus on political advocacy. They do of course have the freedom to do this at any time, but in doing so they must give up their tax-exempt status -- and finally render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

The only way to make this Constitutional or even "fair" in any reasonable sense would be to have this law apply to all non-profits, not just churches. This would, in the long run, mean that all money donated to political campaigns would then be tax deductable, after having been suitably filtered through a non-profit, and would make a great write-off for those who would rather not give to charitable causes. Not a good idea if you ask me; neither our tax code nor our campaign finance need more loop holes. It would also mean that liberal non-profit advocacy groups would be in on the act too. And for that reason, don't expect your local conservative to support a fair and Consitutional (if still stupid) version of this bill.

Of course, the reason why conservative Congressmen are falling all over themselves to support this bill is that it is unfair -- unfair in their favor! They stand to rake in millions in campaign contributions from conservative churches who feel that influencing the political process is more important than worship and fellowship. The potential for abuse is legion; dummy churches will be set up whose sole purpose is to launder campaign money.

The confusion is understandable -- afterall, this has been spun as the "Political Speech Protection Act", or something like that. Sometimes it's the deception that really gets to me. If they would just be honest about what greedy bastards they are, I could at least respect that.

theyeti

Toto · 05-08-2002, 01:24 PM

<a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr050802.htm" target="_blank">House Oversight Committee to hold hearing on controversial Church Politicking bills</a>

Churches would be part of money laundering scheme, charges Barry Lynn. (As opposed to the tax scams they are now?)

Quote:

The House Ways & Means Oversight Committee has announced plans to hold a May 14 hearing on controversial proposals to allow houses of worship to engage in partisan politicking.

Currently pending in Congress are two bills that would rewrite federal tax law to allow churches to use their tax-exempt resources to support political candidates.

The bill getting the most attention is Rep. Walter Jones’ "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" (H.R. 2357), which was written by lawyers at TV Preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice. Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.) has introduced a second measure, H.R. 2931.

Jones' H.R. 2357 has already garnered the support of 114 co-sponsors in the House, including top GOP House leaders, such as Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay. Several Religious Right leaders, including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson, have been aggressively lobbying on behalf of the legislation.

Jones and other proponents have said the bills are intended to counter the educational work done by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. As a result, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, has been called by the House committee to testify on the pending legislation.

"I welcome the opportunity to tell lawmakers about the serious legal and ethical flaws of this proposal," Lynn said. "When Americans put tax-exempt donations in a collection plate, they're don't expect the money to pay for campaign attack ads and candidate bumper stickers."

Under existing law, religious leaders have a clear legal right to use their pulpits to address moral and political issues. Tax law, however, prohibits houses of worship from endorsing or opposing candidates or using tax-exempt donations for partisan campaigns.

For the last six years, Americans United has led a project to educate religious leaders on tax law and has encouraged pastors to reject the efforts of groups such as the Christian Coalition, which seek to turn the nation's churches into a partisan political machine.

In the 2000 election cycle, AU distributed almost 300,000 letters to religious leaders across the country with valuable information on tax law as it relates to church politicking. Rep. Jones later acknowledged that it was this AU mailing that motivated him to introduce his bill to change the law.

Since then, Jones has frequently mischaracterized the limits placed on churches regarding their political activities, arguing that religious leaders are prohibited from speaking out on issues of interest to their congregations. Opponents of his legislation note that this assertion is false -- religious leaders already have the right to address moral and political issues.

Lynn also noted that the proposal would wreak havoc on the nation's campaign finance laws.

"Houses of worship are awarded tax-exempt status because the government assumes that their work is charitable and educational, not political," Lynn said. "To undo the restriction on church electioneering -- allowing religious groups to act as political action committees while maintaining their tax-exempt status -- would create a huge loophole in campaign finance laws."

Lynn said the likely result is unappealing.

"Candidates and their supporters could give generous sums of money to houses of worship," Lynn said, "write off the donations as tax-deductible, then have the churches work on behalf of the campaign, essentially making churches part of a money-laundering scheme."

Gar · 05-09-2002, 11:38 AM

That's bullshit. Not only would it be a blow to c-s separation, but it sucks for anyone who is even a little bit concerned with campaign finance reform. If you think some of the assholes holding public office are biased now, imagine if the churches were paying them.

