Should Religious Leaders Endorse From the Pulpit?
Reader Comments
the last person regarding religious free speech
I don't know who you are, but your coments grossly lack knowledge of Gods word. Jesus said in Matthew, that all power is given to me in heaven and earth. then he said in ephesians that this same power is given to usward. and he's not talking about religious matter, but spiritual matters. Then, any bishop that favors abortions are their selfs, accompliss to murdering the children, whom God said forbid them not to come unto me. This is not saying to come to heaven before they get the chance to learn of God. he's talking about them coming to him here on earth. And perhaps God did give you the freedom of choice "for yourself", but also the same for the other life being created within you. When you allowed yourself to get pregnant, you gave up a part of your freedom to that living child inside of you. so don't take away its freedom of choice to be born. allow the unborn child the same freedom, because God does. on the other hand,its ignorant to assume that you have will or power over your own body. because Gods word tells us to present our body a living sacrafise, holy and exceptable unto God. which is our resonable service. how can you do that if you destroy the very life that God is creating in your womb?
Viewpoint Regarding Religious Free Speech
No one or single church has the authority on religious matter. Many Christians refer to the Bible for spiritual guidance.
The recent withholding of Holy Communion by some bishops to politicians favoring abortion is contrary to God's intent that allows the freedom of choice and the use of conscience. These bishops should be reminded that Christ once said "let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone."
Tax exemption a privilege, not a right
That is what we said about voting 100 years ago, when women were denied the vote (as well as slaves and prisoners). Today, it is generally accepted that every citizen has the "right," indeed duty, to vote.
That is what we said about education 100 years ago, but have since recognized that it benefits society for all people to be educated. Then we saw the rise of public schools, offering a "free" education to everyone.
That is what we implicitly say about health care today. You can get it if your employers pays for it, or you pay for it at a cost that is unaffordable to many people. The rising calls for universal health care makes it a right, not a privilege reserved for some. Society benefits when everyone has access to affordable health care.
Similarly, society benefits from the free expression of ideas, whether political, religious, or otherwise. These ideas can come from individuals or organizations. That is why we have very few limitations on the constitutional right of free speech. Government actions which inhibit free speech must be called into question and examined very carefully. We grant tax exempt status to non-profit organizations, including churches, because we recognize that they benefit society. To threaten the loss of tax exempt status restricts a church from speaking out freely, on certain issues, including political and the endorsement or non-endorsement of candidates. Is speech to be free as long as it doesn't talk about religion or political candidates? What has the government to fear here? Or is it to somehow protect some segments of society? I find it very unAmerican.
Separation of church and state doctrine.
Once again I see the doctrine of separation put forth as the justification for suppressing the free expression of religious ideas, including in the political realm. I too am a UCCer, just like Barry Lynn who wrote the Con. I am surprised he would take a stand which is contrary to everything the UCC stands for.
The framers of the constitution never intended that there be a wall, implying that you cannot cross it from either side. It was a one way "wall," saying that the government shall not establish a religion or interfere in the religious freedoms of the citizens. It never said that citizens were not supposed to influence government with their own religious or political views. Indeed, religion played a very prominent role in the constitution and the early formation of our society. It was Jefferson, not the constitution, who suggested that it be a wall.
The Jeffersonian wall has increasingly been invoked whenever we try to bring any hint of religion into public life. The "prayer in public schools" decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was the right one - to prohibit New York from mandating that a prescribed, very bland and innocuous prayer be said every morning in every classroom in the state! The media, public officials, schools, etc. all latched on the the rhetoric that there can be no prayer in public schools. That is NOT what the Supreme Court said. This is just one example of where this idea of separation takes us, and inhibits our free expression of religion.
Another example. Our quartet offered to sing Christmas carols at an emergency shelter for battered women. The director made if very clear that we could not sing any carols which have any sort of religious connotation, lest it threaten their tax exempt status as a non-profit institution. How ridiculous can this get?
tax exemption a right not a privilege
My attitude is that church tax exemptions are NEITHER a subsidy (despite judicial declarations to the contrary) NOR a privilege. They are a means of preventing governments from playing favorites among denominations or from stifling the full exercise of religion. Consequently, and in order to preserve religious freedom, I think that any substantial doubt must be resolved in favor of religious institutions. It is better to allow some of those guilty of abuse to get away with it than to risk the legitimate natural and legal rights of others.
