|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Free Speech vs. "Johnson Amendment"
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Free Speech vs. "Johnson Amendment"Our Chief Counsel, Dr. Jay Sekulow, summarized the implications of the 1954 Johnson Amendment by calling it a “[62]-year-old federal tax law that prevents religious leaders from truly exercising their constitutionally-protected free speech rights when they act in their official capacity as a pastor or head of a religious, tax-exempt organization.” The purpose of the IRS was “to collect revenue for the general treasury,” but this amendment has turned the organization into the “speech police.” The silencing of speech is not the answer. Unfavorable speeches and action have their place in society as much as those that are popular. Whether it is through legislation amending or revoking this tax provision, “Whatever the outcome of this conflict . . . this is a debate worth having. Religious freedom doesn’t mean much if houses of worship are intimidated by the IRS when they speak out on matters of conscience.” Charles C. Haynes, The Case Against All Saints: Has the IRS Gone Too Far?, First Amendment Center (Nov. 27, 2005). Church-state separation should be upheld by allowing churches to fulfill one of the purposes for which they were created—to be involved in moral issues of the day and be a community for like-minded individuals. Discussing the church in Ephesians 4, the apostle Paul writes, And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. The state should allow the church to speak truth, and instead of silencing unpopular opinions, should let the free market of ideas decide who wins. aclj.org |
||
|
dmaestro 23-May-18, 14:21 |
|
||
|
As a professing Christian - correct me if you are not - you're antagonistic and negative regard for Christians engaging in America's political process completely baffles me. Especially in light of America's historic interdependence between our political platforms and the moral influence of our Christian faith. When I consider what depths our social norms have plunged to is your advocacy of this "separation" really what you want for our country? |
||
|
dmaestro 23-May-18, 15:24 |
|
||
|
Preaching Values Churches aught to be free to discuss political issues AND party platforms. In recent American history one party has consistently and without regard to conservative/ Christian values/ morality championed legislation which run counter to these traditional values. This party also has been very lax/ opposed to traditional Constitutional interpretation. Though the law may have threatened church endorsement of a particular party, candidates and ballot issues for any particular election I guarantee churches did articulate and endorse and oppose party platforms, candidates and ballot issues in each election which has recently been up for vote. Before I vote, I want to know where candidates stand and what do their party platforms believe. These matters are of the utmost importance to people who vote. And as you are in favor of the DNC platforms I understand why you would not want churches being able to share such information with the congregations of the church. |
||
|
O Father of the Universe, we magnify Your Holy Name on this 124th day of President Trumps second year in office, and 489th day of his first of, by Your grace, two terms. Your word tells us, that first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. And that this is good, and pleases You Father our Savior, for want all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. On this 124/489th day, we pray for the sight of everyone in our nation, no matter the condition they are in today. Father, through Your mercy, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays Your glory Christ Jesus, the image of the Living God. Matthew 6:23 says, “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, our whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, our whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in us is darkness, how great is that darkness! Father, it is on behalf of those who think their eyes are good; but in fact, are as dark as dark can be, that we pray today! In example, Nancy Pelosi, and all the other “Animal Activists” who are defending MS-13 gang members; the leaders of the City who gives a Porn star the key to the city, in front of a porn shop owned by a drag queen porn director. And the multitudes of the university trained walking dead in our nation, who are wandering around in deep darkness, thinking the are full of light. Father, You made us alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which we once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But Yahweh, rich in mercy, because of Your great love with which You have loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses; And as You made us alive together with Christ (by Your grace we have been saved), bless them who have been blinded by darkness same awakening grace, and raise them up together, and bless them sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Father, cause the scales to fall off their eyes, just as You have done for us, deliver them from the darkness of blinding pride. For You are good, and Your love endures! We say, “LIGHT BE, BLIND SEE!” We call You out of darkness into the fullness of light and destiny! In the power of the Name, and through the glorious victory of the blood of Your Son, Yeshua Hamashiach we pray! www.google.com www.google.com |
