Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act

Posted on Wednesday 9 March 2005

Godhatesfags_w
I’m the first one to cheer anytime we come closer to
becoming “One Nation Under God�. The reality is we are a nation under God
whether or not it is stamped on our money. It is a blessing and a victory every
time we take steps to act like it.

 

HR 235 the
Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act
would be a great blessing and
victory. Holding a church’s tax-exempt status in bondage, to a tax code
amendment that contradicts the First Amendment, for over fifty years is
reprehensible. Very simply put, the amendment restricts a churches speech to
political issues only. Once you connect the issue with the brain it was
conceived in you stand to lose your tax-exempt status. I agree with Douglas Baker
“…that ideas alone do not make policy. People make policy.� American churches
are afforded the privilege of tax-exempt status. A benefit not enjoyed by most
churches in the world. For example all non-Anglican churches in England pay
taxes.

With freedom and
privilege comes responsibility. 1 Peter is a favorite book when I need divine
perspective on living as an alien in a world with growing hostility toward
Biblical Christianity.

Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a
covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the
brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:16-17)

Shepard_funeralTrying to combat hostility with enmity is neither Biblical
nor effective. When evangelical, presumably, ordained leaders make statements
like, “The U.S. Army should round up all the Wiccans and burn them alive with
napalm.� or the stomach turning actions of the Westboro Baptist Church of
Topeka, Kansas, when they picketed Matthew Shepherd’s funeral and then planned
to erect a memorial to his torment in hell, those “evil-doers� make it
increasingly difficult for the rest of us to bring the good news. These
abominable works of the flesh have been passed down through the ages as is
witnessed by Martin Luther in 1520.

“This ignorance and this crushing of liberty are
diligently promoted by the teaching of very many blind pastors, who stir up and
urge the people to a zeal for these things
, praising them and puffing them up
with their indulgences, but never teaching faith.”

While I encourage
you to contact your congressman in support of this legislation I hope we can
all bring glory to Jesus Christ with its inception.

17 Comments for 'Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act'

  1.  
    Kyle Simplot
    March 22, 2005 | 3:19 pm
     

    We must kill this proposed legislation. If a pastor from the pulpit endorses a political candidate that others in the congregation do not endorse, the congregation would likely split over it. Result: Democrat congregations vs Republican congregations. It that what we want?

  2.  
    Kyle Simplot
    March 22, 2005 | 3:22 pm
     

    If the Houses of Worship Free Speech Act is passed, then the tax exempt provision should be voided. The trade-off should be worth it.

  3.  
    March 24, 2005 | 2:01 pm
     

    Kyle this legislation is all about the tax exempt status. What your suggesting in your second post is what we have now. Maybe I missed something.

    Thanks for your dialogue - In Christ, Greg

  4.  
    Kyle Simplot
    April 6, 2005 | 11:22 pm
     

    Greg … No, the legislation is about allowing congregations to endorse political candidates without losing tax-exemption.

    I say, if congregations are permitted to endorse political candidates, they should lose their tax exemption … a reasonable tradeoff. … Kyle

  5.  
    James
    April 20, 2005 | 7:46 pm
     

    OK now that we are back to the real world….Kyle you seem to have gotten a little confused with what this “Act” deals with. At the same time you seem to show that you know what it deals with… so lets recap on this.
    When endorsing this particular Act you are giving freedom of speech back to the church. I fail to see where thats a bad thing… Because if we give the church the, lets say “right” of freedom of speech, you are in fact giving them a right that was giving to us all from our forefathers the “right to freedom of speech”. Now to the contrast… If the churches decide to endorse political canidates and they lose there “tax break” so to say. The lord would obviously provide for that particular church for stepping out in faith. But (and but actually means here comes the truth) if we as a country were to take away freedom of speech like we have we are actually infridging on there constitutional rights. well in my opinion as a believer in Christ we should do unto others as we would want them to do unto well… us. So i think we should continue with the fact that churches are made up of people and people have constitutional rights that i believe we should follow…..
    Any questions?

  6.  
    Kyle Simplot
    April 21, 2005 | 12:14 am
     

    The church has always been free to say anything it wants to say, but by accepting the government’s gift of tax exemption, the church agrees not to endorse political candidates. If it refuses the stipulation, it must refuse the gift. Freedom isn’t free. It always comes at a price.

  7.  
    James
    April 21, 2005 | 8:53 am
     

    don’t you think that maybe the “governments gift” might be from our Lord and savoir so we could better serve his kingdom…

  8.  
    James
    April 21, 2005 | 8:54 am
     

    considering our government was founded on biblical priciples any ways…

  9.  
    Kyle Simplot
    April 21, 2005 | 10:25 pm
     

    No, James … the gift given by our government comes from us, the taxpayers … some of whom are athiests, agnostics, and homosexuals. The church has been accepting tainted money.

  10.  
    Kyle Simplot
    April 21, 2005 | 10:34 pm
     

    considering the pagan sources of the “gift” and its benefit to the church, some might call it “money laundering.”

  11.  
    James
    April 22, 2005 | 9:44 am
     

    Technically the “gift” really isn’t giving the churches anything there just not taking it.

  12.  
    Kyle Simplot
    April 22, 2005 | 11:29 pm
     

    technically, by not having to pay taxes, congregations are using the government’s “gift.”
    Hence, use means acceptance.

  13.  
    James
    April 22, 2005 | 11:31 pm
     

    Kyle, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior???

  14.  
    Kyle
    April 25, 2005 | 8:54 am
     

    absolutely!

  15.  
    James
    April 25, 2005 | 4:07 pm
     

    Im sorry that I douted your Salvation, but I was a little confused on which side you stand in your “discusion”. If you don’t mind me asking, How long have you been Born again?

  16.  
    Kyle
    April 25, 2005 | 10:22 pm
     

    According to Romans 14:4 you do not have the authority to “doubt” my salvation. All who have the same father are his children. It is not the perogative of the children to determine their siblings. Fraternity is determined by Paternity. I was baptized in 1945. Gradated from Bible College in 1956 and ordained soon thereafter. I reject the false notion that somehow fraternity is based upon some brother’s litmus test.

  17.  
    April 26, 2005 | 8:37 am
     

    Whoa Fellas… find a chat room for this kind of dialogue. I appreciate the passion - just check the arena. Comments about the blog are welcome. Thanks

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)


*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

Information for comment users
Line and paragraph breaks are implemented automatically. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Please consider what you're posting.

HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>


RSS feed for comments on this post |

 
[ Login ]