Should Religious Leaders Endorse From the Pulpit?

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?

Timothy of CO 1:21AM January 10, 2009

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.

Gordon Everest of MN 12:39AM December 22, 2008

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.

Richard Bonomo of WI 9:37AM December 17, 2008

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

Timothy Baysinger Sr of CO 2:24PM December 14, 2008