kingcrim99

Why don't you address the merits (or lack thereof) of this bill instead?

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: kingcrim99 ]

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: kingcrim99 ]</p>

ksagnostic

Rufus' list certainly provides evidence that there are a lot of churches and religious organizations that do not feel that they are unfairly muzzled by the US government.

fromtheright

Personally, I am somewhat torn. I agree with the question why churches should get any special immunity that other non-profits don't, but I am also bothered by the fact that Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowery, and Al Sharpton can use the pulpit for political purposes but for some reason many secularists scream foul when those on my side of the political spectrum seek to do the same thing. I am also well aware that preachers were quite vocal on both sides of America's struggle for independence. Is the answer to do away with the restriction for all non-profits, which, as I understand, was born out of Lyndon Johnson's reaction to churches being involved in his political opposition? Or should all non-profits be allowed political speech but not to spend any funds on lobbying? Or should the funds being spent on such be taxed? But that introduces the intrustion of IRS auditing churches, which is a scary concept.
I'm not sure.

Toto

Johnson was trying to silence some non-profits that were not churches. The ban on church politicking was incidental.

ftr - read some of the arguments against the bill. Government entanglement with church audits is one problem. Other concerns are the general corruption of churches when political machines take them over to use them for fundraising.

Prior threads which discussed the merits of this bill and of church politics in general:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000157&p=" target="_blank">Bills to allow churches to engage in partisan politics </a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000721&p=" target="_blank">Falwell and IRS guidelines on church politicking </a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000055&p=" target="_blank">"Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" rears ugly head</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000604&p=" target="_blank">Interfaith action alert</a> (contains lots of links)

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000639&p=" target="_blank">Houses of Worship Political Toadying at Taxpayer Expense</a>

RufusAtticus

The list that I pointed out proves that there are plenty of big religious organizations that don't see the 501(c)(3) restrictions as a threat to their faith. As such, it shows that anyone trying to claim that this bill was about religious express or freedom of practice doesn't understand the actual nature of law and the issues involved.

RufusAtticus

FTR,

One of the things that amazes me about this bill, is that conservatives often complain that the lower classes are given the right to vote and engauge in politics. (I know members of my family who do it after their favorite candidate loses an election.) And yet now some of these same conservatives want to give religious organizations, which don't pay taxes either, the power to get involved in politics. Am I the only one that sees hypocricy here?

Would you care to back that accusation up?

Oresta

ftr,
I, too, would like you to give specific examples for this statement in particular:

Are you referring to instances where these men specifically endorsed candidates as have the Robertson crew with widely distributed voter guides? Or are you referring to Jackson, et. al., as advocates of issues? The latter, as you know, is allowed for non-profits. Indeed, some sort of advocacy is the mission of most N-Ps.

Edited @#$% UBB again

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]</p>

fromtheright

Oresta and Rufus,

I'm glad to see the two of you defending the fine reverends. If you are suggesting that these men have never stood behind the pulpits to get involved in politics or political issues then I suggest you watch the news a little more often. Yes, I am referring to the repeated instances of these men standing in the pulpit exoriating us heartless Republicans for one measure or another or another instance of our opposing handing out some more goodies to one cause or another. Advocacy?

Do you have a problem with voter guides that tell voters where candidates stand on issues and how they have voted on particular legislation? In instances where these guides are dishonest, yes, I am against that, but even that does not argue against the right to distribute voter guides.


advocates of issues? The latter, as you know, is allowed for non-profits. Indeed, some sort of advocacy is the mission of most N-Ps.

I hope then that you have no objection to preachers standing in the pulpit bemoaning the legalization of abortion and urging parishioners to get involved in the effort to re-criminalize it.

RufusAtticus

FTR,

You can talk about how the Democrats and liberals are just as bad as the Republicans and conservatives. But that is not what we want you to support. We what you to support that the 501(c)(3) stick is used preferentially against republicans.

Until you are able to provide statistics with analysis, your accusations of bias are unfounded and petty. Make sure that when you compile these statistics that you understand what roles 501(c)(3) organizations are and aren't allowed to take in politics.

Alonzo Fyfe

I'm afraid that I am going to join the chorus of people who have asked for evidence in support of this proposition.

Who has supported or called for the silencing of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson? Who seeks to prevent them from doing exactly the same thing that Jackson is doing?

We have sought to protest having them demand that we pay their bills for fire protection, police protection, highway construction, and the like while they are out compaigning against us. I find few things more galling than being forced to pay my hard-earned money to finance people who are out there decrying that I am anti-American and should not be allowed equal status in my own country.

If they wish to say such things, I will protest that as well, because I think they are wrong (and, indeed, I think they are evil). But the force of arms is never a legitimate tool for such things -- only the force of reason shall be allowed.

And, yet, the force of arms is what they are all about, as they seek to use the government to force me to finance their campaigns, by covering their tax liability while they work to put politicians in office who promote hatred and pledge discrimination against people like me.

I will defend their right to say such things. But I deny them the right to take my money to help pay for it.