is about to be violated if congress passes this bill?? Now will you take notice? This is to All types of chruches, not just Christians!! Go to my last post and read, let me know if you think this is okay, not okay?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjBJ16ruwKnrvjDsnXkCl3Lzy6IX?qid=20070116112249AAES4Q1
2007-01-16 06:35:08 · 19 answers · asked by Stacey B 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What about Freedom of Speech?
2007-01-16 06:41:12 · update #1
Churhes against abortion etc, will not be able to preach about it on Tv etc to those of us who care to listen to what the Bible has to say. They Lobby for Pro Choice, why should we have to pay for Lobbying for Pro Life? So, I guess everytime someone goes out and has a protest they should have to register as a Lobbyist too? Ridiculous
2007-01-16 06:44:41 · update #2
Um Jay Sekulow is an extremly smart man who goes before congress everyday, I think he knows exactly what the bill means!
2007-01-16 06:56:12 · update #3
Many of those churches are lobbying, so why not call them that? If churches wish to just go back to preaching their superstition, that's fine. But when they start dabbling in politics, they should pay the entrance fee for doing so.
2007-01-16 06:39:17 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
If a certain group whatever was the ideology behind that elect to use their voting powers to drive politics in a certain direction THIS IS DEFINITELY LOBBYING, however if you are doing so, and you beleive that is for the benefit of everyone , so be it, dont bother. I hope this bill is not intended to make the republic or the democratic parties are THE ONLY LEGALLY APPROVED LOBBIES. Am i Right ????
2007-01-16 14:56:48 · answer #2 · answered by Tarek D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with most answerer's on this.What is the problem ? Their freedom of speech and religious rights will not be hindered, they will just have to register to sway political policies like every other organization. Why did they originally have the exception in the first place?
2007-01-16 15:07:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Uh, silly girl, lobbbying on Capitol Hill is a bit different than preaching to your Choir.
The purpose of lobbying is to give lots of money to politicians so that they will vote YOUR WAY.
It is a good thing that Pelosi wants to make you people into Lobbyists. I dont want your vast stores of riches hiding in the Vatican to be used to make your Ten Commandments into my secular law. Those that lobby for abortion rights PAY to do so. Why shouldnt you also pay to play politics? Cuz youre a church?!?!?!
2007-01-16 14:45:11 · answer #4 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What rights are being violated?
The article says that the churches will have to disclose certain information if they are going to rally their members to vote a certain way. In no way does this stop freedom of speech.
It will require a little extra work from the church to fill out forms, but other than that I don't see the problem.
OH.....the problem is the money. Ok. Gotcha. Churches want to be protected from that tax simply because they believe their religion is correct.
2007-01-16 14:40:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
No, I think it makes sense. I hope the bill passes. It's about time somebody did something about this. I'm not sure there is a Constitutional right to spead myths, given the morally offensive tactics used to accomplish that purpose. Like idoctrinating children who haven't a clue what religion is all about. Scaring them with hellfire. I mean, really! Go Nancy!
2007-01-16 14:41:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
This is a very necessary step. Religion and State are supposed to be separate, one of the fundamental ideas of our nation, yet it is obvious the influence religious groups have today. This will help distance their direct monetary influence on politics. This bill is meant to curb the corruption that has entwined our politics, and I honestly cannot see much or an ethical way forward without it.
2007-01-16 14:42:09 · answer #7 · answered by neuralzen 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hello =)
You are misinterpreting the proposed legislation (or that website is, I apologize)........
The purpose of it is to quell the hand of organizations like those of Pat Robertson, whose primary focus is the American political agenda, and not really spreading the teachings of Christ.
This would provide equal protection from any such Zealotry, regardless of faith.
It is an attempt to keep all religions from becoming uncontrolled screaming maniacs, capable of inciting the public to riot.
You must admit that Pat Robertson's Claims of "thousands" of Americans dying this year.....due to our "sins" does no one any good, and even if it were a valid message from God, should have been kept to himself, or perhaps passed on to Homeland Security, and not broadcast on his Television Program. It is this sort of zealotry that this legislation is trying to prevent. Scaring the hell out of the public is simply not acceptable, even if it is done in the name of Christ.
I hope that you can understand the need for some sort of control on this, and realize that it is not singling out Christianity here, but seeking to protect us from any such attack. I wonder if you would be complaining if this legislation prevented Islamic Fundamentalists from spreading their views??
Namaste,
--Tom
2007-01-16 14:47:39 · answer #8 · answered by glassnegman 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Three cheers for Nancy. Only people thinking they have a divine right to interfere with other's peaceful behaviour could object to this. They can still lobby, they just have to play by the rules. Now they should be taxed properly as well.
2007-01-16 14:40:09 · answer #9 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like a good plan to me. You can't get much more "special interest" than a church...
I would have no problem with the political action committees of my religion (there are a couple) having to register.
It's not banning their participation, it's requiring that they be up-front about it instead of pulling strings behind the scenes.
2007-01-16 14:45:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