Proof Christians are under attack!

Well, I for one prefer that politics stay out of the church.

Would you feel the same way if you went into a church, and were preached to that Obama should lead the country?

Princess,
I wouldn't go to that church, but wouldn't turn him in to the gestapo, either.

Princess Spanky Pants spoke my question.

How about some endorsing Bob Barr or Ralph Nadar?

There is a difference between discussing issues and endorsing candidates. IRS guidelines do not stop discussion of issues.

Another note: I believe this is one of the ministers who participated in the nationally-advertised Sunday to challenge the IRS by endorsing from the pulpit.

I do not take issue with civil disobedience, in fact, there are times I feel it is right and necessary. Part of that, however, is willingness to accept the consequences. The IRS may, in fact, remove the tax exempt status of this church. At the least, there will be a period of litigation that, even with donated legal assistance, will be costly. I only hope the congregation was given a vote in this action as it affects them too.

I don't think politics as a general rule should be preached to a congregation. Comparing the US Government to the Gestapo? Really? Are these preachers being beaten, bullied, and tossed into cells for using their position of power to try and influence their congregation?

The people who go into those churches are just as varied as the people who support the candidates. If you were to walk into your church this weekend, and your priest or preacher were to suddenly start talking about Obama, and how he feels he's best for the country, and urges you all to vote for him, what would you do?

I imagine you probably enjoy the church you go to, and you likely have been going there for quite some time, right? Imagine how you would feel to be made to think that you aren't as good a person in your leaders eyes, because he feels your candidtate is worthless.

So how do you think other people felt? Or for that matter, people who walk in trying to get away from all of the political talk?

If you don't like the sermon, Princess, walk out. I have many times. It's not a captive audience.

Sure- for some people, they can walk out. Others won't feel comfortable doing that. Still others will be spellbound by the sermon, whether they agree with the choices or not. The point is, they are using a position of power to make their personal preferences known.

I don't think church should become a political arena.
That being said, the man does have a right to think and feel whatever he wants.
He just shouldn't tell it to a room full of people who just want to come and hear about God's word.
I don't think he should be thrown in jail either.
It's his congregation.
Like you said, he people don't like the sermon, they have the option to leave.

That's not what freedom of speech and religion which our country was founded on is all about. Listen folks, "In God We Trust." Or don't spend the money that it's stamped on.

In the past at some of the churches I've attended the pastor had preached about politics. Many time I disagreed and still voted my heart - opposite of what the pastor had preached, but I do feel that in certain circumstances people can be swayed by the preacher for the wrong reasons - I am a charismatic, born again Christian who feels more comfortable when politics are not in the church - I research the options for myself and I know pretty well where they stand. I am pro-life and I believe in the freedom of religion. I don't believe that we as Christians have to force our beliefs nor our values on others - that won't make people want to be Christians - it is the light that they see from our lives that make them want to be like us. That being said...I don't think these pastors should be punished for stating their opinions, but I do think that they shouldn't preach that if you vote for a different person you are not in the will of God. I don't believe Jesus was ever that wrapped up in politics - he just told us to give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar and to obey our leaders.

Basically pay our taxes, and follow the laws of the land....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR2008090702460_pf.html

I consider what is going on to be censorship. If a candidate's platform is diabolical to the curch's teaching, it should be said.

Carol
You are stirring the pot today. I think if a preacher can talk in church like Rev Wright then what the heck why not explain why you support a particular candidate. Like you say if someone doesn't like it they can leave and never come back. Heck even Obama after 20+ years finally did just that. Although the only reason he did walk out was because of the pressure. If the word hadn't gotten out he'd still be there ranting with the rest of the congregation.

I don't think a preacher should tell any one how or who to vote for. But I don't think they should bein trouble just for stating their views.That does't mean you have to agree with them. They should be talking about the word of God not who should be President of the U S A

I think that many Democratic candidates have gotten away with this for many, many years. The reason these pastors did not get away with it was because they thumbed their nose at the IRS very openly and made it well known. Of course they were going to get caught and get prosecuted and lose their tax exempt status. I'm sorry that you are upset, Carol. This angers me too. Why should the Dems get away with this, when the conservatives have to be so careful on what they say and do so as to lose their status? The churches I have been to in the past have been very strict as to how politics is handled - most will not even let any stickers or any propaganda through the door at all. That is not the case with a lot of the Dems churches. Case in point: Jeremiah Wright. That church really should have lost its tax exempt status several times over.

Unfortunatly, Illegal as the IRS is, it's regulations state a church cannot hold it's tax exempt status if it gets involved in political issues. However, the "good" Reverand Wright's church demands equal scrutinity concerning political issues. It will never happen for the reason that it was Obama's church, and it is a black church. Obama don't do no wrong, and hands off unless you want to be called a racist.

