Free Speech for Churches, Too
- Print print this page
- Discuss 58 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
We all believe in the First Amendment and its right to free speech.
Because of our devotion to liberty, we tolerate street-corner prophets who warn us of doom, protesters who “occupy” parks, and tea party members in front of our local post office with a bull horn on tax day.
The amendment, with its corollary of free expression, has even been used as an excuse for women to dance topless on bars and for Hugh Hefner to publish dirty pictures interspersed with political commentary that most only claim to read.
Yet there is one class of people who are denied free speech: our church clergy.
The Congress has decided that if a pulpit preacher advocates for a particular political candidate, his church can be taxed into oblivion. It is a policy that effectively muzzles the very persons to whom we look for moral guidance. As Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in 1819, “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
In 1954, then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, while not yet even an afterthought to the Kennedy clan, got the idea for what we now call 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Johnson had become a leader during the Great Depression, a time of both financial desperation and technological innovation as radio became ubiquitous throughout America.
Not far from his mind was Father Charles Coughlin, the fiery Roman Catholic priest who used his radio program to oppose the policies of Franklin Roosevelt. Indeed Coughlin was radical and, at times, anti-Semitic. But to Roosevelt, and his young protégé, Lyndon Johnson, Coughlin and religious leaders in general represented a challenge to their hold on liberal public opinion.
Roosevelt took Coughlin off the air and forbade the post office to deliver Coughlin’s publications.
Johnson learned a lot from Roosevelt. He learned how to lie in order to encourage a war he wanted to create. For Roosevelt, the lie was the sinking of the Reuben James. For Johnson, it was the Gulf of Tonkin “incident.” Likewise, Johnson learned how to silence those who challenged the superiority of government. For Roosevelt, it was Coughlin. For Johnson, it was every religious leader in the nation.
Essentially, our income tax system exempts “good” religions that do not favor a particular political candidate.
For many, this poses a dilemma. Some religious leaders believe that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being. To them, its advocacy is the equivalent of condoning the commission of murder in violation of God’s holiest law. To others, abortion represents the right of a woman to choose her future.
Yet when one candidate favors the act and when another candidate opposes it, the messengers of God must remain silent. Nor may they use their resources to educate in such a way as to favor a political candidate. The story is the same for those religious leaders who believe that candidates who support gay marriage are doing Satan’s work and those who believe that supporters of gay rights are modern heroes standing in the way of stones being tossed at a harlot.
Today, we tax everything in life from income to cable bills. But even if the First Amendment means very little, its prohibition on Congress to make no law abridging freedom of speech should mean that speech ought not be taxed. Every preacher, rabbi and priest, liberal or conservative, is forced by the Internal Revenue Service to determine whether to obey Lyndon Johnson or God. And many churches have to pay a filing fee of about $850 for the privilege.
The truth is that the IRS uses its power sparingly, taking the exemption of only one church in recent years: the Church at Pierce Creek. It had the audacity to oppose Bill Clinton. But the “chilling effect” of this law permeates all religions. Every political season, liberals and conservatives try to silence the speech of their religious opponents by complaints to the IRS. The result is a more timid clergy in fear of the cost and consequence of an audit.
No, the Internal Revenue Service ought not be used as the censor for the ruling class. The answer to free speech is not censorship, but more free speech. The Congress should make no law “chilling” that speech, especially a law which taxes it.
Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. Contact him at Law52@prodigy.net.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Easygoing 1 year ago
Yet another non issue written about. If you wish your organization to be tax exempt, it should be organized and run to the standards found in IRS 501(c)(3) guidelines and your contributors can enjoy the benefit of their contributions being tax deductible. It's that simple. Once again the party of no is focused on social issues and not providing any real leadership and compromise to benefit the country. If you want to influence legislation you should pay taxes as an organization and contributors will not be able to claim their contributions as tax deductible. Your choice. And you are for free choice Mr. Levy, correct?
JimHeim 1 year ago
Here's an idea Bob. If churches get off of the government dole, they can engage in all the political activity they wish too.
If they want to keep the subsidies, they need to abide by the strings that come with them.
emb6683 1 year ago
Wow, the sinking of the Reuben James was a lie? I'll bet that is a surprise to the 100+ American sailors who died when it sank.
