Stimulus Plan Includes Religious Discrimination

[Care4all]

if private colleges can request the higher education stimulus for modernization, i and ii would be even clearer.

 

[Patriot2009]

ok Pat,

this is under the section for HIGHER EDUCATION

(d) USE OF SUBGRANTS BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—
(1) PERMISSIBLE USES OF FUNDS.— this is pg 184

so IT IS speaking about COLLEGES, To clear that up.

Now let's look at the passage again, together, and reason it through....


(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—


i. Modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or

ii. Modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are susumed in religious mission; or construction of new facilities.

I asked myself, if the way YOU interpreted it is true....... that the first statement ....''i'', meant that any classroom used at all for any religious reason, even if for just 2 hours a week on one day, the feds could prohibit the school from receiving funds to repair it....

then I would also have to ask myself

WHY would "ii" be needed if all the classrooms that had just one Bible study a week in it were already prohibited by clause "i"?

It wouldn't be needed. 'ii' would not be needed Patriot, if 'i' meant what you think it does or say it does mean?

SOOOOOOOO, then i had to ask myself, if there is no reason for it to mean what you say... then what does it mean and how would it relate to having an 'ii'?

SOOOOOOOOO, what I believe it means, especially since ii was stated, is that:
Prohibited from receiving funds IF:

i = the modernization/repair is for specific School Chapels, and specific buildings for their ministry only.

ii = the modernization/repair is for buildings used PRIMARILY for religious purposes...so, they may have secular colleges classes in these buildings but the MAJORITY of the time would be used for religious groups or purposes.

care

Care,
Your interpretation is redundant. If (i) means what you say, there is no need for (ii). And, if (ii) means what you say, there is no need for (i) since you seem to think that they both apply to chapels of campus churches or to classrooms used primarily for similar purposes.

Since the two are separated by the term “or” the principles of legal language interpretation hold that they address something different. The only logical difference is that the first addresses buildings used primarily for non-religious purposes and include occasional uses for religious purposes and the second addresses buildings used primarily for religious purposes regardless of whether they are used for occasional non-secular purposes.

This is a distinction that has heretofore not appeared in federal legislation.

no, it isn't redundant


some colleges HAVE sections of the college specifically for religious purposes, where NO SECULAR schooling or activities take place.....a School Chapel, a Wing of the school used by the administration of the ministry or a religious school on campus. this IS what 'i' is talking about....

some colleges DO NOT have these kind of buildings on campus.

But these colleges may allow the use of a portion of their school for a portion of the time, for religious type use of others while they also, have regular college classes in this same section of the school. this is what 'ii' is talking about....

Money would still be given for these sections of the school if the religious courses or religious activities were NOT the primary use of the section of the school.

i respectfully disagree with you and sadly believe senator demint -who mouthed off on this, made a mountain out of a molehill for his own political purposes and gain.


btw, does this stimulus bill limit the modernization of colleges to only State owned schools or are private colleges eligible as well, do you know?

care

Care,
I realize that I had the meaning of the paragraphs backwards. But, nevertheless, they can’t operate to do the same thing.

One part says that a building that has as its primary purpose religious activities can’t get the funds. It is paragraph (i), as you say. The other part, Paragraph (ii), prohibits funds going to buildings that have religious activities as only a part of their activities. They have non-secular and secular activities. Although I had the two reversed, this category, the ones that have both kinds of activities haven’t been in prior laws funding renovation or repairs to public buildings. This is something new and is troubling.

And, I have to admit that I’m not a legal scholar or legislator. So, if I had come up with this argument, I would have to give it more thought. But, a good number of the Congressmen who voted against this bill argue that this provision doesn’t just apply to colleges.

I’ll concede that, if it only applied to colleges, I wouldn’t be as concerned, except that once the precedent is established, the next step of applying it to secondary and elementary schools is easier. It’s kind of like eating an elephant. You do it a little at a time. For that reason, I would still oppose this new prohibition.

 

[KittenKoder]

Aw shit, that means we can't have our local pagan church set on school property updated ... damn, ho will we survive ... or wait, we don't need it because we aren't stealing from the donations already.

 

[Peejay]

The church exist tax free. Either pay up or shut up. It's pretty simple. The government will leave religion alone as much as religion leaves the govenment alone. Keep poking at abortion and trying to weild religious influence that you don't pay for and you'll continue to get bitten at every turn.

 

[dilloduck]

The church exist tax free. Either pay up or shut up. It's pretty simple. The government will leave religion alone as much as religion leaves the govenment alone. Keep poking at abortion and trying to weild religious influence that you don't pay for and you'll continue to get bitten at every turn.

You understand that people who go to churches pay taxes I assume ? Do you also understand the amount of time and money the churches spend on people in need that non-church goers DON'T have to pay for ?

