Rep. Barrett speaks at church in Conway
Rep. Barrett speaks to the congregation at Church of God in Conway.
As part of the Church of God’s annual patriotic service, Congressman Gresham Barrett spoke to the congregation.
Barrett represents the 3rd Congressional District in South Carolina and has announced he is running for governor.
Barrett spoke to the crowd about the leadership of King David and how he frequently uses the bible as a resource.
After the service, he said he thinks Governor Mark Sanford should resign after his recent affair with a woman from Argentina.
“We made a decision earlier this past week to ask the governor to step down. You know, with the economic environment in South Carolina, and across this nation, i think we a governor to be truly focused on turning things around for the people of South Carolina,” Barrett said.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Please explain to us poor uneducated masses how a line that does not exist can become more vague or hard to see. We await your next salvo. BSMOSPHD
As i stated previously, this business of the IRS or any other govt. body having the right to [regulate-intimidate] any church in the US is a bunch of hokum. The bill of rights specifically denies the govt. any right to do so. You can strut about your education or degrees all you want, but it will not make you any smarter. Quite the reverse. How smart are you? Translate this: BSMOSPHD.
AV1, Anyone has the right to speak wherever they choose. It is when they campaign that is oversteps the line. My interpretation of this article is that Representative Barrett used this opportunity to campaign. If he was truly just speaking at the church, it probably wouldn’t have made the news. The fact that this article mentions that he is a Representative AND his views on Governor Sanford, AND that he is running for Governor says to me that this was nothing more than a campaign stop for him. Maybe it’s just bad reporting, I don’t know. I do appreciate you expressing your opinion in a logical, level headed way.
Dogman,
Are you saying that if the President of the United States was to speak at their home church or a friend or acquaintances church that it is a violation of the law? If this is what you are thinking you are, you are wrong. Your implication is that the President would not be able to have freedom of speech.
The Guideline says “organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
Because the President or Representatives freedom of speech does not imply that, they are participating in, or intervening in a political campaign it simply means they are speaking at their home church or a friend or acquaintances church. Because a person speaks at a church does not mean the person is being endorsed or that the church is participating in, intervening in or assisting in that individual’s political campaign in any way. Simply put they are just speaking at a church and in doing so exercising their first amendment rights.
Freedom of Speech is freedom of speech and should never be confused with IRS guidelines.
A note to whohearer please get real guest speakers at a patriotic event do not, never have and never will constitute a violation of a 501 ( C ) (3) you are forgetting the first amendment. A speech is not a violation unless campaign participation or intervention occurs directly or indirectly. This speech was for July 4 our independence day. So give it a break the first amendment applies not the IRS. There is no problem understanding the intent of the speech the question is do you understand.
A note for Dogman none of us are beacons of morality the truth is we are all sinners saved by grace should we choose to accept salvation but that is freedom of religion and relationship a topic for another time. Should we own slaves of course not check your history…? Slavery is, and has been abolished for a long time. As for our forefathers if you do some review you will find that our history has Puritan, roots but that did not make them perfect either.
blessings,
AV1
I’m sorry… apparently scarecrow, while able to read, is also incapable of understanding.
The “founding fathers” were by no means the beacons of morality you hold them up to be. Many of them owned slaves. Since we are so concerned about what the founding fathers did, should we own slaves, too?
What a bunch of hokum. The so called “laws” allowing the [IRS?] who are with out a doubt the nearest thing to an illegal arm of the federal government, to regulate [in effect] the activity of a church is precisely what the Founding Fathers forbade in the bill of rights. Do you get it? For all of your so called college learning, you apparently cannot read.
“dogman’ makes a valid point which both ‘Florence Girl’ and ‘AV1’ are incapable of understanding. Churches enjoy a tax exempt status which carries with it a responsibility to remain non-partisan. It’s not about “Freedom of Religion” as much as it is about taxation. If a church (or any non-profit) is engaging in partisan political activities, they deserve to lose their favoured tax-exempt status.
The great majority of comments on this issue reflect a healthy knowledge and interest shown by the writers. In the final analysis it is clear to most history buffs that there was NO separation of church and State in Early America. Our founding Fathers made it crystal clear, not at all confusing as some try to skewer it. The truth of the matter is, the founders were very religious persons. It is verified time and again on practically every law and manifesto made by the early Congress. To deny these facts is to display ignorance of our history. Therefore, ANY law passed to suppress religion or the free practice of it , is unconstitutional.
According to the IRS Guidelines for a 401c3 (tax exempt non-profit) organization:
“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.“
also:
“Voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.“
Advertisement