And while you were talking about political lies to start wars, you forgot the lie about WMD in Iraq.
Toyboy52 1 year ago
Roosevelt lied about the what he termed unprovoked aggression I'n the sinking of the Reuben James. He stated that it was an unprovoked attack when I'n reality the ship attacked the German submarine because the Reuben James was escorting war material for England. This was prior to Pearl Harbr and while America claimed neutrality. It was an attempt by Roosevelt to use the death of the sailors a's an excuse to enter the European War. It was the template used by Johnson I'n the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which created the legal basis for major intervention I'n Viet Nam
Toyboy52 1 year ago
@ jim: you think that an organization or group of people should have to pay a tax I'n order to receive full free speech. Therefore you surely must believe that poor Churches and their parishioners need to pay a poll tax Before they can advocate for e.g. civil rights? The truth is that 501c is an incentive and a threat to silence churches and create the IRS a's the ultimate censor.
JD 1 year ago
Tax churches. They lobby and fund legislation. Just a business selling something like all the others so they need to ante up.
LSM 1 year ago
Tax PBS, and go ahead and tax all the non-profits that get tax deductions. And go ahead and tax the Universities, no lack of political involvement with them. Be sure to tax these horse groups and no kill animal centers, shoot, what else can we tax, how about public housing, all of these need to at least pay property taxes for services provided them such as police and fire protection.
pgericson 1 year ago
@Robert Why do you think this is a serious issue? Do you really think pastors shrink from political statements because of this fear? The government does not currently go after churches for what is said from the pulpit and, frankly, a Church could test the constitutionality of the legislation in the first place, since churches were untaxed and unrestrained prior to 1954. More importantly, perhaps, why didn't the Bush administration repeal the law when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House? Did you advocate for such a change when the Republicans were in power?
Toda 1 year ago
"Yet there is one class of people who are denied free speech: our church clergy."
DaveyNC 1 year ago
It's not just churches that are prohibited, it's all non-profits. So, you are granted favored tax status and you surrender some rights for that benefit. If it is that important to you, drop the non-profit status and have your say.
Whiner. You want extra benefits that the rest of us don't get. You want unlimited free speech and special tax free treatment. Churches wouldn't be taxed into oblivion, they would just be taxed like any other for profit. So, my mistake, you would be taxed into oblivion. Work on that.
Toyboy52 1 year ago
@Davey: why is it that liberals have no problem taxing the exercise of free speech? Do you favor offering 40% of the low income earners the option of not paying income tax if they surrender their right to vote. Oh, I forgot . They do not pay income tax . But they do get refunds from the earned income tax credit. Should we give them the choice of paying a tax I'n order to vote to levy more taxes on those who do pay tax.
The point is... tax churches or not,,, our freedom of speech ought not be for sale. No one should have to pay to speak freely
Thatcher 1 year ago
JimHeim (7 hours, 37 min. ago)-- Please tell me what "subsidies" my church (or any church) receives from the federal government, and what "strings" are attached to those federal subsidies This was perhaps the most incredible post you have ever written here.
Thatcher 1 year ago
JimHeim-- Maybe you should tax this church that Hillary Clinton spoke to...in authentic, Southern speak... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1v.... JD, do you agree we ought to tax this church? Or should we tax Hillary instead?
DaveyNC 1 year ago
Toyboy, I'm not a liberal, ask any of the regulars on here.
Nobody is taxing the exercise of free speech. The church has relinquished it's right to free speech in exchange for favored tax status. If it is so valuable to you, rescind your non-profit status.
By the way, none of the individuals in the church are required to forego their right to free speech. I'll bet you think that prayer has been outlawed in schools, too.
Thatcher 1 year ago
DaveyNC is not a liberal. His posts here are thought provoking, and many times, hilarious. Can't say, DaveyNC, that you can beat Couresaire in the humor department, but you guys are dang close!
RodHarter 1 year ago
Dear Mr. Levy,
I hardly know where to begin. Your faux premise, your misreading of the 501 (c) (3) non-profit legislation, your revisionist history, your penchant for turning any and all events into a battle between liberal and conservatives, or just plain ‘made up’ stuff?
