Subtitle :
"Your Tax Dollars Fund Our Drive For Theocracy. Ha ha ! ( suckers )"
A little noticed* bill, sure to be highly contentious, H.R. 235 imparts a whole new dimension to "faith based initiatives" - especially in light of Esther Kaplan's report that Jim Towey's Office of Community and Faith Based Initiatives has so far made
no direct federal grants to non-Christian organizations, and the LA Times story showing
the Bush Administration's nakedly partisan distribution of Faith Based funds and the extremely sketchy accounting of fund disbursement given by Towey.
Theocracy Watch caught it, at least.
Anyway, here's Faith-Based Jesus™ :
[ continued ] ....as long as the activity takes place in the context of a religious service or gathering. While narrower than previous proposals, the bill still unfairly favors religious organizations over other nonprofits and allows tax-deductible contributions to support partisan activities.
The bill is the latest in a series of attempts by Jones, who introduced the first version of the bill in June 2001 (The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act or HOWPSPA). Congress has consistently rejected the proposal, which has been opposed by nonprofits, clergy and campaign finance reformers. Currently, tax law prohibits all religious, educational, charitable and other organizations exempt under section 501(C)(3) of the tax code from opposing or supporting candidates for office. H.R. 235 would change that for religious organizations.
H.R. 235 is narrower than earlier versions of the bill in that it limits the type of activities permitted, but it is more expansive in that there is no ceiling on the number of activities that could be permitted. Under H.R. 235, the permitted campaign-related activities would have to occur in the "content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious service or gatherings," but any amount of these activities could be conducted provided they were part of the presentation at a religious gathering. However, religious organizations would be precluded from making campaign contributions or paying for advertisements in newspapers.
Since this language would permit any activity that could be deemed part of a sermon or other presentation during a religious service, it allows for the express endorsement or opposition to a candidate for public office during a sermon. Religious leaders could request that contributions be made directly to the candidate's committee or other political organizations or even individual contributions of services to political campaigns. They could appeal to their congregations to vote for particular candidates.
Compared to last year's version the bill also narrows what the houses of worship can do outside of the service facilities. Under the Houses of Worship bill introduced in the 108th Congress, the church could reprint the sermon or minutes of the gathering and mail them to church members and the general public. In contrast, the Houses of Worship bill introduced in the 109th Congress restricts churches to expressing personal opinions so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service. It specifically restricts mailings that result in more than an incremental cost to the organization and any electioneering communication as defined by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. However, FEC regulations have interpreted broadcasts by Section 501(C)(3) nonprofit corporations as exempt from the definition of "electioneering communication."
Current law protects the integrity of charitable nonprofits by preventing individuals from using tax-deductible contributions to avoid tax and legal restrictions that apply to political donations. It also prevents individuals from using charitable nonprofit organizations, which are, by definition, organized for public purposes, to advance their personal partisan political views. Supporters of the bill claim religious leaders are afraid to speak out on public issues. However, all 501(C)(3)s, including religious organizations, are allowed to engage in advocacy activities such as lobbying, public education campaigns, comment on public policy, and litigation.
This regulation exists to protect the integrity of the election process.......
My opinion on H.R. 235 a bit mixed though, because of the view I've come to that the religious left ( and anyone of faith who doesn't want to live in some sort of Leviticus-based theocracy featuring stoning for adultery, gay sex, the wearing of mixed fiber clothing, and the eating of shellfish ) needs to organize to fight against the war for theocracy that's been launched by the extremist religious right. In the short run, it's hard to see how this bill, if passed, would be anything but bad for the Democrats. But, perhaps it would serve as a brutal wake up call. As George Lakoff has noted, the hard religious right is not more numerous than the religious left ( and certainly far smaller than all of those opposed to a fundamentalist theocracy ) but the religious right is highly organized.
MORE INFO :
See my diary, yesterday, Slouching Towards Theocracy : $100 billion for "Faith Based" ?.... :
Bill Berkowitz, in Slouching Towards Theocracy, reports on the progress of President Bush's "Faith Based" initiatives. But, the actual amount of money dispursed under the "Faith Based" umbrella by the US federal government and by states is hard to gauge and may be considerable greater. Here is a quick overview of the vast pools of federal funds recently opened to applications from faith-based groups. ( via Theocracy Watch, section on Faith Based )
By studying White House press releases and the White House web site, Daniel Zwerdling found that religious groups could apply to more than a hundred federal programs that gave out more than $65 billion. In addition, religious groups could apply for more money through state-administered programs.
:
BUT - non Christians NEED NOT APPLY.... (more in diary, including further estimates of "faith based" fuds available at Federal, State, and Local levels :
as low as $50 billion or as high as $300 billion, but NO ONE, including Jim Towey, really knows exactly how much, where the money goes, or how it gets used.
Jim Towey, head of The Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, has accounting and business degrees but - strangely - can't track the money in his program. Meanwhile, Towey caused a flap this summer :
Godless orthodoxy ? What ?
For more, see Frederick Clarkson's
"Attack of The Fuzzy-Faithed Rovians"