Toto · 05-13-2002, 09:40 AM

It's coming soon. <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20020509-14753859.htm" target="_blank">Republican's bill targets ban on pulpit politicking </a>

Quote:

Next week, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act will be taken up by a House Ways and Means subcommittee, a bill that Mr. Jones and other religious conservatives believe will allow churches with a more conservative ideology to enjoy the same freedom to espouse those views that those on the left do.
To maintain tax-exempt status, churches currently must refrain from supporting or opposing political candidates.
"To me, this is nothing more than a First Amendment issue," Mr. Jones said this week. "Churches and synagogues have a moral and spiritual responsibility to make sure that those in elected office follow the Bible and the Constitution."

Jamie_L · 05-13-2002, 12:20 PM

Anybody have a feel for what this bill's chances might be of getting to the floor and passing? How about getting through the senate?

Jamie

Abacus · 05-13-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

"To me, this is nothing more than a First Amendment issue," Mr. Jones said this week. "Churches and synagogues have a moral and spiritual responsibility to make sure that those in elected office follow the Bible and the Constitution."

Somebody pass me a barf bag. I think I'm going to be sick!

I wonder what Jesus would have thought about all of this. Do you remember that verse about the money changers in the temple? Do Christians even read their own bibles?

Toto · 05-15-2002, 12:10 PM

These bills are being opposed by the religious liberals of the Interfaith Alliance (may the IPU bless them and lead them to the truth):

<a href="http://www.interfaithalliance.org/Initiatives/020514t.html" target="_blank">Testimony of The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight </a>

Quote:

For those on the Oversight committee whom I have not met, I am the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, and I serve as the executive director of The Interfaith Alliance. The Interfaith Alliance is a faith-based, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive and healing role of religion in the life of our nation and challenging those who employ religion to promote intolerance. With more than 150,000 members drawn from over 50 faith traditions, local Alliances in 38 states, and a national network of religious leaders, The Interfaith Alliance promotes compassion, civility and mutual respect for human dignity in our increasingly diverse society.

. . .

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I must be honest with you. When I first heard of legislative proposals that would blatantly politicize houses of worship, I couldn't believe my ears and thought someone was playing a practical joke on me. One hundred and fourteen co-sponsors later, I now know better. Each of these proposed pieces of legislation represents as serious a threat to the integrity and vitality of religion in this nation as it does to the continuation of religious liberty as guaranteed by the constitution. The bills are no joke. And I am not laughing. I come here today to plead with members of this committee to not allow these bills to go any further.

04-04-2002, 02:52 PM	#1
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Bills to allow churches to engage in partisan politics Newsletter from the Interfaith Alliance(TIA): H.R. 2357 ACHIEVES RECORD CO-SPONSORSHIP In early October, The Interfaith Alliance (TIA) alerted you to the introduction of two stealth Religious Right bills in the Congress: H.R. 2357, The House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, and H.R. 2931, The Bright-Line Act of 2001. Both of these bills would allow houses of worship to actively participate in - and contribute church funds to - political activities. At the time of TIA`s alert, U.S. Rep. Walter Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), the architect of H.R. 2357, had managed to attract 76 congressional colleagues to join him as co-sponsors. In an alarming development, Jones has now managed to achieve the co-sponsorship of 113 members of Congress. Through means such as Pat Robertson`s 700 Club and the direct mail solicitations of the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition, Jones has effectively built conservative grassroots support for H.R. 2357. While the bill is still sitting in the House Ways and Means Committee and there has not been an official date set for a vote, it is being reported that the bill will possibly be voted on sometime in April. There are seven members of the Ways and Means Committee that have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. TIA is monitoring this bill closely and will alert you to further opportunities for grassroots advocacy. To see if your member of Congress is a co-sponsor, please visit: <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquerytr/z?d107:HR02357:@@@P" target="_blank">this site</a>.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-05-2002, 10:33 AM	#2
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	I wonder if the Bill would make the same progress if it included all non-profits?

04-05-2002, 03:34 PM	#3
Zimyatin Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Michigan Posts: 308	I think this is crap. It's very good policy to prevent tax-exempt religions from advocating political issues. Because they don't contribute to the public treasury they shouldn't be able to affect it's possible distribution. Of course, the separation of church and state easily comes into play here.

05-09-2002, 11:38 AM	#6
Gar Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Boston, Mass Posts: 347	That's bullshit. Not only would it be a blow to c-s separation, but it sucks for anyone who is even a little bit concerned with campaign finance reform. If you think some of the assholes holding public office are biased now, imagine if the churches were paying them.

05-13-2002, 12:20 PM	#8
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Anybody have a feel for what this bill's chances might be of getting to the floor and passing? How about getting through the senate? Jamie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.