HR 235

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
HR 235 was introduced to liberate clergy from the muzzle imposed by the absolute ban on all speech that may be regarded as "political," and thereby enable them to speak out on all vital and moral and political questions of the day. It will free houses of worship from the fear and anxiety and uncertainty created by the threat that the IRS will impose financial penalties or revoke tax-exempt status altogether.

Link

It will be interesting to see how many radical leftist legislators vote against this bill.
 

ECUHITMAN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2001
815
0
0
Separation of Church and State.

I would think that everyone would think that is a good idea to keep.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
They aren't allowed to speak out on moral or political 'questions of the day' without fear of financial damage? Why do they even have tax-exempt status anyways?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It's the price of tax-exempt status, Rip, a deal as old as the Constitution. Religious groups can have the same political voice as the rest of us, when they're ready to pay the same taxes.

Clerics are free to speak their mind on issues, anyway, they just can't endorse any particular candidate. I think we all know who your friends in the Fundie Fringe favor, anyway... The proposed legislation doesn't have a prayer of implementation, partly because it violates long standing constitutional interpretations. It's just a pat of the head for the Repub leadership's loyal, if somewhat dim lapdog...

 

bigben

Senior member
Jan 8, 2000
655
0
0
Oh wow...a real topic for debate in Politics and News and of course there is no real debate.



I am amazed that this bill has been brought up here, honestly. As a person who is working on this bill and whose organization has endorsed it, I have to admit that I welcome some honest discussion about a difficult issue.

For those of you who don't know the background, here is a bit: right now, IRS law is murky on the question of political speech from a pulpit of any kind in any religion. What is clear is taht straight out endorsement is probably prohibited. What is not clear is if focusing on certain ideas that are important to different communities of faith (ie abortion, poverty, homosexual marriage, etc.) and highlighting the differences between political candidates is allowed.

The whole issue has come to a head over the past year because of a fellow named Barry Lynn and his Americans United For Seperation of Church and State, who has sent several complaints to the IRS about churches that covertly endorsed Bush. He even went so far as to send employees to churches to sit through all of their services to ensure that they weren't endorsing one candidate or another.

Historically, churches have dones this kind of endorsements with the tacit complicity of the local authorities - particularly in historically black denominations and in the Muslim and Jewish communities.

Walter Jones has been working on this legislation for six years to try and solve this problem. The idea of the legislation is to ensure that churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. can endorse candidates from their pulpits. Democrats would never stand for this, so to compromise, he has added language that limits the edorsement announcement to members of the churches and those present physically when the announcement is made. This would preclude someone like Rod Parsley sending out 20000 pamphlets saying "Jesus wants you to vote for Bush."

In adding this language, however, Jones (who is a great guy) has pissed of some from the right who think that he has given up too much and is limiting free speech.

It is a tough question. My take on it is that I think churches should self-regulate political speech from an internal standpoint, but i am all about giving more rights to people and to organizations. If church X wants to endorse a candidate,, let them do so, but i will never be a member.
 

bigben

Senior member
Jan 8, 2000
655
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's the price of tax-exempt status, Rip, a deal as old as the Constitution. Religious groups can have the same political voice as the rest of us, when they're ready to pay the same taxes.

Interesting interpretation, considering that organizations like the Family Research Council, Open Society, and many many many many more right or left think tanks can keep their tax exemption and endorse candidates. Only houses of worship run into the exemption problem..
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Only houses of worship claim to have any authority from God, bigben. FotF and the FRC skirt the issue rather neatly by claiming to be secular organizations representing Christian values. Yeh, they're splitting hairs, and they're getting away with it. Other non-profit political organizations meet the separation issue squarely, not claiming any sort of divine guidance.