||
|
dmaestro. . . << Tax free status was intended for religious activities not politics. >> << Render unto Ceasar... >> My response to your last post was not thought through as thoroughly as I wanted it to be. I was trying to go to sleep as I mulled it over and could not, so I hastily wrote the above on my phone before going to sleep. So with fingers on my keyboard I outline the main points of your post as I see them. You highlight a point that anybody can “start a political church”. Ostensibly I see this as an agenda to rally for political clout rather than for any spiritual or Christian purpose. Americans are sensible enough to see this for what it is and there shouldn't be much of a problem to address it for what it is. Then we may legislate for or against it. The people decide. Not one single (Lyndon Johnson) individual. The second point is what this forum thread is all about to begin with. Before the Johnson Amendment there was never any, or there was never much thought given regarding churches “involvement” with politics. The church's main function should be in regard to spiritual matters and concerns. It is well known that Lyndon Johnson reason for pushing through this law had to do with gaining political advantage through elimination of negative “stumping” by clergy of nearby churches. Whatever “stumping” may be done by clergy in churches is secondary to their main purpose as I have already outlined above. The last point about rendering unto Caesar is the real motive I submit for your post. You have had an issue with churches being involved or interested in the political realm since forever. This issue has more to do with interpreting religion's purposes than it has to do with this issue, per se. You, of course, may interpret religion's purposes as you choose. But whatever your religious beliefs they have no bearing in this forum thread other than to say you are opposed to freedom of church's speech rights on this principle, not for political reasons. IMO. |
||
|
dmaestro 24-May-18, 23:01 |
Why open Pandora’s box? It’s not like clergy can’t make their views clear enough. No the intent here is not to protect small local churches and incidental political considerations. Once again you presume some sort of attack on religion that is not there. |
||
|
illinoisfamily.org |
||
|
dmaestro 25-May-18, 08:27 |
en.m.wikipedia.org When churches directly get engaged in partisan politics beyond general principles using church resources they are not only excluding any members who disagree but those in the public who disagree are subsidizing it. Churches are already declining and making them a direct political tool ensures at some point of unpopularity that their tax exemptions are jeopardized. You can’t see that this issue will be turned against you once you breach the separation of church and state. And it isn’t even necessary because churches are virtually endorsing with impunity. |
||
|
dmaestro 25-May-18, 08:34 |
|
||
|
dmaestro. . . What are you saying with this statement? “churches are virtually endorsing with impunity.” “this issue will be turned against you once you breach the separation of church and state.” In the past we have had to face lions or worse. It seems to me that our Lord warned that these persecutions would happen. Since that warning our people have been persecuted, and they still are in increasing numbers as time has gone by. Are you aware of the state of the persecuted church today? Do you stand with our brothers and sisters, praying for them? Do you identify with them? I do. This is a Scriptural command. Right here in America the tide is turning against us, and threatening us with taking our tax exempt status is going to deter us from doing what is right? From calling out the Herod's who sleep with their brother's wife? From standing with those who dare to name names and confront the ungodly tide sweeping America? You are mistaken! We will not back down, we will expose evil in all its forms and corruption wherever we see it. To follow our conscience we can do nothing less. You may pretend you do not see these issues which I have enumerated, and you will answer for your stand. As for me and my house – give me liberty or give me death! |
||
|
more points on this subject “The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State” Our nation was predicated on unalienable rights with governance through family, church and community, each rightfully sovereign within its sphere. Human dignity, legal equality and personal freedom reflect biblical values imparted on Western Civilization, which retains these values in secular form while expunging their Author from public discourse. Americans are frequently reminded of what the revisionists deem our greatest achievement: “Separation of Church and State.” Crosses are ripped down in parks. Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere found in the Constitution or any other founding legislation. Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today. (Please, read that last sentence again.) The phrase “separation of church and state” was initially coined by Baptists striving for religious toleration in Virginia, whose official state religion was then Anglican (Episcopalian). Baptists thought government limitations against religion illegitimate. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed their cause. The preamble in Act Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (1786), affirms that “the Author of our Religion gave us our ‘free will.’” And that He “chose not to propagate it by coercions.” This legislation certainly did not diminish religious influence on government for it also provided stiff penalties for conducting business on the Sabbath. Nor did the Constitution inhibit public displays of faith. At ratification, a majority of the thirteen several and sovereign states maintained official religions. The early Republic welcomed public worship. Church services were held in the U.S. Capitol and Treasury buildings every Sunday. The imagery in many federal buildings remains unmistakably biblical. Revisionists history has turned upside the the INTENT of the Separation of Church and State meaning. www.forbes.com In all of your posts you have yet to acknowledge that the effect of recent political legislation has had a negative effect within our society. Why? |
||
|
First Amendment Intent At first glance, it is simply several separate liberties. But they are, in fact, one singular liberty with four inter-dependent parts. Likely, a half-drunken clerk, pulling an all-nighter, penned the last draft of the First Amendment. The author scribbled them down hastily, probably at a tavern, and certainly as his whiskey and candlelight dwindled. To suggest the clerk’s intoxication is by no means a slight on the clerk. It just demonstrates that a drunken Tea Partier understands the type of environment in which liberty flourishes better than the modern Liberal. The clerk must have understood the liberties carefully enshrined in the First Amendment are equally dependent on the others for their success. He also understood that first among the liberties of the First Amendment was the freedom of religion. As we know, some of the founders believed amendments to the new Constitution were a necessity. Two Virginians, both known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights” were at the center of the debate. They thought that without further limiting instructions for the Federal government, Congress could easily trample on the rights reserved to the states and the people. Thus, they created the 10 amendments to the Constitution we now know as the Bill of Rights.[i] Understanding how Virginia had already dealt with the issue of religion gives us a clue to the Founder’s intent. In 1774, the Virginian legislature debated a resolution calling for the relief of Boston. The Boston port had been closed by the British because of the Tea Party. The British Governor of Virginia, Dunmore, abolished the House of Burgesses rather than allow such a resolution. Dunmore proceeded to steal the powder and shot from the Virginia militia,[iv] and, forced to return it to an angry mob, fled to a British ship off the Virginia shore.[v] Legislators then met in early 1776 at Williamsburg, to establish a new Constitution for the State. Politically, dissenters from the State church comprised “two-thirds of the white population.”[vi] George Mason insisted on “the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion.” James Madison observed toleration would not prevent a State-established religion, and suggested alternate language. Finally, the men agreed on another paragraph which read in part, "all men are entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward the other." Madison and his fellow legislators thus “decreed religious freedom, while at the same time affirming the foundation of Virginia society on…the Christian faith.”[vii] These principles were echoing in the minds of Mason and Madison as they wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The clerk got his words from Madison and Mason. Where did they get their beliefs? “The Virginians avidly read Locke, who Jefferson said was one of the three greatest men in history.”[viii] Locke proposed that people enter into a contract to form a government. Government serves to protect their life, liberty, and property. Locke didn’t end there. He understood salvation is a personal experience, not a state mandate. The Church’s “primary concerns are spiritual and moral, and nothing ought nor can be transacted in this society relating to the possession of civil and worldly goods.”[ix] With this logic, Locke declared disestablishment. Locke’s disestablishment became the bedrock for the First Amendment, and prevented the Federal government from foisting a national religion upon the states. Not only did Locke’s logic work, it also fit in with the founder’s understanding of their own history. English rule under Henry VIII became increasingly corrupt and tyrannical as he eliminated papal influence over the church. As he merged the Church with the State, Henry removed every human obstacle. Even Chancellor Sir Thomas More, the most able public servant in England, suffered execution after a show trial. Given the religious pluralism at the Founding, such a consolidation of power would have been politically impossible in America without a civil war. Bad politics and bad government could not coexist in the young Republic. As the Founders understood it, disestablishment—the principle that Congress could not establish a State religion—prohibited only the national government from establishing a state religion. States kept their State-sanctioned religions for the public good. This keyed in perfectly with their understanding of the 10th Amendment. The Founders also understood the clause did nothing to prevent Church influence over State affairs. www.redstate.com How FAR WE HAVE DIGRESSED! |