Let me start with your faux headline: Free Speech for Churches, Too. Despite your made up stuff, Robert, they have freedom of speech! I have heard political commentary from the pulpit for as long as I have attended church. The recent dustup over healthcare and Catholics blared loud and clear from pulpits, newspaper columns, radio and television. There was no stifling of the church’s right to express their displeasure, and they certainly expressed their displeasure. I know of no church that was boarded up or torched because they expressed their beliefs.
One important point to keep front and center, Mr. Levy. We have a separation of church and state. That’s real. It’s a fact, inconvenient, I know. It will remain so as long as I have breath in my body to fight for it. Do not misunderstand me, sir. I am a believer. But, I know that God is not a brand or a franchise. He is. None of us have got it right. So, I respect my potential for fallacy, and I am fully aware that fallacy runs elsewhere too. Your suggestion is a dangerous narrowing of free speech. As Mr. Cuomo said, "God should not be a party chairman." God as a party chairman sounds remarkably communist, actually. I am aware of the contradiction; that is the point, sir.
The church can express all it wants, but cannot lobby or contribute money to a particular candidate or party without losing its tax-exempt status. Nobody, however, will tax them into oblivion. There is no authority for such an action. That is fear-mongering hyperbole with which you chose to paint everything. The alternative? They simply become a for profit organization. Hey! They can then form a superpac! SCOTUS has already sold our political system to the highest bidder, why not add churches to the corporate lists?
This faux issue is idiotic. We cannot have it both ways. You are like McCarthy, for godsakes! There’s a liberal lurking behind every problem with some Machiavellian scheme to give away the store!
How appropriate that your column is adjacent to Dusty Rhoades column on the Crazification Factor. We are becoming tribes demonizing everyone who might disagree and basing political decisions on purity of dogma. I blame the schools, especially the liberal arts programs. They need to be more rigorous in providing people with the ability to think critically. You would rid us of liberal arts schools for technical schools and trade programs. Sounds a little socialistic to me, sir.
I respect your right of free speech, Mr. Levy. The constitution protects free speech; it makes no distinction for intelligent speech. The crazification factor is running a little rampant these days.
CWP 1 year ago
"one class of people who are denied free speech" ??? Your ignorance is showing. Uniformed military personnel can not make any public comments on any political subject or anything contrary to official US govt. policies. The same is true of all police and fire department personnel. Military personnel who violate this policy go to prison. Other people are just fired. Being fired or going to prison is NOT free speech ... and, unlike churches, these people pay taxes!
Toyboy52 1 year ago
"The Congress shall make NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech." What part of "no law" do you not understand? It does not mean "some law" or "except a tax law". It says no law. So short of Falsely yelling "fire" I'n a crowded sanctuary, no law still means no law.
AM910 1 year ago
OK, take the tax exempt status away from churches and let them preach to the masses that are left. Once that "exempt" goes away, the budgets increase, then you have to ask the members to pony up more money they don't have and your membership declines, increasing the burden on those that can support the church and in no time, there is no church. How many would close if Exempt Status was taken away. I'd say a lot.
DaveyNC 1 year ago
Toyboy, give it up. Churches make that choice voluntarily, as do members of the military, by the way. Once again, if you do not want to be bound by those rules, do not elect to have favored tax status. You can't have it both ways.
And no one is preventing any member or employee of any non-profit from speaking their mind politically. They just can't do it as a church. Teachers can pray all they want, students can stand in the hallways of their schools and pray. The school, as an agent of government, cannot require its employees or students to pray. They do that in the Middle East. We have the freedom to do that or not here.
And Thatcher, thanks for the compliment! And the challenge. Courseair, I'm coming for the humor crown you so proudly wear!
Courseaire 1 year ago
DaveyNC - You're on, let the games begin. But remember, with that crown comes great responsibility without authority. And thanks Thatcher, though some may disagree.
SH59 1 year ago
This is ridiculous, it has amazed me how unwilling the religious crowd is to do their own work and are wining and crying "Unfair"! You have every advantage available in this country to make social changes but it's not enough? You have a well established infrastructure of churches and organizations to make a difference but you aren't willing to use them and do the work? You have become lazy and passive and now are holding your hand out to the government like everyone else to make it easier for you.
