IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Churches

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------

Although I understand where the author is coming from, we have to remember that churches entered into their tax free status knowing full well that they were not permitted to advocate for political candidates as a condition of getting certain benefits. Frankly, they gave their silence in exchange for money. That is the choice they made, a deal with the devil.

And certainly we can assert that such prohibitions on religious speech, no matter how tied to cash and prizes, violate the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law..." does not allow government agencies to create conditions where religious practice is curtailed. 

But beyond that, what the IRS says and what the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims, are two different things. FFRF is the organization who brought suit against the IRS for not prosecuting offending churches. 

First, the IRS website tells us this: "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

However, when we look at the FFRF website, we find a rather hyperbolic description of their victory over the IRS. They twice mischaracterize the regulatory prohibition. Rather than 501(c)(3) organizations not being able to advocate for any particular candidate, the FFRF says that the illegal issue is about "...partisan politicking from the pulpit..." "Partisan politicking" is not accidentally chosen language, it is a purposefully over-broad, so as to leave open the idea that the IRS prohibition extends to include advocacy about any issue that could be considered political, like abortion or gay marriage.

Why? Religion-haters like the FFRF want churches to shut up. Period. They do not want religious influence in society or government at all. You see, for the Left, everything is political. So any commentary at all about the moral issues of the day have political ramifications, and they would prefer it all to be illegal. It's a growing perspective, strangely, even within the Church.
--------------------------

First Amendment: Government's assault on religious liberty has hit a new low as the IRS settles with atheists by promising to monitor sermons for mentions of the right to life and traditional marriage.

A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit.

The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS's agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate.

The irony of this agreement is that it's being enforced by the same Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS that was once headed by Lois "Fifth Amendment" Lerner and that openly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups.

Among the questions that the IRS asked of those targeted groups was the content of their prayers.

Those who objected to the monitoring of what is said and done in mosques for signs of terrorist activity have no problem with this one, though monitoring what's said in houses of worship is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Can you say "chilling effect"?

Congress can make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So it's not clear where the IRS gets off doing just that by spying on religious leaders lest they comment on issues and activities by government that are contrary to or impose on their religious consciences. Our country was founded by people fleeing this kind of government-monitored and mandated theology last practiced in the Soviet Union.

The FFRF cites as its authority the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which states that tax-exempt groups cannot endorse candidates. A 2009 court ruling determined that the IRS must staff someone to monitor church politicking.

The FFRF claims that the IRS has not adhered to the ruling and that the settlement amounts to enforcing both the Johnson Amendment and the court ruling.

But is the Catholic Church "politicking" when it proclaims its "Fortnight for Freedom" dedicated to opposing ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate and the government's forcing schools and charities it considers an extension of its faith to include it in insurance coverage or face crippling fines?

Are Protestant and evangelical churches "politicking" when they participate in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" this year on Oct. 5 to encourage congregations to "vote their faith," which they consider to be an exercise of free speech and freedom of religion?

The FFRF says that such events at "rogue churches" have "become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity." But doesn't the Constitution say that Congress can make no such laws?

Rather than "rogue churches," it's the rogue IRS that needs to be stopped.



Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/073114-711290-irs-deal-with-atheists-to-monitor-churches.htm#ixzz39SGd3YtA

First Amendment Information - Chesapeake & Ohio Canal

I'm surprised there isn't more outrage at the antics of government. Especially when they cross the line in violation of the Constitution. Maybe people are simply ignorant, or perhaps they feel powerless. I just don't know.

Here is the latest example. I shall reproduce it here in full for fair use and discussion purposes:

Here's the text, with my comments interspersed in bold:

First Amendment Information 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (This is peculiar. You don't often see a government entity providing the text of some part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as a prelude to explaining a policy. It's as if they're quoting it to show how they derived their policy, but in actual fact, as we read we will see they violate the very constitutional provision they are quoting.)

Freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly are rights protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. People may exercise these rights in national parks, but the National Park Service still retains its responsibility to protect park resources and prevent conflict among park visitors. (Ok, here we have the justification for their policy. And we can find agreement that the government should have the power to establish policies that prevent vandalism, assault, and other crimes. But keep reading, and note the leap they take.) 

Therefore, the National Park Service establishes guidelines for setting the time, place and manner (number of participants, use of facilities and type of equipment) for the events to occur. (Notice the leap? The power they think they have is not the power to apprehend criminals so that peoples' First Amendment rights are safeguarded, it is to define the characteristics of the constitutionally-protected activity! In other words, the criminals are not the problem, the exercisers of their rights are.)

By law, (That is, because some unconstitutional law says so. Did they miss their own quote, "Congress shall make no law...?") 

the National Park Service has established places in parks where First Amendment activities can be accommodated. (Breathtaking glibness. The rights of the people are not "accommodated." This presumes that the government has some involvement in the granting and defining of rights. But rights do not come from government, they are unalienable. Government has no authority to decide how and when first amendment rights are exercised, except to act to safeguard rights.) 

These areas are visible to the general visiting public without interfering with the public's enjoyment of the park. (Going even farther afield, the government apparently thinks the exercising of First Amendment rights might interfere with "the public's enjoyment of the park." Do you see how this places government in the position of deciding whose rights are important and whose are not? There is no delineation in the exercise of rights that grant power to the government to determine if those expressions are disturbing someone's enjoyment of the park. The founders expressly had things like this in mind that expressing one's self might be offensive!) 

These areas are identified in the Superintendent's Compendium. While the National Park Service regulates aspects of the activity to protect park resources, it never regulates the content of the message. (Um, yeah. Let's just see, shall we?)

Permits are issued for First Amendment activities, but there are no fees or costs, and no insurance is required for the activities.

All requests for similar activities are treated equally. As long as permit criteria and requirements are met, no group wishing to assemble lawfully will be discriminated against or denied the right of assembly.

Types of First Amendment Activities

Religious services or ceremonies
Press conference
Press coverage of breaking news
Voter registration
Collecting signatures on petitions or voter initiatives
Public demonstration, picketing, assembly or rally for expressing opinion and views
Sale or distribution of printed material related to free expression of opinion

Type of Activities that are NOT covered by the First Amendment

Church picnic or social gathering
Wedding ceremonies or receptions
Political fund raiser or other invitation-only political activity or event
Solicitation of donations
Community parades, athletics, or sporting events
Sale of message-bearing clothing, arts and crafts, or similar merchandise

(This is the regulation of content, isn't it? Some forms of peaceable assembly are regulated while others are not. Some forms of speech are regulated while others are not. The government has set itself as arbiter of what constitutes the "proper" exercising of rights. This ought to offend every American citizen. The very fact that the government thinks it CAN, in fact, make a law regarding this is astounding. 

But it's even worse. Notice the phrasing: "Type of Activities that are NOT covered by the First Amendment." It doesn't say, "Types of Activities specially Affected by Park Policy." The statement is an official interpretation of the First Amendment! See, this government website quotes the First Amendment, misinterprets it, and proceeds to violate it. 

Government acts with impunity because the citizenry either can't or won't stop them. Even in court people are told they don't have standing. People are told they cannot exercise their unalienable rights. People are told how they can lead their lives, and then their government are spies on them, listens in on them, and videos and records and observes ad nauseum.)

Many of these activities can be accommodated through the Special Use permit system for which a fee may be charged. Liability insurance is required. Call the Park's Permit Office for assistance and additional information at (301)745-5815.

(*Sigh*  And here's a sign they post...)