HR 3600. Write your Congressman and stop this bill TODAY please.

[Reeve]

DO IT DO IT DO IT. LET them pass it PLEASEEEEE

As soon as they do they lose their tax exempt status

The bill makes it so they wouldn't lose their tax exempt status. That's the point of the bill.

[Magpai]

That doesn't matter. Its not about control its about influence. Churches aren't supposed to have influence over the government. Government isn't supposed to have influence over the church. The wall needs to be as absolute as possible. Churches can't be endorsing politicians and government shouldn't be taking money from them.

The Constitution forbids Congress from meddling with establishment of churches and free exercise of religion. It doesn't forbid citizens from listening to their pastor. Just get over it and find another way to keep politicians you don't like from getting their message out to voters.

[Rukentuts]

That's up to the voter to decide. Still.

Amount of formal interaction between government and church: 0.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Church telling me I have to vote for X or I go to hell is not Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion. In fact, in this scenario, Congress is not involved in the interaction between me and my church at all. Just as it should be.

Allowing them into the legislative process respects establishments of religion. You posted the very answer to the problem at hand.

[Algearond]

Thanks for the heads up, writing them now to tell them I support this and I hope it passes, and I'll let all my friends know to.

[Vokal]

This would be fine if they taxed those fucking boy-molesters....

[Puremallace]

The Constitution forbids Congress from meddling with establishment of churches and free exercise of religion. It doesn't forbid citizens from listening to their pastor. Just get over it and find another way to keep politicians you don't like from getting their message out to voters.

If you think big oil or energy has influence with money right now imagine the Catholic Church influence. Welcome to the dark ages people. We got a bunch of num nuts on the science committee and a corporate tool with a good chance to be president.

[conscript]

This is one of the political movements that makes me the angriest. I have seen so many stories in the news lately about pastors having that fucking political pulpit sermon where they preach against a politician (usually Obama) in complete outright defiance of the IRS. I say fuck them. If they want free speech then they should pay taxes like everyone else. At least freaking corporations pay taxes and have the right to free speech. If churches want to be people to they should pay taxes rather than sit on their thrones of gold making money hand over fist from the sheep in their congregation (obviously this doesn't apply to all of them). And like churches don't already have political influence. I'm sorry, but have they seen the Republican party's stance on issues. They ain't against abortions, gays, and Muslims because they just don't like them. They are against them because they are Bible thumpers.

---------- Post added 2012-10-10 at 03:59 PM ----------

If you think big oil or energy has influence with money right now imagine the Catholic Church influence. Welcome to the dark ages people. We got a bunch of num nuts on the science committee and a corporate tool with a good chance to be president.

Remember, well you weren't alive more than likely and neither was I, forty odd years ago when people were actually scared that JFK was going to let the Pope rule America? Now people are actually cheering this nonsense. I seriously, in all honesty, can not wait for forty years from now. The number of religious people with influence in the US will have dwindled to next to nothing and we can try and enjoy freedom again rather than trying to oppress and discriminate using a religion as our basis. The US isn't fucking Iran and shouldn't be. That is where we are headed with religious extremism from the super ultra Right.

Policy should be made to protect religion and to protect us from religion, just like it is NOW. Policy shouldn't be based on religion which is exactly where we are headed.

[Faloestin]

No, the ability to donate money and speak your mind is not a privilege you pay for in this country, it's a right. As long as they're not making a profit there's no sense in taxing them.[COLOR="red"]

Profit isn't what gets taxed, revenue is. Churches and nonprofits have plenty of revenue to tax, but we've decided not to tax them because we (generally) want to encourage their existence and want to encourage people to support them. Part of the deal we've made (especially with churches) is that they get to be not-taxed as long as they keep their noses out of direct involvement in politics. The line's gray, but it's why you don't see an official Catholic candidate for President, for example.

[Reeve]

OK, I sent my Congresswoman an email. You're right, it didn't take long at all.

[Deleted]

That doesn't matter. Its not about control its about influence. Churches aren't supposed to have influence over the government. Government isn't supposed to have influence over the church. The wall needs to be as absolute as possible. Churches can't be endorsing politicians and government shouldn't be taking money from them.

exactly this really.