OldSpook 1 year ago
Light the torches and prepare to storm the castle here comes the heresy;
We in the church have failed in a great many areas, period. We have built monuments to our denominations and called them "church" buildings. Many, not all, sit empty during the week and serve none. How can there be so many grand and very expensive houses of worship and so many without the basic needs of food and shelter being met? Why are we willing to send our money and people on mission trips to foreign countries while people in our own back yards go hungry, lonely or both. How many of us would rather simply give a man a fish and feed him for a day than spend the time with him teaching him to fish? Perhaps it is because we have become complacent in our roles as consumers within the church. Perhaps it is apathy. It is okay to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, just as it is acceptable for church leaders to lead their congregations by speaking either for or against a political party, current issues or any other taboo subject. The church is a moral compass that need not be silenced by non-believers or for fear of offending consumers. If the church needs to pay taxes in order to reach the local community better, then so be it. Judging from the size of their properties these taxes could easily be afforded.
SH59 1 year ago
Thank you Old Spook. It's pathetic to drive by all these churches that keep being built with no one in them except for once or twice a week. One example of how our churches and leaders can do better is to respond to an article in this paper about Illiteracy in our county and the struggle to combat it. Here's a great opportunity for all our churches to open their doors on a daily basis to support this cause. There are a million ways for people to make a difference in our world but you have to do the work to make it happen, not stand around and whine about how things are unfair.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
Churches could always just register as a 501(c)(4) and from my understanding talk politics as an organization all they want. I am in agreement with DaveyNC, RonHarter and the like. In regards to Toyboy52 where it says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech there is no law requiring that churches must register as a 501(c)(3), none whatsoever unless you can prove otherwise to me. It is strictly voluntary to get special treatment from the government for your charitable organization. A condition of that handout from the government for tax exemption you can't do certain things like discuss political matters because that flies in the face of being a chartiable organization. No part of stumping for a political candidate helps a charity do charitable work therefore if you are simply collecting money to campaign for someone you and a group of your friends would like to see in office because you agree with their stance on various issues why then do you get to be tax exempt? You should instead be registered with the state just like the Republican Party is registered with the state. It isn't a 501(c)(3).
JimHeim 1 year ago
Thatcher, who do you suppose pays for police and fire protection for churches (and fraternal organizations)? Who picks up the tab for the lost taxes that would be paid by economically productive activities?
Churches like the tax exemption because it saves them money. The rest of us have to pay their share. Sounds like socialism to me.
And if you want my tax money, there are strings attached. It's a choice.
Did I say 'federal?'
Toyboy52 1 year ago
@ doubleHeroides: Churches should not have to register with anyone or any government. That is what religious liberty is all about.
JimHeim 1 year ago
No, Bob, it's not. If you want preferential tax treatment there are requirements. If they really don't like the restrictions, give up the benefit.
There are no end of fetters on religious freedoms. You can't sacrifice children, burn witches at the stake or (sadly) make Marijuana a sacrament. Churches do not exist outside the law.
Once again, this is about a trade of political activity for tax avoidance. Nothing more.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
Thank you for jumping in JimHeim. Toyboy52, your re-contextualization of what I said reeks of sensationalism. In your attempt to make a big deal out of all of this I believe you have overplayed your hand. I specifically said above that there is no law that requires churches to register as a 501(c)(3). Since there is no law that requires every church to be registered as a 501(c)(3) any church not voluntarily registered as such a non-profit charitable organization may advocate for specific political candidates as an organization. Those that are registered as a charitable organization cannot because as I said earlier a charity has no business advocating for a candidate, it has nothing to do with their charitable purpose. Churches get the 501(c)(3) status not because they are churches but because they are engaged in charitable activities like a secular charity. That is all.
Please attack the actual argument next time.
JD 1 year ago
Yes Thatcher tax all churches. It's like you get a penny every time you type my name. One of my decisions behind believing churches should be taxed is this past Easter Pope Ratzinger went to Africa and told starving barely clothed individuals to give more. This coming from an old man LITERALLY wearing ruby encrusted shoes and gold thread in his robes. Churches are nothing but a breeding ground for hypocrisy. Tax them.
