By Mike Bibb
"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." — First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified Dec. 15, 1791.
______________________________________________
Years ago, before passage of the 16th Amendment and shelves of tax regulations became an accepted reality, politics and government polices were frequently discussed within church chapels and classrooms.
In fact, the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees everyone has the "free exercise of religion," and "the freedom of speech," and right "to peaceably assemble" to discuss issues of public interest — within the same paragraph.
Obviously, Framers of the Constitution believed these were not separate and unrelated rights which should be limited within church buildings, any more than they could be restricted to political rallies, newspaper editorial pages or podcasts.
Free speech is the heart and soul of a free society, which is probably the primary reason our Founders placed it at the beginning of the original ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights.
That, and Colonists had grown tired of being told what to do, when to pay taxes, and rules to obey issued from the monarchy in England. After the establishment of Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, for the next 168 years tensions between the two societies gradually reached a breaking point.
A "Declaration of Independence" was enacted by the thirteen colonies on July 4, 1776. In essence, it was a list of grievances detailing the abuses inflicted by the English Crown.
A bold move by a small struggling nation against the "Super Power" of the world at that time. England had a large army and navy to enforce its edicts upon their various subjects, and it was thought the minor disturbances caused by the colonies scattered along the Atlantic Coast in North America wouldn't be a serious problem to remedy.
Obviously, things turned out differently and the United States of America enacted its own Constitution of individual rights on Dec. 15, 1791.
Fast forward a couple of centuries and we find ourselves in a similar dilemma as the Colonists. Only, the rules and edicts are not coming from London, but our own nation's capital in Washington, D.C.
Also, during that time, corporations of various descriptions and sizes became common. Some were private, others public. Some were business oriented while others more civic minded. Some built railroads, oil companies, automobiles and steel plants. Others created large churches and charities.
These are all legitimate organizations with their own ideas and business models. Likewise, they all enjoy the same Constitutional provisions.
But in 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution — the Income Tax — changed the rules.
Basically, Congress enacted a law that said "Income, from whatever the source" would be subject to federal taxation. It wasn't apportionment (divided among the states) or census based (population).
It was strictly intended to collect taxes on "incomes." In much the same way taxes are collected on sales, fuel or property. A tax is usually named by the object it is placed upon. As a result, an "income tax" is a tax on income. That's all it is — not difficult to figure out.
It is not a tax on wages, salaries or other remuneration an individual may receive, as that was already forbidden by the Constitution. A person has the right to work and be paid for his labor without the government claiming a percentage of it unless everyone pays the same percentage as established by the number of states and the population (census).
If a person is paid a million dollars and the government needs 10% of it, then a person who earns a hundred dollars also pays 10%, since each are paying an equal percentage for the same amount of government services, regardless of their financial circumstances.
On the other hand, most businesses receive revenue through sales and services of a product. The profit or gain a company receives from these sales and services — after deducting operating expenses — is known as "income."
Yet, churches and charitable corporations are treated a little differently. Their "incomes" consists of "tithes, donations and offerings" from whatever the source. Still, they exist in a corporate structure subject to the laws enabling them to conduct their particular business. They, too, file annual tax forms to substantiate their tax status and obligations.
So, what does the 16th Amendment have to do with the 1st Amendment — aren't they two distinctly different topics?
Yes, they are. One deals with an individual's rights, while the other is related to business and corporations.
Except, businesses, corporations and churches consist of individuals, who, as we know, have certain "inalienable rights" which cannot be infringed upon.
As mentioned, primary among these is free speech — that naturally includes a person's opinions, agreements and disagreements with others.
Since churches in the United States are varied in their theologies, preaching and teaching techniques, they are required to respect a church member's opinions and right to express their opinions without being subject to censorship.
Church officials and members may not agree on everything, but unless a member has committed a grievous offence against a church's doctrines — and rightfully determined to have done so — silencing or expelling the member is probably not an appropriate response.
Sort of like being "impeached," in political parlance. A person may be excommunicated from a particular church, but he is not jailed for it. He can choose to attend another church, if he wishes.
Consequently, a return to discussing current topics of interest among church members could provide a meaningful alternative to intentionally ignoring some of the issues facing us today. Maybe a 20-minute "open mike" period within the normal sacrament/sermon time would be appropriate.
Let's face it, politics and what happens in states and our national capital affects all of us, whether we like it or not or agree with it or not. Even local politics, to a certain degree, is a basic part of the mixture.
Consequently, it was customary for people to discuss political issues when they gathered in church, since that was a convenient place to hear and hash-out ideas and opinions.
Today, we have cell phones and "social media" to express ourselves. A convenient addendum to free speech, but not like the real thing where folks are face to face, seeing each other's facial expressions, body reactions and voice inflections.
Why not try this again in church? Those who wish to participate can, and those who do not also have that right. However, the session should not be allowed to turn into a political pep rally for a particular candidate, although a candidate could be allowed to announce and express his ideas. These brief conversations would strictly be an opinion session regarding church members' thoughts and views on whatever they wish to discuss.
With the proliferation of politically biased corporate media — echoing the ideologies of their particular favored party — we are almost overwhelmed by the constant drumming of whatever it is they are promoting. To such an extent our brains are nearly numbed from what we are seeing and hearing on TV, radio, newspapers and phones.
It's a 24/7 onslaught, leaving little time to really decipher the content.
Maybe, a small break during a Sunday church meeting to listen to the concerns of our fellow congregants, would be a welcomed relief from the perpetually scripted and financially enabled voices we regularly succumb to.
Until finally, if we're able, we change the channel, press the mute button, or simply turn the damn thing off.
We know the drill, how the game is played and fully aware of the frailty of promises we hear from a large portion of office holders and bureaucrats, and instinctively sense it's a big waste of time. For the most part, the legitimacy of their campaign pledges is smoke and mirrors to divert attention from their real intentions.
Instead, we should listen to what our neighbors think and say about certain topics. They may not have degrees in economics or law, but they're smart enough to realize a government cannot tax its citizens $1 and turn around and spend $5 without the checking account quickly plunging into the red.
And, repeat these careless errors over, and over, and over. Eventually, you end up $37 trillion in debt, without a ladder to climb out of the hole.
More importantly, no one in Washington is willing to accept the blame. Instead, pointing fingers at everyone else but themselves. So, the spending, taxing and borrowing continues . . . as if everything is fine as frog hair.
Unfortunately, a financial cliff is just ahead and we're rushing toward it — ignoring the warning signs and flashing lights — as rapidly as Congress can spend our money and then tell us what a great job their doing.
If we balk at their behavior, or disapprove of the way our taxes are being abused, we're reminded "File your taxes on time. No one is above the law"; a cautionary suggestion a person could be audited if he complains too much.
Which seems counter intuitive. The more taxes we pay, the more we owe and the deeper in debt we go.
Something isn't adding up. Maybe folks at church could comment on the apparent contradictions and why we should be compelled to throw good money after bad, year after year, after year, after year — no matter which political party is calling the shots.
Almost as if it's "Good public policy, and the right thing to do," when common sense screams otherwise.
I'll be glad when we return to serving real wine during communion. I need something a little stronger than a quarter-ounce of watered-down grape flavored punch!!!
