Clergy and Politics

Only if they say it from the pulpit. I'm not allowed to campaign for politicians at my workplace either, but both I and the preacher can say what we like off the job. </font>[/QUOTE]In this country we have the freedom to preach, and we have the freedom of political speech. Just not both at the same time.

 

Except when you think about it....many roses have no smell whatsoever, especially the hybrid teas. And a guy waddling around quacking is still a guy not a duck.

Nonsense. The ACLU supports free speech, which includes private prayer. Link to ACLU's stand on religion. For more on this particular slander against a fine organization, which dates from 2003, see Snopes.com for their analysis.

But why spoil a good sense of outrage with truth?

People were punished for not praying? That doesn't seem right...

Of course it does. Why not check your stories for truthfulness before posting them?

 

Looks like Roger beat Mr. Jefferson to the draw by a mere 158 years. The principles of separation were well established; Jefferson gets credit for the phrasing. Being President didn't hurt, either.

 

God's law, in light of all the counsel of God and the principles therein, extends to more than just preaching. It encompasses the rights of man, and many other things. You probably disagree, and will of course claim that only your viewpoint is scripturally valid. But that isn't so. I'll agree to disagree on this one, it goes to a level of your worldview vs. mine.

Not true, because if you endorse a candidate from the pulpit you can lose your tax exempt status. I agree that you shouldn't do that, but the point of this thread is not what is right, it's what is legal. I don't think that everything that is wrong should be illegal.

 

Surely not pure...

LBJ is no hero of mine. I acknowledge your point, but it has no bearing on mine.

Uphold it? Well, it is the law.

I wasn't there - I don't really know anything about that. Did white preachers do the same? Were there any consequences for either group?

All I can say is that if it is wrong for a white preacher, then it's wrong for a black, yellow, green, etc one and vice versa.

Is it the place of the GOP to enforce laws? If it is, as long as they did it blindly as regards to color, creed and political party then I don't see who would have a problem with that except maybe you and PastorLynn, but if they tried to enforce it only against black preachers, then yes, they would rightly be labelled racists.

Which Republicans were convicted?

They can be Republican lobbyists if they want to, but they have to give up their tax exemption. If they want freedom, they can pay for it -- freedom ain't free.

Whoa! That's some sophistry on your part now! What I said was that the restriction is on the church and so it is. The preacher can say what he likes as a private person, same as anyone (except military personnel).

If a church wants special treatment in the form of an exemption, then it should abide by the rules. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

Are you saying that all non-profits should have no restrictions as to their activities? What, then, would distinguish them from for-profits? I don't have an answer yet - what was the law before 1954 concerning non-profits?

And, to top it all off, he's dead.

[ December 30, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Daisy ]

 

eWhat biblical command is there to post the 10 commandments in public places, or to invoke the name of God in national judicial proceedings? What biblical command is there about sitting in the back of the bus? I am not saying those things are right or wrong. I am not saying we should not try to change them. I am saying that there is no biblical command and therefore civil disobedience is not an option for the believer. In those cases, we change it through legitimate legal means. It has nothing to do with worldview, per se. We probably both share the same position on this issue. The issue is about how we should go about changing it.

It is not illegal to endorse a candidate. It is not illegal to be tax exempt. It may be illegal to do both, but so what? Since the Bible does not endorse candidates, pastors and churches should either. We should speak to moral issues that the Bible addresses, and I did that. But the Bible is our authority and we should use the pulpit to say only what it says.

The gospel is ultimately more important than any political candidate, and I can lose a hearing for the gospel by making political statements. I like the quote by Carl Henry that I have given before:

Political statements can undermine the authority of God's word. I will not take that chance.

 

I find it ironic that those who make the most noise about not wanting to suffer the indignation of having other's religious distinctives forced upon them want to force their particular distictives on everybody else.

 

Out of curiousity, where did you ascertain that the government has no right to tax any church as an entity?

I am curious as to what you think was the reason that this has been accelerated to the forefront. It never seemed to be a problem until now, what happened?

How did you ascertain this, notwithstanding your comments about your own personal tax status?

Are you saying that the Democrats have somehow been able to evade the law? Please explain this.

 

I'm not denying that, Mouse.

By that logic, the government has no right to tax anyone but its enemies. The government cannot go around burning down private businesses and destroying them either.

If your point here is that the government has no right to tax anything, ever, that is a different subject for a different thread. If, however, you say the government may tax organizations, then I stand by what I said.

That was what? Fifty years ago? It has not been hidden all this time. There have been many other Senate Majority Leaders since then - some of them Republicans - who could try to implement the change you desire. Until then, the law stands.

That is up to the church. If it incorporates, it is subject to corporate law; if it does not, it can do as it chooses.

In effect, it is.

Now that's sophistry! That's like saying you are exempt from rabies vaccinations and dog tag licenses. You are not said to be exempt from a tax which is simply not applicable. If you were incorporated, then you may or may not be exempt from corporate taxes. If you were not, those taxes simply would not apply.

If your church is not incorporated, then it, too, is not subject to corporate taxes and thus cannot lose any "exemption" it doesn't have. However, if it is incorporated (which, I believe, would allow it to own land and a bank account, have an income and pay salaries, insurance, etc. as an entity), then it may or may not be exempt, according to the state laws of incorporation. So if your church wants to be a corporation, but not pay corporate taxes, then corporations which do pay taxes are subsidizing it. Likewise, if the State is forgoing this revenue that it could collect if not for allowing the exemption, then it, too, is subsidizing your church.

So we agree, almost, on that point: everyone (me) or no one (you).

Ok, just remember this will apply to liberal churches, temples, mosques, synagogs and whatever it is that Wiccans and Pagans have.

 

Only if they engage in non-church activity. And if it is so outside mainstream American thinking, why has it been the law for fifty years?

The government does not control the church by taxes, it finances its own activities by taxes. If the church does not want to pay taxes, it can not own property and not have an income and not incorporate ~~ or follow the rules for 501c3s.

How do you figure that "Democrats have controlled government since 1932"? There was Eisenhower and the 83rd Congress...

I don't know what you mean by that, especially as regards "priapism" - could you explain?

 

Churchmouse and Daisy,
You both should read the US Sup CT decision on US vs Bob Jones U. It ruled that Tax exemption and not for profit is a benefit. Churches that use this mode of operation are on the Corporate Welfare System.

Pastor Larry needs to realize that he may not need to endorse a candidate but the US Sup Ct has ruled also that corporations must espouse public policy. If he signs up for corporate welfare and then preaches against Sodomites he is in violation. It may not be enforced at this hour but he has signed an agreement and has gone against his word. It is a league with Gibeah.
Thanks ----Bart

 

C M Guy--

You aren't suggesting that there is a double standard for Democrats/leftists are you?

Glad you got that straigtened out for us!!

And how could LBJ be so crooked if people even rose from the dead to vote for him?

Happy New Year to all---even you, GOP Senator Arlen Specter!

 

That is simply not true. You are uninformed or misinformed. I don't preach against Sodomites. I do preach against any moral issue that the text of Scripture addresses. That sometimes includes homosexuality. But I have not violated anything.

 

Yeah! Good point, ktn4eg!