Nezumi 1 year ago
My brother in law used to work at a big Methodist church in Raleigh. They recently replaced their organ at a cost of $6 million. Sounds like they wanted bragging rights about having the biggest organ in town.
geoffcutler 1 year ago
We interrupt this thread to bring Jim Heim this breaking news. Florida...dateline 5/21/12. It's discovered there are 53,000 dead people registered to vote in the state of Florida. State asked to clean up its registry of voters.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast with the hope that common sense and voter ID laws are passed across the land.
SH59 1 year ago
JimHeim, you are absolutely right. Penick Village in Southern Pines is owned by the church. They pay no taxes to Southern Pines although the Police and fire do have to respond to any calls from them. The burden is on the citizens of Southern Pines to pay for their services.
SoPinesNo1 1 year ago
Nice Geoff! I'm with you one hundred percent!
Toda 1 year ago
True SH59...another loophole.
Arestorer 1 year ago
Geoff, Really? Florida?....The State with the Oldest average age...That many people probably died since the last Primary...
JimHeim 1 year ago
geoff, the same claim was made in South Carolina and the only dead guy they found had passed away after he sent in his absentee ballot.
You may recall that for the 2000 election Florida purged their rolls of voters with names similar (but not identical) to previous felons (even the ones with their citizenship restored). A lot of innocent voters were not allowed to vote. Nice.
Today they are purging their rolls of Democrats with a Latin surnames. Tens of thousands of voters are being required to prove their citizenship to get back on the rolls.
I'll bet no one named Cutler or Levy got one of those letters.
Thatcher 1 year ago
Golly JimHeim, I'm wondering if those Florida pollworkers know enough Latin to do the purging? Take a deep breath, then answer.
geoffcutler 12 months ago
Sorry, Bob, didn't mean to hijack your thread...I was just looking for Jim to give him the breaking news. Now he appears to have made some kind of ethnic slur regarding the Levys and the Cutlers. Jim, would you mind clarifying for us what you meant by, "I'll bet no one named Cutler or Levy got one of those letters."
Courseaire 12 months ago
paraphrasing JimHeim - "Since voting is a US Constitutional right, no one should be required to prove their citizenship before voting, that's downright unConstitutional!"
Toyboy52 12 months ago
Jim: no Republicans I'n Florida purge Latin surnames. The Cuban community is one of the most loyal Republican constituencies. Could it be that Democrats pay people to register voters and use post cards for registrtration with no verification of citizenship or residence? Could it be that this is an invitation to voter fraud? Could it be that this process creates more questionable Democratic registrations than Republican? And could it be that voter canvassers go to traditionally immigrant communities where there are many noncitizens and unregistered, but ineligible "voters" to get registration numbers up, taking advantage of lax verification?
Toyboy52 12 months ago
@ Geoff: it's ok. I look forward to your comments anytime.
JimHeim 12 months ago
Registered voters should not have their voting rights revoked without due process. Stripping them of the right to vote because their names sound like those of felons or are Latino is unacceptable.
If there's evidence of fraud, produce it. It's clear that voters with Latino surnames are being targeted and that's wrong.
I'm still waiting fro proof regarding the 'dead' voters. What's your evidence?
JimHeim 12 months ago
geoff, Florida appears to be targeting Latinos for special treatment. Those of us with non-Latino sounding names don't have to jump through the same hoops. What happened to equal treatment under the law?
JimHeim 12 months ago
From The Miami Herald:
Hispanic, Democratic and independent-minded voters are the most likely to be targeted in a state hunt to remove thousands of noncitizens from Florida’s voting rolls, a Miami Herald computer analysis of elections records has found. Whites and Republicans are disproportionately the least-likely to face the threat of removal, the analysis of a list of more than 2,600 potential noncitizens shows. The list was first compiled by the state and furnished to county election supervisors and then The Herald. About 58 percent of those identified as potential noncitizens are Hispanics, Florida’s largest ethnic immigrant population. They make up just 13 percent of the overall 11.3 million active registered voters.
But they're not profiling.
geoffcutler 12 months ago
And your problem is what? You don't want "noncitizens" removed from the voting rolls? Perhaps white Republicans aren't trying to perpetrate voter fraud...so they're not the target. Go after the cheats, not the innocent. Makes sense to me. You make it sound like you're perfectly okay with voter fraud...which of course...we already know.
JimHeim 12 months ago
If they're non-citizens, go ahead and remove them. But you'd best have proof of that, or they're being deprived of due process.
Imagine the cops impounding all of the money you keep in the bank and holding it until you prove that each and every dollar was legally obtained. How would you go about doing that? How long would it take? What would you do to survive in the mean time?
We should not have to prove our innocence. It's for the government to prove our guilt.
The people registered to vote and their registration was accepted by the state. By what right can the state revoke their right to vote without showing proof that they are legally ineligible?
geoffcutler 12 months ago
You're too caught up in victimization. You're willing to overlook the abuses of the system because you think certain groups will somehow be offended. It doesn't matter whether they're white, black, Hispanic or purple-polka-dotted. If they are trying to vote illegally or are not citizens, they must be purged from polling rosters, period!
States should not be able to revoke the rights to vote of anyone legally eligible to vote. I hope you put as much enthusiasm into your voter ID arguments when our soldiers who are abroad are disenfranchised. Seems like every election, their ballots just don't seem to arrive on time.
JimHeim 12 months ago
geoff, precisely on what basis were they purged? On what evidence? Shouldn't there be a reason beyond a foreign sounding name?
In every election lots of ballots fail to arrive on time. It's an imperfect world. If you have a fix for it, please call the board of elections at your earliest convenience.
The_AnonymusProfit 12 months ago
Ok I saw an article with the word church in it, and for a while I just stayed away, I really am tired of posting about churches and God and etc etc. But then I saw all the commenting,..Yet I find myself confused as to Mr. Levy's Article.
Since when have churches not been able to speak about politics? Many Americans have their pastors help them decide who to vote for....
I hope that Mr. Levy is not going the way of Mr Heim, making things up in the hopes that we dont see the lie. That is not something an upstanding conservative should do. Though I understand that the MCGOP does not always understand what proper political process is.
This article is incorrect. Sorry
geoffcutler 12 months ago
"noncitizens," Jim, like the article you posted said. Trouble reading your own link?
And Jim, what imperfection in the system would you attribute that our soldiers are disenfranchised year in and year out? They can be organized and lead to topple regimes in a couple of weeks, but somehow, their ballots never arrive on time. Here are men and woman fighting for you, Jim. Shouldn't their votes be counted first? Or are you more interested in protecting the rights of "noncitizens?"
Thatcher 12 months ago
Geoff-- Only a racist homophobe would demand that our soldiers' votes be counted before the votes of noncitizens. Right Jim? And Geoff, why all the hate? Be well my brother!!
JimHeim 12 months ago
Geoff, my wife spent 26 years in the air force and voted from Oconus from time to time. had no trouble. What's the issue?
If you're speaking of North Carolina, with the most absurd requirements for absentee voting I've ever seen, why haven't the republicans who now control the legislature (and have no end of stupid ideas about voting imaginable) done something to fix it? It's a state by state issue (and I know how you love states' rights). Where has your GOP legislature failed our troops?
Thatcher 12 months ago
JimHeim-- Our troops are "failed" when Democrats like you contest their votes. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/28/doj-stalling-on-protecting-voting-rights-of-military/. But you already knew that.
geoffcutler 12 months ago
Jim, perfect opportunity for you to agree there is a problem regarding our troops and their ballots. But you choose to shrug it off, sarcastically make fun of me...and therefore the troops...and all the while, piss and moan about noncitizens being treated unjustly. You're too much, Jim. The classic example of someone whose ears are closed because of political ideology...an ideology foreign to most of us.
geoffcutler 12 months ago
Sorry again, Bob. Thousand pardons!
geoffcutler 12 months ago
Jim, I'm sorry, but I've known a lot of Democrats in my time. I'm from Massachusetts, home of the most liberal Democrats you'll ever come across. I'd name a few, but then that would probably get JER to climb back on board to say I was name-dropping or something. Even my most liberal Democratic friends back home don't talk like you. Just what the hell kind of Democrat are you, anyway?
Thatcher 12 months ago
"Just what kind of Democrat are you, anyway?" This might work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism. Of course, we could tweak it to also deprive soldiers of their right to vote.