FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-11-2003, 10:22 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,804
Default Hr 235

I saw this ass-crack rep from NC on CBN last night. HR 235 is the thing that will allow churches to get political without losing thier tax free status.
This shitbag said it was gods will to get this crap passed.
Contact your rep and bitch about it.
butswana is offline  
Old 06-11-2003, 07:35 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Default

Wow - you gotta love the nice double standard we have for churches. :banghead: Nice tax free shelter, but don't have to follow basic governmental laws such as discrimination laws,

scigirl
scigirl is offline  
Old 06-11-2003, 10:12 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has an online lobbying page here:

http://capwiz.com/au/mail/oneclick_c...lertid=2527776

Quote:
H.R. 235, sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), would turn the inner sanctuaries and pulpits of America’s houses of worship into partisan political rally halls.

You may remember that Representative Jones offered a strikingly similar bill in the 107th Congress, entitled the “Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act” which failed overwhelmingly by a vote of 178-239 under “suspension of the rules” on October 2, 2002. Though H.R. 235 represents a modified version of that legislation, there remain significant concerns about its implications for both our nation’s houses of worship and the integrity of our political process.
Here are some old threads on the previous bill:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=40609

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=40531

http://www.iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...59&t=000604&p=
Toto is offline  
Old 06-12-2003, 02:36 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
Default Re: Hr 235

Quote:
Originally posted by butswana
I saw this ass-crack rep from NC on CBN last night. HR 235 is the thing that will allow churches to get political without losing thier tax free status.
This shitbag said it was gods will to get this crap passed.
Contact your rep and bitch about it.
Such a law would definately be declared unconstitutional because it distinguishes between secular and sectarian non-profit organizations.
RufusAtticus is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 10:46 AM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Contact your rep and bitch about it.
already done

-samirah
PalestineChic19 is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 11:37 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,295
Default

The text of the bill (from thomas.gov):

Quote:
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'.

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

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

`(p) An organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A) (relating to churches) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, or 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) (relating to charitable contributions), because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.'.

SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED.

Nothing in section 2 permits any disbursements for electioneering communications, or political expenditures, prohibited in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made herein shall be effective as of the date of enactment of this Act.
Yep, this one's pretty much the same in substance as the bill that got torpedoed last year. It's good to know that Walter Jones is still the same great big asshead he's always been.
Stephen Maturin is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 02:17 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: United States
Posts: 1,657
Default

I sent this David Price. It's so nice to have a Congressman I'm not ahsamed of:

Quote:
Dear Congressman Price:

I've been enjoying the local broadcast immensely, and I continue to be grateful for your clear thinking and honorable service to the district and the country. I very much appreciate your consistently thoughtful and informative replies to my concerns and I wish the rest of our state was as well represented, but clearly it is not.

I am writing today about HR235. Apparently our dear friend Rep. Walter Jones was on CBN last night plugging his next trip to the well to allow churches to enter into politics without tax exemption consequences. I admit he's re-written his bill to make it even more likely to create confusion, but his goal remains transparent. I've pastored a church once upon a time, and the scrupulous avoidance of partisan politics was wise policy from every viewpoint. I know you're a divinities man yourself. Can you think of anything more certain to corrupt both church and state than if the Tom Delays have their way on church-state separation? Didn't think so.

Please vigorously oppose this attempt to integrate American religious institutions into the Republican National Committee.

Regards,
Ron Garrett
Morrisville

P.S. In case Attorney General Ashcroft isn't reading all your mail yet, please let him know I also think this law would be unconstitutional, so I expect it to have his whole-hearted support.
And I really did want to call Jones "that ass-crack from NC" in my letter, but David's a bit more formal about these things.
Ron Garrett is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 03:25 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ron Garrett
P.S. In case Attorney General Ashcroft isn't reading all your mail yet, please let him know I also think this law would be unconstitutional, so I expect it to have his whole-hearted support.
Hehe. Good to have you back.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 08:56 AM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY
Posts: 14,394
Thumbs up

You can follow the links at AU to their Legislative Update page, wherein you can send an email or fax to your Congressional representatives on a number of issues. There is even an option to compose your own letter. Some messages have pre-written text, but you are able to alter it as you see fit. This is an important way that we can make our voices heard!

Ron, nice letter!
Shake is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:30 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.