 

[American Horse]

"Nestled away in the now $900 billion-plus stimulus is a provision some conservatives believe is a backdoor attempt to stifle religious dialogue in the public square. While the bill provides $20 billion for the modernization of school facilities — with $14 billion going to elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education — it also expressly prohibits using the funds to modernize buildings where religious activities take place." The Bulletin > Philadelphia's Family Newspaper > Archives > Top Stories > Stimulus Plan Includes Religious Discrimination

Under current law a public school must allow after school use of its facilities for religiouos activities such as Bible study and religious services. What this bill will do is make it illegal for any school that accepts these funds for improvements, repairs or new construction to do so.

I don't believe that's true. In fact, I don't believe kids ar allowed to have bible study in school at all. I could be wrong about that, though.

To me, it's applying the same standard as the constitution. At least til the right wingers on the court get hold of it.... which could be the reason for the provision.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Government is already prohibited from funding religious pursuits. I can see where the Christian right would be offended by that, having worked so hard to elect presidents and governors to put people on the court who stand constitutional construction on its head.

As regards the current Stim Bill, we know that it will apply to Christianity and Judaism, but what about Islam, and their needs for special accommodations in public schools? I know I've heard (can't supply a link), I believe in Minnesota, in which there have been accommodations made for Islamic services, in public schools....How do you feel about that possibility? You have to realise that in public schools, the boys at some age threshold (girls?) are required to pray several times per day.

 

[Peejay]

The church exist tax free. Either pay up or shut up. It's pretty simple. The government will leave religion alone as much as religion leaves the govenment alone. Keep poking at abortion and trying to weild religious influence that you don't pay for and you'll continue to get bitten at every turn.

You understand that people who go to churches pay taxes I assume ? Do you also understand the amount of time and money the churches spend on people in need that non-church goers DON'T have to pay for ?

Oh yeah, I understand. I've been in one church or another for most of my life. I don't view it as a one way street, in either direction. I think the biggest mistake that churches and church goers make is demanding or objecting or even voicing an opinion on matters like this. You can't have it both ways. You really don't want it both ways. You can try but for every inch the church pushes into government, the government will push a foot into the church. There is already way too much politics in the church and that is the only condition of the tax free status they enjoy, at the leisure of the state. Make all the arguments you want about that statement but if you want to argue that the church doesn't owe but still gets a voice, then no one owes and everyone gets a voice. Like I said, pay up or shut up. It's that simple really.

 

[dilloduck]

The church exist tax free. Either pay up or shut up. It's pretty simple. The government will leave religion alone as much as religion leaves the govenment alone. Keep poking at abortion and trying to weild religious influence that you don't pay for and you'll continue to get bitten at every turn.

You understand that people who go to churches pay taxes I assume ? Do you also understand the amount of time and money the churches spend on people in need that non-church goers DON'T have to pay for ?

Oh yeah, I understand. I've been in one church or another for most of my life. I don't view it as a one way street, in either direction. I think the biggest mistake that churches and church goers make is demanding or objecting or even voicing an opinion on matters like this. You can't have it both ways. You really don't want it both ways. You can try but for every inch the church pushes into government, the government will push a foot into the church. There is already way too much politics in the church and that is the only condition of the tax free status they enjoy, at the leisure of the state. Make all the arguments you want about that statement but if you want to argue that the church doesn't owe but still gets a voice, then no one owes and everyone gets a voice. Like I said, pay up or shut up. It's that simple really.

The PEOPLE who go to church pay taxes and get a voice.

 

[Annie]

The church exist tax free. Either pay up or shut up. It's pretty simple. The government will leave religion alone as much as religion leaves the govenment alone. Keep poking at abortion and trying to weild religious influence that you don't pay for and you'll continue to get bitten at every turn.

You understand that people who go to churches pay taxes I assume ? Do you also understand the amount of time and money the churches spend on people in need that non-church goers DON'T have to pay for ?

Oh yeah, I understand. I've been in one church or another for most of my life. I don't view it as a one way street, in either direction. I think the biggest mistake that churches and church goers make is demanding or objecting or even voicing an opinion on matters like this. You can't have it both ways. You really don't want it both ways. You can try but for every inch the church pushes into government, the government will push a foot into the church. There is already way too much politics in the church and that is the only condition of the tax free status they enjoy, at the leisure of the state. Make all the arguments you want about that statement but if you want to argue that the church doesn't owe but still gets a voice, then no one owes and everyone gets a voice. Like I said, pay up or shut up. It's that simple really.

I haven't read all your posts, but if this last one means that Church affiliated organizations should say, "Thanks, but no thanks." It would be a very wise idea.

