HR 235 = no more church/state seperation?

[MushMouth]

http://www.hr235.org/

Anyone care to read through this and translate it from Newspeak to plain English for me? Because it sure as hell looks like the theocrats in Congress are trying to allow church to influence politics while maintaining a tax exempt status. But actually, since we have "faith-based" initiatives what they're doing is letting church enter politics while getting paid for it.

[Loren]

Odd. That site still lists the version of the bill from the last session of Congress (Mr. Jones has introduced this bill three times now). The text has changed a little in the new version. Go here (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html) to pull it up.

Anyhow, assuming that I'm reading the text right, it has to do entirely with the endorsement of political candidates. Religious bodies can already influence politics; preachers are free to talk until hoarse about how abortion is wrong or how health care should be free or why immigration law is contrary to the spirit of America. Some of the most sweeping political changes in our history (e.g. emancipation, prohibition, civil rights) owed a lot to churches and religious leaders. Dr. King did a lot of his speaking in churches.

It's when the church goes from talking about issues to talking about candidates that the IRS gets involved. It's one thing to say "The war in Iraq is unjust and is killing innocents, so we should bring our troops home," and another to say "The war in Iraq is unjust and is killing innocents, so you should vote for John Kerry to bring our troops home." This bill would get rid of that distinction. Preachers could encourage their congregations to vote a certain way, and political candidates could more easily speak in religious gatherings. But it seems to be limited to religious functions of the organization itself, and doesn't permit for a church or mosque or temple or synagogue to start taking public stances and positions. It doesn't affect campaign finance laws, and wouldn't allow churches, etc. to start making donations to campaigns.

As with any good subject, there are arguments on both sides. People for the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11889) covers some of the reasons why they say it would be a bad idea.

One thing I wanted to learn, but haven't yet found, is how old this restriction is. I'm not sure if it's as old as the IRS itself, or if it came along later. Maybe someone else knows the answer.

Loren

[MushMouth]

The Hr 235 site says the restriction was introduced in 1954.

[Loren]

The Hr 235 site says the restriction was introduced in 1954.

Argh. The link on the front page practically tells you that it'd tell me the answer. Thanks.

And while some folks say that Johnson pushed for the change to stymie some anti-communist nonprofit groups that opposed him, now I've gotten myself curious about the timing. "Brown v. Board of Education" was also in 1954, earlier in the year. Surely the rest of Congress wasn't concerned about Johnson's reelection campaign. If I can find a list of how Congress voted, that would give a clue as to whether some congressmen intended for the bill to obstruct civil rights leaders. How Southern Democrats voted would probably be a good indicator (people who tended to be conservative and religious, but also racist).

Loren