Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act

[ELVIS]

HR 235 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 235

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 8, 2003

Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. HAYES, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. PENCE, Ms. HART, and Mr. PITTS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

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.




:elvis:

[ELVIS]

KEY POINTS
To Understanding the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act

Above all else, HR 235 is about recognizing the need to return a stolen right from our nation's houses of worship. Prior to 1954, churches were free to speak out about any and every topic - without government limitations.

Since the "Johnson Amendment" the IRS has had a gag order over houses of worship that forbids religious leaders to speak out on the moral issues of the day. If found in violation of this law, the church, mosque or synagogue would be in jeopardy of losing their tax-exempt status.

HR 235 will do nothing more than allow religious leaders to educate their flock on the moral issues of the day, whether considered political or not. This legislation has to do with the issue of speech and nothing else.

Those in opposition of this legislation have perpetuated the lie that there is no need for such a bill - claiming that there is no law that challenges the freedom of speech of our churches. That propaganda is a blatant miscommunication of reality.

The truth is simple: pastors, priests, rabbis and clerics are forbidden to speak out on any topic that could be deemed "politically partisan." The IRS has even gone so far as to issue "code words" to tip them off to illegal activity. Words such as "pro choice," "pro life," "liberal," and "conservative" uttered from a pulpit even in an educationally motivated speech can warrant an investigation by the IRS.

Even beyond the infringement on free speech, current law is unconstitutional merely by the fact that it is unequally enforced. Day after day, Democrats make headlines standing in the pulpits of America's churches. Ironically, the IRS rarely opens an investigation to such clear-cut violations of the law in the more liberal churches. Instead, the conservative churches are the ones intimidated into silence.

To have allowed the IRS to stand in judgement over our men and women of the cloth for the last 50 years is incomprehensible! First Amendment rights clearly state that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." If we believe in the Constitutional rights of our religious leaders, then we must come together and support HR 235 .

HR 235 boasts 165 cosponsors, both Democrats and Republicans. More than two dozen groups from all walks of faith have also submitted their written endorsement of this essential legislation.



:elvis:

[Little_Skittles]

Who's churches are we talking about here pastor rikk just says whatever. Dang he preaches anything and everything moral issues of the day or not. More to the point, this bill i think is going to be a good one. Slowly getting back our freedom of speech.

[ELVIS]

Any house of worship...

[Little_Skittles]

that's so wrong, i can't believe this crap grrrr.

[ELVIS]

What do you mean ??

[Little_Skittles]

that they can't preach about "moral issues" without the irs getting involved this so totally violated our rights. Grr I can't believe that this is n every and any house of worship.

[ELVIS]

Yep, since 1954, but that's about to change...;)

[Little_Skittles]

yep sure is :D

[FORD]

Churches should not be arms of political parties, period.

If a church is campaigning for a political party, they should lose their tax-exempt status.

It is simply wrong to force political views on a "captive audience" who came to church that day to hear about God, not a moronic Chimp.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
Churches should not be arms of political parties, period.

If a church is campaigning for a political party, they should lose their tax-exempt status.

It is simply wrong to force political views on a "captive audience" who came to church that day to hear about God, not a moronic Chimp.

Exactly! Now half-wit preachers can stump from the pulpit for a fool that pretends to represent their views.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Churches should not be arms of political parties, period.

If a church is campaigning for a political party, they should lose their tax-exempt status.

It is simply wrong to force political views on a "captive audience" who came to church that day to hear about God, not a moronic Chimp.

Which Chimp are you talking about?

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I22994-2004Oct10L

[ELVIS]

Exactly


:elvis:

[diamondD]

OUCH!!!!


Nice BBB!

:D

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Which Chimp are you talking about?

http://users.lmi.net/bblackie/ahb/chimp.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Which Chimp are you talking about?

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I22994-2004Oct10L

I think Al looks pretty Baboonish.

:D

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think Al looks pretty Baboonish.

:D

Racist :mad:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Racist :mad:

I think not. You put a white man up there and call him a Chimp. I put a black man up there and call him a Baboon. There is simply no difference. If you see any difference, YOU are the racist, not I.

:gulp: