|
Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act 3/26/2003 The IRS has the power to silence churches if it deems their speech politically undesirable. H.R. 235 would change that. Support it! Because of our firm commitment to religious liberty, Concerned Women for America was among the earliest and strongest supporters of the "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act," offered in the 107th Congress by Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-North Carolina). That legislation would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from revoking or denying preferred tax status to a church on the grounds of alleged political activity by that church.
Last October, near the end of the congressional session, the Jones bill came to the House floor for a vote under "suspension of the rules," a parliamentary procedure usually reserved for such non-controversial business as the naming of a local post office. Bills brought up under this procedure may not be amended, but they require a two-thirds vote for passage. Mr. Jones was well aware that his bill did not have two-thirds support, or even majority support, in the House when he asked the House leadership to bring it up on the suspension calendar. But with the 107th Congress winding down and no possibility of passing this legislation, a roll call vote on it would move the cause forward in two ways: It would identify supporters and opponents, and it would increase the public visibility of the issue.
Opponents to Freedom of Speech for Houses of Worship
To no one's surprise, the Jones bill did not pass the House that day, garnering only 178 votes in favor. But that exercise served its intended purpose.
For one thing, the issue received substantial news coverage, so that more of the public became aware of the effort to protect churches from the IRS. In addition, key lobbying targets were identified.
For example, a majority of the Republicans who voted against the Jones bill were supporters of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill. Opponents of the Jones bill had argued that it would enable political contributors to violate the Shays-Meehan legislation by funneling contributions through churches. This argument was a red herring, for the Jones bill conferred no exemptions from general provisions of law on churches, but it had made a difference in the vote. Therefore, Mr. Jones added a section to the new version of his bill in the 108th Congress (H.R. 235) to make it clear that this protection from the IRS did not constitute a loophole in the campaign finance law, and he persuaded Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut) to acknowledge that fact.
A second key group was the Congressional Black Caucus, whose membership had probably all made campaign appearances in churches. Under current law, a church that allows a candidate to address the congregation, or in any other way appears to depart from strict neutrality, risks losing its tax status. Clearly, in voting against the Jones bill, the Black Caucus members were reflecting the interests of their friends in Washington rather than their friends back home, and their behavior would change if they begin to hear from the constituents whose very existence they are placing in jeopardy.
A third group consisted of the seven Republicans from Iowa and Nebraska who agreed to vote en bloc against the bill because they were not sure about its effect. These members are clearly open to persuasion if they hear from constituents.
Fundamental to religious liberty
CWA supports this legislation because we see it as fundamental to religious liberty. The tax status of churches is, strictly speaking, a privilege rather than a right; but if a church could be put out of business by the adverse decision of an IRS official, then the state has the power to suppress a church. This is something that should be of grave concern to all citizens, especially those who are church members. Even worse, the event that might trigger the suppression of a church by the government is an otherwise legal exercise of free speech, and that speech becomes punishable because it is deemed politically undesirable by officials of the government. Governments should never have this much power, and churches must never be this much at the mercy of state officials.
The enforcement of this provision of the law requires the government to inquire into the content of messages issued by, or in the name of, churches-in sermons, church publications, or any other medium-and, in effect, to approve or disapprove the communications of churches to their adherents. This is an extreme and unconscionable violation of religious liberty, in effect giving Caesar the power to censor pastors.
It will be argued that churches almost never are penalized for alleged political activities. The IRS acknowledged in a congressional hearing on the subject that it enforces this provision of the law only on the basis of complaints from "third parties" (i.e., anti-religious pressure groups such as the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Interfaith Alliance). It is, of course, widely recognized that in the African-American community the churches function as the central community organization where information of political relevance is communicated and where citizens organize to advance their political interests. Strict enforcement of the law in African-American communities would be tantamount to a systematic persecution of Christianity in those communities.
Compelled to Keep Silent
But even among communities where the church has not traditionally played such an active political role, the mere existence of this threat from the IRS has very negative consequences. For one thing, pastors and other church officials may feel compelled by the law to keep silent when they know in conscience they should speak out. The only place citizens may have a chance to find out which school board candidates favor condoms for kids, which legislative candidates want to steal from the poor with a lottery, and which congressional candidates will defend the existence of Israel, is in a church or by reading a church publication.
Worse still, many pastors and church officials are not really sure what they are and are not allowed to do under IRS rules (the main point is that they should never have to ask what the IRS commands, but only what Christ commands!), and so they refuse to permit activities that would not jeopardize their tax status.
After all, our pastors should be experts in the Scriptures, not the tax code. As a result, good, decent pastors have prohibited pro-life groups from using the church facilities for meetings, blocked campaign volunteers for conservative, pro-family candidates from distributing campaign literature in the church parking lot, refused to allow advocates of pro-marriage initiatives to collect petition signatures outside the church doors, and even refused to apply the truths of the Bible to issues of current political concern. Fear of retribution by the IRS is a constant temptation to our pastors to hide the light of the Gospel under a bushel. A free people, whose nation was dedicated to religious liberty at its foundation, should never tolerate such a subordination of church to state.
What you can do
Michael Schwartz is vice president for government relations for Concerned Women for America. |
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