This echoes of Gestapo-like behavior.
First they started persecuting Jews, then when they saw that nobody (seemingly) cared, they went on to do worse. Keep ignoring such behavior and Christians may find themselves in the same position.
People go to church because they believe what it teaches. If they disagree with the pastor about something he teaches they can go to another church. Or ignore him. Or pull him to the side and ask him not to be so hard on their candidate.
As far as I'm concerned, the pastor can run the church like a business. That's what I'd do, should God call me to be a pastor (God forbid!). It's not like most churches make a profit, anyway, what with the poor and needy always in the world. And businesses don't pay taxes on losses.
Anyway, Carol, as much as I hate to say this, it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. But it will get better, as those of us know who have read the end of the book!

I'll agree with our original poster. ( OP )

Separation of Church and State only mean that our government cannot force any one church upon us, as England did... and caused many to leave the country and form a new one. And that's ALL it means. I don't give a damn what some liberal judge has to say. They are legislating from the bench, which is also illegal.

As for the IRS... for those who don't know, it was never ratified by the proper number of states. Therefore, it is an illegal government entity. But, what can ya do, when the gov'ment's already become too powerful?

They been dividing us for many years. And if ya don't believe that, look at most of the political wham-bangs just on Gather. I HATE YOU! NO! I HATE YOU MORE! blah blah blah.

It's all bullpuckey.

This was an organized effort by many pastors across the country to pick this particular Sunday in which to break the law and formally challenge the idea of "separation of church and state." They did so knowing that some of them would be turned in, and in fact, likely arranged to be turned in (you can't challenge the law if no one is arrested). There goal is to get a case that can eventually go to the Supreme Court.

They did this on purpose as a form of civil disobedience and as a test case. This is how it is done. Your article title, therefore, is actually backwards.

I couldn't agree more with the premise that the United States Constitution does NOT establish the "separation of church and state" as it is currently recognized. Our Constitution does NOT prohibit the free expression of religious values.


Here in California, we are dealing with the same sort of thing regarding the "inalienable rights".

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1:
All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

This does NOT mean that the people of California have no right to place restrictions on specific activities. Our State Constitution does NOT give irrevocable rights to do anything we wish that we believe might make us enjoy life more. And especially NOT without the state's ability to set limits.
In particular, it does NOT establish a fundamental unrestricted and inalienable right to marriage - the recent degradation of matrimony to a mere recreational relationship severely undermines the fundamental concept of what marriage really is.

Okay, I got off-topic, but this issue has been weighing heavily on me lately.

Carol there are times when I feel its the other way around when my christian neighbors push their beliefs on me. I am very much a live and let live person. I respect and protect their rights but sure do with they would do the same with mine.

Carol Queen of La La Land, THANK YOU for saying what I have been for years: NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say ANYTHING about "Separation of Church and State."

When one looks at the First Amendment, we see five Liberties:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of Assembly
Right to Petition
Freedom OF Religion .... (not freedom FROM religion)

These five Liberties are bound as one. Our Founding Fathers KNEW that one could not exist without the other, and hence, included all five, together, in the First Amendment.



Now, look at what occurs EACH AND EVERY day ACROSS AMERICA in favor of Leftist policies, candidates, and beliefs at: Universities, Elementary and High Schools (both public and private), places of worship, UNIONS... the list goes on.

An example:

The Virginia Education Association sponsored "Obama Blue Day" on Tuesday. In an e-mail sent last week, it urged teachers to participate by dressing in blue.

"There are people out there not yet registered. You teach some of them," the Sept. 25 e-mail reads. "Others, including our members, remain on the fence! Its time for us to come together, voice our unity, because we make a difference!"

"Let's make Obama Blue Day a day of Action!" the e-mail continues. "Barack the vote!"

We did not hear "public outrage" ...we did not see hide or hair of the ACLU in this case, or any other similar case -- EXCEPT when it comes to displays of Conservatism and, Christianity. There is a clear double standard here and anyone who denies it, is burying their head deeply in sand.

Christians are, and have been increasingly, the Country's scapegoat for all ills.

The wording of the establishment clause of the First Amendment should be familiar to everyone. The intent of the founding fathers should also be clear.

The potential for abuse in allowing any non-profit to endorse political candidates should be obvious to anyone who follows politics. It's a reasonable regulation.

They can do this preaching if they give up their non-profit status. Check the laws for being exempt when you are approved for non-profit status.

It may not be 1st amendment but it is a non-profit requisite. I've worked for non-profits, you have to be very careful what you do. Any political work must be outside the venue of the non-profit or you lose your status. That goes for non-religious non-profits also.

Christians are all ways under attack because they fear us

stoped by to give you a 10 and a

Don't be ridiculous. Your preacher is free to promote any candidate he wants...so long as he is willing to forfeit that tax free status. Those are the rules, and they have been for quite a while. Using the pulpit to try to impact secular politics is wrong. Period. Churches are suppose to help the spiritual needs of their people, not scare, intimidate, and arm-twist to vote the way the preacher wants them to. I have no pity for any church that loses its tax status because they willfully and with full knowledge made a decision to violate the law.

