Now as I've said in the past, I have very little use for most of the high profile televangelists. I disagree with the theology put forth by most of them, which I believe borders on heretical. And yet I'm even more opposed by this effort by Senator Charles Grassley to dig around into the budgetary practices of their "ministries" in a public fashion -- and even more so by the threat to jail them if they do not cooperate with his kangaroo court.

"I've sent them some letters because I want some information. If they want to cooperate that's good, I expect they will. If they don't, they'll be the first people since a fellow named Abramoff, and he's in a jail cell."

So let's make this really clear -- Grassley is explicitly threatening to see ministers jailed for refusing to share the inner workings of their ministries with the US government. What's more, he is planning on holding hearings on their budgetary priorities, placing a US Senate committee in the position of passing judgment over whether or not their spending is in keeping with the beliefs and purposes of the ministry. That sounds pretty invasive of an area that is covered by the First Amendment to me.

Funny, isn't it, that the Left isn't at all interested in invoking the doctrine of the separation of church and state to condemn this witch hunt? And interesting, isn't it, that this liberal senator is only targeting ministries that are generally seen as conservative theologically and (because of that stance) politically?

I wonder -- when will Senator Grassley conduct the public investigation of the terrorist ties of Islamic non-profits, including mosques that preach extreme theology that is supportive of jihadi terror? Want to bet that the answer is NEVER -- because unlike the Christians he seeks to persecute now, Grassley knows that disgruntled Muslims may attempt to kill him.

This does, however, raise an interesting questions as to the constitutionality of requiring that churches and other religious groups apply to the government for tax-exempt status and the government's role in regulating them. There is a legitimate argument that religious groups, by their nature, should be exempt from taxes under the First Amendment. After all, as stated in the decision of the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." It is undeniable that the First Amendment implicitly denies the government the power to destroy a religious organization, just as it explicitly denies the government the power to establish one. Senator Grassley's statement serves as a pointed reminder of why the free exercise and establishment clauses exist.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.