Claiming to have God on your side is a bit of an unfair advantage in politics. All too many folks would vote for a particular candidate if the preacher told them they'd go to hell if they voted otherwise. Sad but true, so the law seeks to avoid that...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
On cursory review, the bill seems like a good idea. Then again, I've always wondered why religious orgs enjoy tax-exempt status in the first place. Perhaps we need a seperate bill to repeal that benefit for which there is no real explanation.
 

bigben

Senior member
Jan 8, 2000
655
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Only houses of worship claim to have any authority from God, bigben. FotF and the FRC skirt the issue rather neatly by claiming to be secular organizations representing Christian values. Yeh, they're splitting hairs, and they're getting away with it. Other non-profit political organizations meet the separation issue squarely, not claiming any sort of divine guidance.

Claiming to have God on your side is a bit of an unfair advantage in politics. All too many folks would vote for a particular candidate if the preacher told them they'd go to hell if they voted otherwise. Sad but true, so the law seeks to avoid that...


I agree with you that claiming God is on your side is an unfair advantage, but is it an advantage that every single presidential candidate has claimed since the dawn of the republic. Can a government legitiimately say that theological speech is inherently more influential than reason as used by something like FRC? Would that not be giving a value to theology that the government cannot give? One arguement would say that because pulpit speech is received as more important, it must be treated so in the law. The left, however, has argued for years that pulpit speech should be regualted as any other speech because the government cannor recognize "spirit" or "sprirituality" that might result from pulpit speech, thereby putting that speech in teh same class as any other speech. Seems to me that speaking politics from the pulpit is not a problem of the State but of the theologians and spiritual masters who set and execute doctrine.

As a person of faith, I do not want my preacher to endorse a candidate. As a citizen of a liberal democracy, i want him to have a right to.
 

bigben

Senior member
Jan 8, 2000
655
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
On cursory review, the bill seems like a good idea. Then again, I've always wondered why religious orgs enjoy tax-exempt status in the first place. Perhaps we need a seperate bill to repeal that benefit for which there is no real explanation.


Religious organizations get a tax exemption because it is the will of the people that they do and it is not against the constitution. We live in a society where our rules and regulations don't really need a good explaination as much as they need to be wanted by the populous and not contradict established law. There is no explanaition why Open Society is tax-exempt either. The US has chosen to give organizations falling under a certain pattern of behaviour and funding the right to not pay taxes on income.

I think in IRS code tax-exemption consideration is done more along the lines of support than on function, anyway, so churches are exempt because they are supported by the people (who are already taxed) and not by book sales (for example).
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: bigben
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
On cursory review, the bill seems like a good idea. Then again, I've always wondered why religious orgs enjoy tax-exempt status in the first place. Perhaps we need a seperate bill to repeal that benefit for which there is no real explanation.


Religious organizations get a tax exemption because it is the will of the people that they do and it is not against the constitution. We live in a society where our rules and regulations don't really need a good explaination as much as they need to be wanted by the populous and not contradict established law. There is no explanaition why Open Society is tax-exempt either. The US has chosen to give organizations falling under a certain pattern of behaviour and funding the right to not pay taxes on income.

I think in IRS code tax-exemption consideration is done more along the lines of support than on function, anyway, so churches are exempt because they are supported by the people (who are already taxed) and not by book sales (for example).

So your response boils down to: "Because!" Well, unfortunately for them, my standards are a great deal higher than that. If religious orgs are going to act as Political Action Committee then they should be regulated accordingly. I mean we all know the evangelical churches in the U.S. are effectively a political lobbying arm of the GOP. If they act like a 527 group (or more likely a PAC), then regulate them as such.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Summary, as it is now

"IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in the amount of political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct."

Why should be changed, except if to clarify?
 

AlricTheMad

Member
Jun 25, 2001
125
0
0
I agree that it is a fine line.
Ministers are expected to lead their congregation, I would include who they recommend as candidates.
How do we balance the right to free speech for these leaders and the responsibilty that goes along with it.
For me, making an endorsment during the sermon would be Ok. Setting up a political rally at the church goes to far.
Perhaps the requirements of identifying where their money and time is spent polticaly is enough.