Its sad to actually see America work backwards. Church and state need to be separate, the fact so many politicians preach the word or god while campaigning breaks the constitution no?
I couldnt care less if churches push for one side or the other as long as they lose the tax exempt status they have, believe it or not (and this is the thing most people want/choose to overlook) when a priest says a side is working for the devil and you are religous, that tends to have a powerful impact with his congreation and will effect how votes come in one way or another.

[Laize]

OK, I sent my Congresswoman an email. You're right, it didn't take long at all.

I know right. The House of Representatives website will even tell you who your Representative is and link you to their website and almost every lawmaker's website has a form for writing them. Takes like 5 minutes.

[Faloestin]

That's up to the voter to decide. Still.

Amount of formal interaction between government and church: 0.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Church telling me I have to vote for X or I go to hell is not Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion. In fact, in this scenario, Congress is not involved in the interaction between me and my church at all. Just as it should be.

Sure, but ... the government can tax any entity it wants to, including churches. We choose to give churches the option to not be taxed, but only if they agree to a set of rules which includes no formal Baptist candidates for Senator. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean that the secular government has no authority over churches - it just means the government should bend over backwards to try to avoid either setting up a state religion (which is what Baptist candidates for Senator leads to) or to overly infringe on the practice of religious beliefs. Note that "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not mean believers have a free hand to act on the dictates of their religious beliefs (human sacrifice is right out, for example).

---------- Post added 2012-10-10 at 04:48 PM ----------

Allowing them into the legislative process respects establishments of religion. You posted the very answer to the problem at hand.

The 1st Amendment actually means the opposite of what I think you're saying. "Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means there has to be a wall of separation (Jefferson's phrase) between church & state. The Supreme Court said in the relevant case that "government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

To be blunt, "respects" in the 1st Amendment means "about," roughly - not "gives props to." Ben Franklin says word, though.

[sugarlily]

If you think big oil or energy has influence with money right now imagine the Catholic Church influence. Welcome to the dark ages people. We got a bunch of num nuts on the science committee and a corporate tool with a good chance to be president.

Except not ALL Catholic ppl/Church members think this way nor agree with Romney/Paul's ideas & ideals.

http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/new...mmoral-budget/

http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-042.cfm

*shrug, politics & religion are notoriously difficult to have conversations about & remain friendly. People are passionate about both.

Have a good day everybody <3

[Elegiac]

Except not ALL Catholic ppl/Church members think this way nor agree with Romney/Paul's ideas & ideals.

http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/new...mmoral-budget/

http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-042.cfm

*shrug, politics & religion are notoriously difficult to have conversations about & remain friendly. People are passionate about both.

Have a good day everybody <3

I thought Catholics mainly voted Democrat anyway.

[Kivimetsan]

Its a violation of the 1st amendment. How could you support something so oppressive? Do you want to see your country repeal or make the constitution illegitimate? This law sets the precedence for further violations of the 1st amendment. This is a good thing, you might not be religious as well, is that why you don't like this bill?

[Reeve]

Its a violation of the 1st amendment. How could you support something so oppressive? Do you want to see your country repeal or make the constitution illegitimate? This law sets the precedence for further violations of the 1st amendment. This is a good thing, you might not be religious as well, is that why you don't like this bill?

The existing law is what helps ensure a minimal level of entanglement between church and state. HR 3600, a repeal of the existing law, would help to violate the 1st amendment, not get rid of such a violation.

[smelltheglove]

Its a violation of the 1st amendment. How could you support something so oppressive? Do you want to see your country repeal or make the constitution illegitimate? This law sets the precedence for further violations of the 1st amendment. This is a good thing, you might not be religious as well, is that why you don't like this bill?

it does not prohibit an individual's right to free speech, based on whatever criteria they choose. it does prohibit an organization's right, which that organization can remedy by giving up it's tax exempt status

[Deadvolcanoes]

Ron Paul is a co-sponsor to this bill. I'm beginning to think he's purposely pushing legislation that he knows has absolutely no chance of passing. This bill is as good as dead. No chance it passes.