||
|
Moving Forward Pointing fingers and protesting in opposition isn't going to help resolve differences of opinion. We Christians are now a minority and our representative form of government requires cooperation and lawful participation within the laws which we now have in place. It is with this understanding of the current state of this nation that conservative Americans regroup and take stock how to best move forward. Perhaps we will learn from our mistakes. Perhaps not. |
||
|
Moving Forward Pt TWo Coupled with this changing social dynamic is the apparent disregard with which recent Government legislature has had for majority consensus of those they govern. There is considerable dissatisfaction in our land with how Washington has performed. “American Dissatisfaction With Everything is Reaching Historic Levels” WASHINGTON — People are mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore, an extensive new survey (1) of public attitudes toward the government finds. The study, conducted by EMC Research, relies on three in-depth surveys in late 2013, one by telephone and two on the Internet. When lined up with historical trends on dissatisfaction and alienation, it shows a public that has become increasingly distrustful of the government over the past several decades. Only the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks interrupted that trend, briefly rallying people around their leaders. Within just a few years, that feeling had faded, and faith in government and politicians returned to its steady decline. (1)big.assets.huffingtonpost.com www.huffingtonpost.com “Americans Dissatisfaction With Government Tops Concerns” Dissatisfaction with government topped the list for Americans of most important problems facing the country last year for the first time in Gallup records, also marking the first year since 2007 that the economy was not the top ranking issue. Complaints about government leadership (1) led the list at 18 percent, followed by the economy in general at 17 percent, unemployment or jobs at 15 percent, and healthcare at 10 percent, Gallup said. (1)news.gallup.com www.washingtontimes.com This isolation between our citizens and our representative government is cause for real concern. What could be the root causes for this? A considerable prospect for solution is found in recognizing that the spiritual health of our citizens have been compromised. Displacing or changing the Christian heritage which once held sway in our society with other less noble (I would assert “evil”) substitutes is the reason for this state of affairs. Such substitutes as the occult. “The Occult and Satanism in America” This article-report is based on studies by the author as well as an interview with ex-Satanist Zachary King. It is meant to raise awareness regarding the growing popularity of the occult and Satanism in America, its threat to our children and how society is being transformed to be more accepting of the devil. Few Americans took notice that in the last U.S. census of 2010, witchcraft had become the fourth largest religion in the United States. As shocking as that may be, Satanism has become just as popular. So says Zachary King, one of the most renowned former Satanists who converted to the Catholic Church, in an interview he gave to Crusade Magazine. www.tfp.org “American Society is 'Submerged' in the Occult, Says Ex-Satanist” An ex-Satanist who is now a Christian and oversees a ministry that reaches out to occultists believes that American society is "submerged in the occult." Jeff Harshbarger, head of Refuge Ministries and author of the book Dancing With the Devil, told The Christian Post in an interview that characteristics of occult belief are commonplace in American culture. www.christianpost.com The spiritual needs of America can not exist in a vacuum. We will seek something or someone to meet that need. |
||
|
Moving Forward Pt Three The website which gave me that number is bipartisanpolicy.org Curious I went there to look around. The intent of this club is to find answers and solutions to issues facing America today. Doing that I believe we will need to take the problems facing all Americans today and talk about what is the best solution to meeting those problems. The Bipartisan Policy web site had some viable options for us I believe. Such as . . . “For most of U.S. history, the political system has successfully embraced and managed differences in ways that have moved the country in new and promising directions.” The Best Ideas From Both Parties youtu.be The most important moments and achievements in the nation's history have been the result of negotiated understandings and balanced compromise. Today, the nation is again faced with stark divisions. The Bipartisan Policy Center believes the best answers will always rest is harnessing the best ideas from both parties. Seizing pragmatic consensus, and holding steadfast to our commitment to sustaining the institutions traditions that enable cohesion, freedom and opportunity in a diverse nation. bipartisanpolicy.org |