Also, I think it must be borne in mind that much of the talk of "separation of church and state" dates less from Jefferson's famous letter than from our country's long-standing anti-Catholicism. The doctrine of "separation of church and state" gained new popularity -- and began to be improperly invoked -- in some corners when the number of Catholics in the country increased substantially. The fact that "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" was originally named "Protestants [and other Americans, later?] United for the Separation of Church and State" speaks volumes all by itself. Tax-based assistance and services to private schools was not a huge issue until the Irish built the Catholic school system (as the public schools were often hostile places for Catholic children). (As an aside, I note that this attitude lead to absurdities such as the Wisconsin State Supreme court declaring that parochial *elementary* schools were "seminaries," and therefore ineligible to receive tax funds.)
The fact that that regulation which provided the topic for this particular discussion was instituted in 1954 has me wondering if this was not done in anticipation of Catholics possibly running for national office in the then-foreseeable future, in an attempt to prevent Catholic clergy from getting their flocks to vote for a Catholic candidate en-masse. (For the record, my parents -- with whom I share the Catholic faith -- voted for Richard Nixon in 1960.)
My view is that the whole business of the relatively recent concerns about "separation of church and state" needs to be re-examined in light of our sordid, nativist past. It seems that the knee-jerk reactions of the old Protestant Establishment to "protect" the United States from people like myself have back-fired in ways the old guard would not have imagined.
As to this particular matter: Pastors should be allowed to say anything they want about the issues or candidates of the day. While I do not care to see church congregations turn into political machines, I am far more worried about governments stifling the voice of religion and religious institutions in the public square.
Render to Ceazar (hypocrites)
Needless to say, people spout off: "render to Ceasar", not even knowing what it means. First, the church is not Ceasars. Neither are you or your children. Proverbs 12:24 says: The hand of the diligent shall bare rule:but the slothful shall be under tribute. In the Strongs Concordence, it refers to the slothful as fearful. But even Jesus when approached by religious leaders, trying to trip him up in his words called them hypocrites. why? bach then they told everyone to render, yet they would not. (sound familiar)? The church don't have to pay under the law:26-508(C)(1)(a)section 170. but what about an individual? are they not part of the church? In Gods word, Jesus paid only once. And that was to cover fearful Peter. yes they asked him if his master paid and out of fear he lied and sid yes. thats why jesus stopped him and said, what thinkest thou? but Jesus took not from his own purse, but a fishes mouth. "Get the point yet"? read what Jesus said to the collecter's. He said, (I SEE YOUR WICKEDNESS)And I see the same in todays Christianoids. (render unto Ceasar) If Jesus called them hypocrites, and saw their wickedness, then who is Ceasar to render unto? Selah!
pulpit and politcal agenda
I believe these crying Pastors are forgetting the most important subject. when a church needlessly incorporates with the State, they submit a charter to that entity creating total submission to its charter and there ate 29 rules to those by-laws that should be carefully read and understood. its agenda is not just against politcal, but also the preaching against homosexuality,or parents right over their children instead of the State and much more. I sugjest them to get a hold of there by-laws. "Remember this!" "A corporation is a creation of the State" and according to man, "The State is Sovereign over its Corporation. "{A corporation is an artificial person or entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a State". Under Title 26,508(C)(1)(A). Section 508(C) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that churches are not required to apply for recognition of section 501(C)(3) status in order to be exempt from federal taxation or to receive tax deductible contributions. Churches are automatically exempt or immuned for a better word, from federal income tax, and contributions to churches are deductible by donors under section 170. So, why incorporate? "There you have the law". I f you want to preach from your pulpit for or against any subject, "them you (must) unincorporate". Don't cry about it, til you have read the laws and by-laws. "Come out of her my people". Revelations 18:4
Soulld religious leaders endorse from the pulpit
With the exception of a few radical orators, most religious leaders take an oath before God to uphold His written law found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
As a preacher expounds on the word of God from the pulpit, he teaches followers God's directive on issues that sometimes find their root in political cirlces, namely legislation. Believers are taught foundational truths that help mold a code of ethics on how to live moral lives. It is absurd to think that church goers sit in the pew listenening to sermons (and/or endorsements) and never come to a rational conclusion using their own brains. I have never understood how the media, and government justifies the legislation of certain moral issues that, in reality, don't exist.