Tiffany,

Virginia Education Association is a PAC. Not a non-profit. Not even close to the same thing.

Actually, one could argue that a STRICT interpretation of the First Ammendment would require all Churches NOT be allowed to claim tax exempt status. Why should a religious "club" where people hang out once a week get special treatment over any other social club?

Christians are under attack for the same reason Muslims are under attack. They seem inexplicably entitled to force their beliefs on others. When they respect the rights of others to listen to the music of the spheres as best suits them, the attacks will stop.

Has anyone (other than a proselytizing Christian or Muslim) ever attacked Buddhists? No, because the Buddhists mind their own business, and let you worship as you please, even though they have completely different ideas about God and how the universe works.

Sure. These have been the rules for some time. However, it doesn't make it right.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with ANY minister making political statements. I really tire of the same old 'separation of church and state' statement. This was designed to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. Granted no one agrees that we need an official religion, but all little more godliness in the government might be just what is needed given the moral state of Washington DC and all the state capitols.

Who cares if ministers promote their candidate? Does it really matter? I don't care if it is left or right.

Hi Ann,

All the Christians I know believe we are all free to worship as we wish. It is not about that. We believe in free will. It is not about imposing ideas on others. It is about revealing truths to others. Once they know these things, it is up to them to decide if they will accept Christ. So I take issue with the idea that somehow followers of Christ impose themselves on others.

I think what gets feathers ruffled is that Christians know what Christ requires of them for salvation. Those who aren't Christians feel judged when in fact the gift is open to them as well. It is not about imposition. It is about spreading truth. Now all people are free to disagree and reject this gift without any 'arm twisting'. In fact, that it is the only way we want it.

The only way for Christians to become open minded with regards to other faiths would require a denial of central truths about what it means to be a Christ follower. That is something that will NEVER happen. Can we live peacefully with others? Absolutely. But I don't think you will ever see a time when Christians will accept other faiths as equally valid and correct. To do so, would invalidate what makes us different.

"I really tire of the same old 'separation of church and state' statement. This was designed to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. "

The other way around? Not keep religion out of government? So you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong...religion in government is ok, according to the constitution? Wow. Something tells me you mean YOUR religion. I'm betting you'd be ticked off if if Islam were the religion. Or Taoism. Why should Christmas be a federal holiday? Let's make it Ramadan! Let's say now the schools are also closed on the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Fitr (the end of the month of fasting for Ramadan) and Eid al-Adha (the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca). Woo Hoo! Isn't that cool?

Yeah....religion needs to stay out. Your preacher's and pastors, as far as I'm concerned should be able to stand up and openly endorse the candidates of their choice free from repercussions of any kind! They should do it from the pulpits where their authority can be recognized and they can speak to the moral implications of their selection.

But...what's this? They can already DO all that, can't they. It's that First Ammendment thing all over again but this time it's on the side of the preacher!

All they have to do is stop nursing off the public teat and pay their fricken taxes like everyone else does! Already, John Q. Taxpayer, even athiests, subsidize churches and religious establishments by forfeiting the taxes that could be generated if only a church didn't plant itself on the property. I'm not a Catholic...but you should SEE the Catholic properties held here in Los Angeles! The millions in income that may be generated by just that one denomination were it NOT to be a church would reduce the burden on taxpayers and allow the city to provide more services. But instead, all of us, Catholics and non-Catholics, lose those benefits and pay more in taxes.

And you think, after all the people subsidizing that church, (including those who don't belong) that they should have to tolerate a man they don't know climbing into the pulpit where he's supposed to preach the Word and teach morality (even by example) even though he decides instead to endorse candidates that may not be what those people like or agree with?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Interesting discussions. There are certainly lots of viewpoints here already. I believe that a preacher should be able to talk about which candidate he endorses from the pulpit.

I don't watch MSNBC so I guess I missed this. However, I am VERY confused! I just saw a news clip of a preacher endorsing Barack Hussein Obama from the pulpit (Hannity showed it). When it comes to Obama...it appears that no matter who his *friends* are or the untruths he tells and excuses he makes, it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes. He claims he has nothing to do with ACORN and yet it is proven he gave them $800,000 to get people to vote. I also saw a reporter talk with a NON PARTISAN VOLUNTEER and when asked "do you tell people who do vote for?" the woman responded, "yes, yes, Obama!"

What is going on here? I've heard rumors of voter fraud and also questioned the tactic of *paying* homeless people to vote and then busing them to registration for early voting. Now Ohio is under investigation and rightfully so. People registering under animal names, a football team, etc. Ridiculous!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

BTW - I just received this in my email. I lost it at the end when the young man walked away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Wait a minute! Whuh? Who turned who into Pesto Sauce???

Or did they mean they were turned into gazpacho?