Alric
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
HR 235 was introduced to liberate clergy from the muzzle imposed by the absolute ban on all speech that may be regarded as "political," and thereby enable them to speak out on all vital and moral and political questions of the day. It will free houses of worship from the fear and anxiety and uncertainty created by the threat that the IRS will impose financial penalties or revoke tax-exempt status altogether.

Link

It will be interesting to see how many radical leftist legislators vote against this bill.

tax them and let them say what they want but the reason they can't push a political agenda based on religion with taxpayers money is 2-fold.
 

bigben

Senior member
Jan 8, 2000
655
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: bigben
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
On cursory review, the bill seems like a good idea. Then again, I've always wondered why religious orgs enjoy tax-exempt status in the first place. Perhaps we need a seperate bill to repeal that benefit for which there is no real explanation.


Religious organizations get a tax exemption because it is the will of the people that they do and it is not against the constitution. We live in a society where our rules and regulations don't really need a good explaination as much as they need to be wanted by the populous and not contradict established law. There is no explanaition why Open Society is tax-exempt either. The US has chosen to give organizations falling under a certain pattern of behaviour and funding the right to not pay taxes on income.

I think in IRS code tax-exemption consideration is done more along the lines of support than on function, anyway, so churches are exempt because they are supported by the people (who are already taxed) and not by book sales (for example).

So your response boils down to: "Because!" Well, unfortunately for them, my standards are a great deal higher than that. If religious orgs are going to act as Political Action Committee then they should be regulated accordingly. I mean we all know the evangelical churches in the U.S. are effectively a political lobbying arm of the GOP. If they act like a 527 group (or more likely a PAC), then regulate them as such.


The same argument can be made for organizations like the Marshall Institute, FRC, and every other right or left wing group that endorses one candidate or another.

There is a difference between a 527 or a PAC and a church. The difference is that 527s and PACs get thier money with the sole intention of political activities and soft lobbying. Churches are first houses of worship and places where people come to find theological answers to life's questions. To reduce the evangelical church to "effectively a political lobbying arm of the GOP" is to deflate 250 years of American church history and is a slap in the face for every believing evanglical Christian. It is like me saying that the black church community and the catholic church are lobbying groups for the Democrats. It is jsut apatently false assumption.

The question at hand is can (or how should) the US regulate the pulpit speech for ministers when leading their flock?
 

bigben

Senior member
Jan 8, 2000
655
0
0
Originally posted by: Cerb
Summary, as it is now

"IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in the amount of political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct."

Why should be changed, except if to clarify?


That is the worst summary of law that i have read - and it is straight fro mthe source! Every church, think tank, and community group has someone in washington lobbying in some way that is not restricted by the IRC. What does the code itself say?
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: bigben
Originally posted by: Cerb
Summary, as it is now

"IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in the amount of political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct."

Why should be changed, except if to clarify?
That is the worst summary of law that i have read - and it is straight fro mthe source! Every church, think tank, and community group has someone in washington lobbying in some way that is not restricted by the IRC. What does the code itself say?
Unfortunately, I don't have enough of an attention span to read the IRS laws and regs .
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Riprorin
It will be interesting to see how many radical leftist legislators vote against this bill.
With loudmouth radical sponsors like Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay, it will be more interesting to see how many true "conservatives" support the Constitutional wall between church and state and vote this POS down. :|

Tom DeLay is so ethically challenged that he has NO moral authority to be pimping for ANY church, let alone the looney toons religious whackos, and Hastert isn't far behind for pimping the now disgraced and repealed changes in the rules for the House Ethics Committee that tried shield DeLay from a well deserved roasting.

Fun - da - mental - ists are NEITHER! :|
 

bigben

Senior member
Jan 8, 2000
655
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Riprorin
It will be interesting to see how many radical leftist legislators vote against this bill.
With loudmouth radical sponsors like Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay, it will be more interesting to see how many true "conservatives" support the Constitutional wall between church and state and vote this POS down. :|

Tom DeLay is so ethically challenged that he has NO moral authority to be pimping for ANY church, let alone the looney toons religious whackos, and Hastert isn't far behind for pimping the now disgraced and repealed changes in the rules for the House Ethics Committee that tried shield DeLay from a well deserved roasting.