On the subject of "separation of Church and State," The original intent of the founding fathers was to ensure that government would not interfere with the affairs of the church (not the other way around). Please read the penned words of Thomas Jefferson as quoted in a letter to the concerned religious leaders of the day. "Make no mistake about it gentlemen, Government will erect an impregnible wall of separation between the affairs of the church and the affairs of the government." It is sad to see those who interpret the law twist truths to suit their agendas.
The fear generated by this whole subject can be compared to the concern Chicken Little had about the sky falling.
By the way, I have never heard a preacher endorse a candidate from any pulpit and I've been around enough to know.
Amendment I is misinterpreted
As you know, Amendment I states "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
How did this Amendment become misinterpreted? It
would be interesting to know how this happened.
The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent what
happened in England. The writers of the Bill of
Rights wanted to prevent the establishment of one
religion that would control the country.
The writers of the Bill of Rights wanted the people to
practice any religion that so chose. And, to ensure
this was possible, stated that Congress shall not
prohibit the free exercise thereof.
The writers of the Bill of Rights did not want to take
religion out of the country, they just did not want
government interference, and wanted the people to
practice religion in any manner they chose.
Therefore, you can conclude that the current
interpretation is wrong. The government did not want
to stop people from practicing their religion - they
just did not want the government to choose one
religion for the country.
By stopping people from practicing their religion, the
government is going against the first Amendment. Just
because the government provides funds to a school and
a person chooses to exercise his free right to
practice his religion, does not mean the government is
establishing one religion. But, they are prohibiting
people from practicing their religion which the
Amendment states the government cannot do.
This is just common sense after reviewing other
writings of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights.
They wanted people to practice religion but not have
the Government tell them what they had to practice.
Someone really needs to argue against the current
interpretation of the Bill of Rights and put it's true
meaning into practice. If there's anyway I can help
to accomplish this, please let me know.
David Galloway
____________________________________________________________________________________Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
Mr. Hannity,
As you know, Amendment I states "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
How did this Amendment become misinterpreted? It
would be interesting to know how this happened.
The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent what
happened in England. The writers of the Bill of
Rights wanted to prevent the establishment of one
religion that would control the country.
The writers of the Bill of Rights wanted the people to
practice any religion that so chose. And, to ensure
this was possible, stated that Congress shall not
prohibit the free exercise thereof.
The writers of the Bill of Rights did not want to take
religion out of the country, they just did not want
government interference, and wanted the people to
practice religion in any manner they chose.
Therefore, you can conclude that the current
interpretation is wrong. The government did not want
to stop people from practicing their religion - they
just did not want the government to choose one
religion for the country.
By stopping people from practicing their religion, the
government is going against the first Amendment. Just
because the government provides funds to a school and
a person chooses to exercise his free right to
practice his religion, does not mean the government is
establishing one religion. But, they are prohibiting
people from practicing their religion which the
Amendment states the government cannot do.
This is just common sense after reviewing other
writings of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights.
They wanted people to practice religion but not have
the Government tell them what they had to practice.
Someone really needs to argue against the current
interpretation of the Bill of Rights and put it's true
meaning into practice. If there's anyway I can help
to accomplish this, please let me know.
Jesus rejected political participation in favor of his Father's sovereignty.
Jesus Christ engaged in the ministry during a time of extreme political unrest. He could have joined the party followers of Herod, the Zealots or Sicari. He could have rebelled against the corrupt pagan Roman empire. He could also have advocated for the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes. Yet, the Bible indicates that Jesus rejected political involvement (John 6:15; 15:19-20; 17:16; 18:36). Christ also did not correct Satan’s claim of dominion over all the nations. (Matt. 4: 8-9; Luke 4:5-6). Why? It is noteworthy that Christ repeatedly identified Satan as the ruler of the world. (John 12:31; 14:30; 1611; compare also 1 John 5:19; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; Rev. 12:9; 13:7, 16:14; 19:15; 19:19-21) Instead, Jesus advocated his Father’s name and sovereignty and commanded his followers to do the same. (Psalm 2: 1-9; Matthew 6:9-10, 33; John 12:28; compare Dan 2:44; Micah 4:1-4; Ephesians 1:8-10; Rev. 21:1-5) Christians should consider carefully whether they follow Christ’s example in this matter. Understanding this issue correctly also answers many other important questions, such as why God has permitted wickedness and human suffering for a time.
