Freedom of Speech: Is It Pay to Play?

Just the thing that caught my eye today. Been on vacation and not much for updating.

I am a huge proponent of free speech, often (borrowing the line from The American President) to the point of "acknowledg[ing] a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

So my initial reaction to this Pulpit Initiative is to back them. At first glance, they are correct in that "The bottom line is that no enforcement agency of the federal government should be telling a pastor what he can or cannot say from his pulpit about the Bible and his church's teaching on the issues of the hour - even if the pastor's sermon applies Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections."

Until they get to "Such agencies certainly cannot condition tax-exempt status--a status churches have always been constitutionally guaranteed since our founding--on the surrender of cherished First Amendment rights."

Where is this Constitutional right to be exempt from taxation? In fact, aren't these very churches getting the special rights so many conservatives deride by being exempt because they believe in some old man in the sky? If they want to interject themselves into the political process, why not then voluntarily give up their tax-exempt status?

I'm honestly confused by why churches have this status at all anymore. I actually think the whole charity/church tax-exempt status should be tossed out the window. Perhaps tax credits for adherence to stated goals would be a better program than the Catholic Church not having to pay god-only knows millions in taxes on their incredibly valuable properties throughout the country.

I will admit it's not a clear-cut issue for me. Freedom of Speech does trump most everything in this country as a core right. But I don't see why churches are given a tax exempt status and then asked to be treated differently from other organizations with tax exempt status. But I have a core visceral issue with the First Amendment being a pay to play situation.

Spare Me the Founding Fathers

Every election year I end up having the conversation with someone about the Founding Fathers.

These were great men, no doubt about it. But I do not want my country run based on what the Founding Fathers intended. I want my country based on the framework they left behind.

When Sarah Palin said regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and the “under god” phrase that if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers it was good enough for her, many on the left jeered (and rightfully so) because the Founding Fathers didn’t write it, nor was it even written in their lifetimes. But it’s the other part that disturbs me. If something was good enough for the Founding Fathers it was good enough for her.

• So she doesn’t want the right to vote?
• She doesn’t want children barred from strenuous labor?
• She doesn’t want slavery abolished?

You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Founding Fathers’ intentions you support when you make sweeping statements like that. It’s the reason I despise Scalia as a Supreme Court justice. Not because of his rulings, but because of what he bases his rulings on.

Interpreting the Constitution is a tricky business. But it’s dishonest to base it entirely on what you think—or even know—what the original intent of the Founding Fathers was. I for one have been glad to see the Founding Fathers’ intentions blown to bits in many cases.

Honor what they created. In many ways, it was in spite of themselves.