SwiftVets.com

[TEWSPilot]

We've see a few mini-revolts by "We The People" recently, such as the one involving the "Dubai Ports" matter, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" and now the "Great Wall Street Bailout". Slipping under the radar is a very interesting "mini-Revolution" by some 30 Pastors in an effort to chew off the IRS muzzle. Their claim is that having to forfeit a Constitutional Right (Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion) in order to receive a benefit from government (tax-exempt status) is illegal, and they are trying to force a legal confrontation with the IRS by intentionally violating the IRS tax code -- which was imposed without debate as a rider on a bill introduced by then Senator Lyndon Johnson to silence his critics. This is not the first time Preachers have defied what they believed to be unfair and illegal pronouncements from government. Maybe it's time for all of us to become involved in rolling back some of the unconstitutional rights-grabs the "government" has made over the past two centuries.

[zinfella]

I adamantly oppose churches supporting political candidates, AND getting a tax exempt status. One, or the other, not both! This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, if they want to spout off, then let them pay taxes, just like me!

BTW, the people involved in this illegal activity are in a very small minority within the religious community.
_________________
No whiners!

[TEWSPilot]

Playing Devil's Advocate, consider that this IRS Rule didn't come into effect until Lyndon Johnson tacked it onto a bill without any debate following as a rider in the mid-20th Century. Prior to that time, Churches were free to preach on any topic and to endorse or oppose candidates and issues according to the dictates of their consciences, and generally in accordance with their interpretation of Scripture and laws dealing with morality.

Not liking something does not allow the government to take away someone's right to exercise their Constitutional rights. Due process does, though, as long as it does not violate the Constitution...or nowdays, some activist judge's "interpretation" of it. A lot of folks in our town don't like having a strip club situated between the main Post Office and the Rape Crisis Center, but the owners found a loophole in the zoning law and put it right there.

With that background, is it legal, in direct opposition to "original intent" and nearly two centuries of precedent, to tax Churches (voluntary organizations formed under the free association clause) for exercising their First Amendment Rights, individually or collectively, and specifically enumerated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while NOT taxing numerous other "non-profit" organizations who are allowed not only to receive the protection of tax exemption but also to be subsidized by the taxpayers for essentially identical behavior?

Further, is it fair to strip individuals of a Constitutional Right by virtue of a simple law, which may itself be unconstitutional? The courts find all sorts of "Rights" in the Constitution that are not stated while ignoring others that are clearly stated, such as the 2nd Amendment. I am interested in seeing how this is decided, most likely by the Supreme Court at some future date, because of its ramifications for all the other Rights being stripped by virtue of unconstitutional laws, bureaucratic "rules", or "reinterpretations" of long standing precedents set by prior courts now being overturned by activist courts.

The one that frightens me most is the outrageous misuse of "imminent domain" to steal people's homes to then sell to "developers" who put in high rises or shopping centers so the government gains a higher tax base from the property. The right of ownership of property was as sacred to the founders as was free speech and religious freedom.