Fun - da - mental - ists are NEITHER! :|

Harvey Harvey Harvey...check the facts on the bill before you slam it.


The only sponsor of the bill is Walter Jones. There are no co-sponsors. This is a Jones initiative. I know his staff that is pushing the bill. Slamming DeLay and Hastert here really adds nothing to the conversation. Heck, Jones has been working on this for 6 years, which goes back to another administration and another world
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: bigben
Harvey Harvey Harvey...check the facts on the bill before you slam it.


The only sponsor of the bill is Walter Jones. There are no co-sponsors. This is a Jones initiative. I know his staff that is pushing the bill. Slamming DeLay and Hastert here really adds nothing to the conversation. Heck, Jones has been working on this for 6 years, which goes back to another administration and another world
Thanks. Ya know, you're right about that. I saw this at the bottom of the page in Rip's OP:
Call now - Ask Congress to return Freedom of Speech to America's churches by passing the language in HR 235.

[*] Speaker of the House - Dennis Hastert: (202) 225-0600
[*] House Majority Leader - Tom Delay: (202) 225-4000
[*]Ways and Means Chairman - Bill Thomas: (202) 225-3625
Even without direct sponsorship or support from radical neocons like Hastert or an ethical toxic dumpsite like DeLay, breaking down the barrier between church and state is a direct attack on the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of all American citizens that no real "conservative" should support. When a site calls for appeals to monsters like these two, it's a red flag warning about the true motives behind the bill. :|

Rip's link is to hr325.org, another of his typical aluminum foil beanie sites. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, defines itself as a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Their take on hr325:
A website, called "HR.235 Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act," (www.hr235.org) includes a list of supporters of the bill, which is dominated by socially conservative religious leaders. Backers include Franklin Graham, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Roberta Combs of the Christian Coalition, Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America, D. James Kennedy, the Rev. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, right-wing organizer Grover Norquist, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of American Values and Pat Robertson's ACLJ.

Some in Congress have taken that website's claim of universal support for the Jones bill to task. In an Oct. 15 letter to his colleagues, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) challenged the website's claim that "all religions, of all faiths support" the bill.

"This claim of unanimous support by the sponsors of this legislation could not be further from the truth," Edwards wrote. "In fact, most faith traditions in America are actively opposing this legislation and have gone to great lengths to communicate their opposition to the very premise of the bill itself."

Edwards' letter listed several religious groups that had sent letters to Congress opposing the Jones bill, including the General Board of Church & Society of The United Methodist Church, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

In a mid-November letter to U.S. representatives, the Episcopal Policy Network urged the House to defeat the Jones bill.

"Although the bill purports to protect houses of worship, it actually removes important safeguards that protect our religious liberty," wrote Maureen Shea, director of the church's Office of Government Relations. "Religious leaders have already the ability to speak out on any number of social issues facing society and Congress from their houses of worship. Current law simply limits groups from being both a tax-exempt ministry and a partisan political entity. Further, those houses of worship that wish to participate politically for or against candidate(s) seeking political office can give up their tax-exempt status and participate fully in the election process."

Some House members have also raised concerns about the measure's effect on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the 2002 law intended to curb unlimited campaign contributions known as "soft money."

Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), who led the fight for the campaign finance bill in the House, issued a letter to their colleagues on Nov. 10 noting that the Jones bill "opens a dangerous loophole for a new form of soft money in elections."

Shays and Meehan, citing a report by the Campaign Legal Center, wrote that H.R. 235 "would turn houses of worship into makeshift campaign ad recording studios, enabling them to broadcast partisan messages delivered during religious services."

The group's report, which is available on its website, www.campaignlegalcenter.org, states that the Jones bill would "permit certain forms of activity by houses of worship with significant campaign finance implications, particularly the widespread distribution of election-related presentations made during religious services or gatherings, including through television, radio, and other media."
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |