Author Topic: Good news for the " separation of church/state crowd... (Read 900 times)

ironglow · « **on:** March 06, 2005, 01:57:40 PM »

A Republican member of Congress is proposing a law that says that a preacher, in the pulpit has as much right as any other citizen to comment politically.
He can endorse or ridicule any politician/party he wishes...and only his congregation can argue ...with their feet.

This would be a good example of such separation....

Ther was never a law prohibiting first amendment rights in the pulpit before the Johnson administration pushed one through.
Their threat was removal of tax exemption...

If the "separation" crowd want to be credible, they HAVE to back this bill, since this furthers the separation...

Actually; separation should have ordained that the govt has no right to levy taxes on the church...or even threaten to....that's separation !!

So let's hear the cheers "separationists"...

ironglow · « **Reply #1 on:** March 07, 2005, 03:16:53 PM »

I guess I didn't REALLY expect any cheers from the left-of-center contingent...LOL

Leverdude · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2005, 03:42:16 PM »

If I understand it right its a good thing. I wasn't aware they couldnt voice their opinion.
Tax exemption doesnt seem to be relevant to this IMO. Just the gov't flexing its muscle I guess, or trying to.

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2005, 10:59:04 AM »

I'll bite. How does that amplify the seperation? Seems to me that it just helps to mix religion and politics.

Ian

Shorty · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2005, 01:41:47 PM »

The current law says that a preacher can stand in the pulpit and say, "I agree with George Bush", but he cannot say, "Brethren, vote for George Bush". Now, tell me which part of "freedom of speech" differentiates those two statements?

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2005, 03:03:22 PM »

IMHO, mixing religion and politics is a bad bad thing. The whole Middle East is a good example of why they should stay far away from one another. One of the reasons the US was founded was for folk of different views to get away from the Catholic dominated Monarchy in England. Why start down a similar road here? It's just a bad idea.

Ian

ironglow · « **Reply #6 on:** March 08, 2005, 04:45:02 PM »

The monarchy at the time of our nation's founding wasn't Catholic dominated...it was Anglican dominated.
Henry VIII, cast of the RC yoke many years before and founded his own version... the Church of England, or Anglicanism.

Let's deal honestly;

If those who cry "separation" really mean what they say, then the church should have no say in govt.....and vice-versa...!

How would this bill amplify separation ?...
Rather elementary...the government would not be in any way dictating to the church what words the preachers could say from the pulpit...
Surely, you can see that such would be separating the govt. from dictatorial control of the church...
..Ergo ! More separation..!

Actually the so-called "wall of separation" was a line by Thos Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists...not part of the Constitution, even though the leftists would like to make people believe it is...

One has to grossly misread the Jefferson letter and the Constitution to get their usual separation construct.

In the first article of the Bill of Rights it says;

1) Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion

2) Nor prohibit the free exercise (of religion) thereof..

If the founding fathers truly believed ( part # 1) that God, and his words were not to be allowed in the halls of congress....then they would have been immediately violating the " free exercise " portion... (part # 2)...

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #7 on:** March 08, 2005, 10:58:55 PM »

I stand corrected on the Catholic vs. Anglican idea. It's been awhile since history class. Maybe I should have said "A Christian dominated Monarchy". My point remains unchanged.

I understand now that you are using the word "seperation" as a way of saying that religion is being freed or "seperated" from gov't restrictions from being able to participate in politics.

I still think it's a bad bad idea that will bite us in the butt in the long run.

I'll leave it at that.
Ian

Leverdude · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2005, 07:52:02 AM »

I think they oughtta be able to say what they want to their congregation.
People should be intellegent enuff to figure if they agree with what they hear or not.

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2005, 12:20:35 PM »

Sorry, you don't get to hide behind the wall of separation and state and shoot at the rest of us.

You can be a church or you can be a political organization, but you can't be both.

ironglow · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2005, 05:33:17 PM »

Lefty;

Why can't a church also be a political organization if it wishes ?..( not that I am in favor of political churches)...but they should have that right..

Teachers unions.. have and strive to further their political views

Auto unions..push their political view

AMA..doctors assn...pushes their view

Lawyers..try ACLU...have their axes to grind...

Farmers have the Farm Bureau

Even the "gays" have organizations...that look out for their intrests..

If there were an organization of " left handed monkey jumpers"...I'm sure the ACLU would be "fighting" for their right to be heard..

Why should Christian Americans be singled out to lose their rights ?

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2005, 06:59:36 PM »

Ironglow, I am not suggesting that a minister or any member of a church has lost any rights. They are all free as individuals to speak and vote as they please.

It is the church which has yielded some rights in exchange for tax exempt status. I don't claim to have mastered the intricacies of very complicated law, but, in general, tax exempts have to stay out of direct politics or risk the loss of their exemption. This leads to things like the NRA needing the non exempt ILA to do the lobbying.

Simply put, you can politic all you like on your own money, but you cannot use the indirect subsidy of a tax exemption to do it with. Set up a separate non exempt entity with the same membership and go to it if you like.

ajj · « **Reply #12 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:04:39 AM »

Perhaps you've heard the story of the Irish priest who used his sermons to rail against the English. There were complaints. The Bishop called him in for a conference. "Father," he said, "You're certainly entitled to your views and I won't say that I don't share some of them but the pulpit is not the place to air them. Confine yourself to spiritual matters, if you please." The priest said, "I understand."
The next Sunday, the priest told the congregation that his sermon would be about the Last Supper. "You'll recall that Jesus gathered his disciples together. They broke the bread. The disciples washed Jesus' feet. Finally, he addressed them, saying: 'One among you will betray me.' At that point, you'll remember, Judas Iscariot spoke up and asked: 'Which one's it, guv'nor?'"

FWiedner · « **Reply #13 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:07:52 AM »

No member of government has the authority to legislate the activity of American citizens inside their place of worship or in any activity associated therewith.

The church can't run the state, and the state can't run the church.

That's the law.

ironglow · « **Reply #14 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:52:50 PM »

Right on FW...exactly what I was trying to point out !

Threatening to remove tax exemption is seen as a clear effort to control speech from the pulpit..

I believe however, that you did it more succinctly...Thanks..

Mauser · « **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2005, 08:50:50 AM »

That tax-exemption law is not applied evenly as I understand it. For example the NAACP is, I believe, tax exempt and is one of the most lopsided political organizations out there. If the govt isn't going to be fair about who it enforces the law with then it certainly shouldn't mess with the churches (or anybody else).

ironglow · « **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:21:31 AM »

Not to mention the many times Jesse.. Jerkson, Al Sharkton ( puns intended ) and others go to speak... and collect many $$$ from certain churches...with impunity !

At such times, where is the mighty ACLU

Our feedom of speech should not be limited..whether in the cab of a truck, the head of a union, head of the DNC, or speaking from the pulpit of a church (no matter the color/ethnicity of the congregation).

The idea of some politician ( e.g. LBJ ) effectively denying a preacher's right to free speech in the pulpit, should be an affront to any who truly believe in " separation "...

Although I would rather see cooperation rather than separation...it worked well in the USA for 200 years...

Honest separation should mean that the church not bully the government or vice-versa...

One should have no leverage over the other...s-e-p-a-r-a-t-i-o-n !!!

Rather simple to understand...

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:08:46 PM »

Quote from: Mauser

That tax-exemption law is not applied evenly as I understand it. For example the NAACP is, I believe, tax exempt and is one of the most lopsided political organizations out there. If the govt isn't going to be fair about who it enforces the law with then it certainly shouldn't mess with the churches (or anybody else).

I'm no tax expert. My wife (social worker/counselor by trade) says that tax exemption is based on accounting... non-profit, not for profit, etc is the criteria. Has nothing to do with politics according to her. (she's been the director for a not-for-profit crisis center). Maybe there are differing criteria for tax-exempt status. She did say that just because an organization is not for profit doesn't mean that there isn't a pile of green changing hands. She's been in organizations where there were a yard of BMWs in the parking lot. They just pay large salaries to bigwigs as overhead.

Ian

ironglow · « **Reply #18 on:** March 12, 2005, 05:07:20 AM »

Haywire;
My basic argument is that if some REALLY want SEPARATION...the word taxes should not pass between church and state. In fact, there should be little or no conversation between these " completely separated" entities..

That for the "separationists"...

I would rather have the mutual respect that was the status quo for a couple hundred years, before the ACLU and other destructive, Liberal organizations raised their ugly heads...

BamBams · « **Reply #19 on:** March 12, 2005, 05:18:59 AM »

Having been down this road before. Here is what I know:

1) What a minister says from the pulpit is one thing. What he says away from the pulpit is something else. That is the way the law determines it.

2) A church can easily form a PAC (political action committee) except donations and income for the PAC are not tax exempt.

I do not agree with those things, but that is how it all works in this day and age.

Minister's are effectively "gagged" from political endorsements and from encouraging people to vote in a certain way while they are behind a pulpit. I know of a case where the FBI has seized sermon outlines as evidence to convict a minister who they believed was encouraging their people to take direct action politically. The FBI did this as a result of phone call from a person in the congregation who didn't like what he said.

ironglow · « **Reply #20 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:39:34 AM »

And look how they cry "freedom of speech" for some anti-American Liberal hack like Ward Churchill who has never drawn any check that was not supported by tax money !...

How do we spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s.....?

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #21 on:** March 12, 2005, 12:27:25 PM »

Quote from: ironglow

Haywire;
My basic argument is that if some REALLY want SEPARATION...the word taxes should not pass between church and state.

Finally, we agree on something... the churches should pay their taxes like everyone else. No special treatment. :mrgreen:

Ian

ironglow · « **Reply #22 on:** March 12, 2005, 02:44:33 PM »

Haywire...
You have not been reading my posts..the concept is not too difficult...

Being separate from one another...means neither one taxes the other..DUH

That IS separation...

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #23 on:** March 12, 2005, 03:24:50 PM »

No, that would be the Gov't giving the churches special treatment.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree... neither of us is going to change the other's mind...

have a nice day,
Ian