House bill will allow churches to endorse candidates?

[soup]

Found buried in an article this morning:

>>U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, has introduced a bill in Congress that would let churches endorse candidates. The bill could come up for a vote before the November election.<<
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/15/State/IRS_warns_churches__n.shtml

-----

Has anyone else heard anything about this? I'm finding references to a similar bill entitled "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" (H.R. 2357) - also introduced by Rep. Jones. Here's one link to an article from Americans United for Separation of Church and State regarding the 2002 bill, but so far nothing that details a new attempt to get a new bill through.

No matter how fast I run, I just can't keep up.

[madinmaryland]

1. What happened to the separation

of church and state?

:argh:

[tom_paine]

3. Imperial Amerika is a Totalitarian Theocratic Orwellian Managed Democracy

There IS no seperation of church and state in Imperial Amerika.

The Emperor is the De Facto High Pontiff of Amerika, as the old Roman Emperors were.

We are living in a different nation, a completely different nation, than the one we were born into.

[soup]

10. "A completely different nation

than the one we were born into" is exactly what I was thinking this morning. The one that's emerging though, is not one I want to hand down to my children and grandchildren.

There are so many fights on so many levels, sometimes it's difficult to even chose the battle.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Christian repubs don't give a fudge about..................

Separation of Church and State. Christian repubs want to establish another theocracy here. I guess they never read enough history books to learn that theocracies always become institutions of exclusion, discrimination and repression.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. No problem, as long as they lose their special tax status.

[CarolynEC]

5. Precisely. No "special rights" for churches. (eom)

[tom_paine]

6. Yeh, like that would happen. As High Pontiff of Imperial Amerika

Emperor Bunnypants* would NEVER allow his beloved Orwellian Theocratic Followers to lose their Bushfriend Status.

Never.

God, I remember when America was a Free Nation, but it seems so long ago!

[zbdent]

8. Yeah, I've wondered something along these lines . . .

A favorite "repuke" argument point is "Well, you know the government is the biggest landowner in this country." (well, D. U. Fucking H.!)

I don't know of any gazillionaire who could afford hundreds of thousands of acres scattered across the US (including areas the size of national parks) as privately owned.

What I would like to know is this: So, who's the second-largest landowner in the US? Most likely, it is the (non-specific) Church. Especially the Catholic Church, what with all the Nazi gold they've accumulated . . .

[gollygee]

9. Yep. I agree with this position. n/t

[recidivist]

18. How about other non-profits?

We need to be precise about what kinds of political activity we deem inappropriate by non-profits and then apply that standard impartially.

Anything the Sierra Club, a labor union, NFIB, or the NRA can do, a church should be able to do.

[MallRat]

7. I believe churches would have a 3-strikes-and-you're-out provision.

Under current law, churches engaging in partisan political activity are in immediate jeopardy of losing their tax-exempt status.

I believe the new bill would allow churches to have three strikes A YEAR. In essence, a church could actively endorse candidates TWICE without penalty, each year.

This is utterly mindboggling.

-MR

[soup]

11. I see so many issues wrapped into this.

Is it as 'simple' as a church not having the right to endorse candidates?

I see it as being that simple on one hand - separation of church and state.

But, as the article mentioned, so many social changes were historically brought about through the church. So, where is the line drawn?

Should churches have tax exemptions?

I don't know enough about this to come to an informed conclusion. I probably should. It's just not something that I've thought or read a lot about beyond the voucher issue.

But I do know that a law enabling churches to endorse candidates just grates on a nerve enough that I thought I'd bring up finding that snip buried in the article.

The timing is really bad. My 2 yr old grandson is here for the day, so my thoughts are running more towards riding the 'beep beep', rescuing the cat, and pouring (and wiping up) juice.

Maybe I'm just too old for this fight.

[Rockholm]

12. Received a mailing from Walter Chronkite...

Yes, this is a VERY scary bill. Chronkite is part of a group that is organizing the Religious Left. Their mailing is at home and I can't remember the name. Folks, THIS is big news. I will try to find the name of the group.

[soup]

13. Thank you, Rockholm.

I look forward to learning more about this. (and nap time) :-)

Is there any possibility this bill will get passed? Is it a stand-alone bill or tagged onto something else?

[sinkingfeeling]

14. The group with Cronkite is called The Interfaith Alliance.....

it's devoted to protecting religious pluralism, and promoting compassion, civility, and mutual respect for human dignity. Their website is : www.interfaithalliance.org and phone is 1-800-510-0969.

[Rockholm]

15. Yes, that is it! Thanks SinkingFeeling!

I read their mailing and was floored by what is being push through Congress. There are, I believe, 120+ members signed onto this bill.

[recidivist]

16. Churches should be treated like any other non-profit.

Non-profit organizations like the NRA or the Sierra Club, labor unions or the U.S. Chamber, the trial lawyers or the AMA, etc. engage in a wide variety of political activities. Federal election law makes this much more complicated than it needs to be, but basically anything that groups such as this can do, churches should be able to do.

I don't care if a church is liberal or conservative. I don't care if it's Ralph Reed handing out voter guides in the lobby or a black preacher having an epiphany with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry (a staple of recent Democratic campaigns). Churches have as much right to sound off on politics as do any other group. The issue is tax status, and on that score the churches should be treated exactly like any other non-profit.

[MsConduct]

17. Sheesh! What next? n/t

[Rockholm]

19. Important Kick.

[mtnester]

20. If that is true they should lose their tax exempt status

IMMEDIATELY. However, a House Bill to allow it flies in the face of the Constitution...and should be challenged right out the door on the basis of separation of Church and State ALONE. Even SCOTUS has to admit, if they can, that it is not constitutional.

It is EXACTLY this type of thing our founding fathers NEVER wanted to occur. The minute the church gets in the government, it creates the EXACT issues and circumstances that we fought a revolutionary war over to win OUR freedom. Church is church and I go to it, but I do not want it running our government or telling it what to do. (I know, I know all of you, they do in a covert way now, but allowing it to be overt and sanctioned by law? NOT a good idea).

Those visionaries thought of it all except for one thing...how to get a corrupt justice of the SCOTUS out. And now some asshole wants to take what's left of the Constitution and wipe their ass with it.

For shame. I had ancestors die in the Revolutionary War, and these dickwads want me to just say their (and many others) sacrifice was for squat?!

Stop fiddling with the Constitution! It is not for marriage amendments, allowing the church to participate in government (including federally funded faith based programs)or any other Bullshit like that.

[rocktivity]

21. If churches can endorse candidates, they can pay taxes, too.

And congregations can threaten to resign from any church that endorses a candidate.

:headbang:
rocknation