 

[Charles_Main]

"Nestled away in the now $900 billion-plus stimulus is a provision some conservatives believe is a backdoor attempt to stifle religious dialogue in the public square. While the bill provides $20 billion for the modernization of school facilities — with $14 billion going to elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education — it also expressly prohibits using the funds to modernize buildings where religious activities take place." The Bulletin > Philadelphia's Family Newspaper > Archives > Top Stories > Stimulus Plan Includes Religious Discrimination

Under current law a public school must allow after school use of its facilities for religiouos activities such as Bible study and religious services. What this bill will do is make it illegal for any school that accepts these funds for improvements, repairs or new construction to do so.

I don't believe that's true. In fact, I don't believe kids ar allowed to have bible study in school at all. I could be wrong about that, though.

Well you would be wrong Jillian, as usual.

Kids can organize and hold Bible study classes all they want in public school. The School simply can not be the one organizing it. Kids used to meet in our cafeteria every morning for bible study.

 

[Peejay]

You understand that people who go to churches pay taxes I assume ? Do you also understand the amount of time and money the churches spend on people in need that non-church goers DON'T have to pay for ?

Oh yeah, I understand. I've been in one church or another for most of my life. I don't view it as a one way street, in either direction. I think the biggest mistake that churches and church goers make is demanding or objecting or even voicing an opinion on matters like this. You can't have it both ways. You really don't want it both ways. You can try but for every inch the church pushes into government, the government will push a foot into the church. There is already way too much politics in the church and that is the only condition of the tax free status they enjoy, at the leisure of the state. Make all the arguments you want about that statement but if you want to argue that the church doesn't owe but still gets a voice, then no one owes and everyone gets a voice. Like I said, pay up or shut up. It's that simple really.

The PEOPLE who go to church pay taxes and get a voice.

Absolutely, and if they use that voice to promote ideas imparted to them by them church, it's a mistake and a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of the seperation clause. Abortion, for example. I am pro life, personally. I owe that largely to my upbringing in the church. That's my value, my creed. As far as the government goes, I could care less either way they see it so long as it isn't based on my religous ideals or anyone elses. I am responsible for my own decisions, the church can use it's influence in the community to spread the ideals. If they think they need the government to get involved then they aren't doing their job. If the message is right, it will stick. You don't cram it by using the government to religious ends.

As far as the issue here, the church shouldn't care one way or the other. If they can use the facilities, fine. If not, fine. They don't pay in so they have no voice in it's use. The people, collectively form the church. They can speak on personal terms but arguing for the rights of organized, tax free religous entities to use tax supported buildings is baloney. If you want to tax Benny Hinn and Joel Olsteen, ETC, then you have a start. Too many mega churches weilding too much influence in the government already while sporting multi million dollar, tax free diggs. Why don't Joel and Benny forgo three Italian suits each and build a few Churches every six months so these folks don't have to use the gym ? Why don't these churches go ask Benny and Joel instead of asking the government to renovate the gym they use ?

 

[dilloduck]

Absolutely, and if they use that voice to promote ideas imparted to them by them church, it's a mistake and a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of the seperation clause.

Now how would you know if an idea I promoted was "imparted" on me by a church or not ?

 

[Peejay]

Absolutely, and if they use that voice to promote ideas imparted to them by them church, it's a mistake and a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of the seperation clause.

Now how would you know if an idea I promoted was "imparted" on me by a church or not ?

I wouldn't. I have to trust you to put aside your religious feelings in these matters. And besides, people are usually pretty honest about that kind of thing. And it's pretty easy to spot.

 

[dilloduck]

Absolutely, and if they use that voice to promote ideas imparted to them by them church, it's a mistake and a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of the seperation clause.

Now how would you know if an idea I promoted was "imparted" on me by a church or not ?

I wouldn't. I have to trust you to put aside your religious feelings in these matters. And besides, people are usually pretty honest about that kind of thing. And it's pretty easy to spot.

Unfortunately I think too many people think it's easy to spot someone ( or accuse someone) of espousing an issue because a church somewhere happens to say the same thing.
It's a handy little bucket to try to toss everything into but Christians in general have very little interest in cramming anything down anyones throat. Secularists need to learn that a church doesn't speak for all of it's congregation and vice versa.
Please provide me examples of how people of faith have ruined the lives of secular people.

 

[Peejay]

Absolutely, and if they use that voice to promote ideas imparted to them by them church, it's a mistake and a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of the seperation clause.

Now how would you know if an idea I promoted was "imparted" on me by a church or not ?

I wouldn't. I have to trust you to put aside your religious feelings in these matters. And besides, people are usually pretty honest about that kind of thing. And it's pretty easy to spot.

Unfortunately I think too many people think it's easy to spot someone ( or accuse someone) of espousing an issue because a church somewhere happens to say the same thing.
It's a handy little bucket to try to toss everything into but Christians in general have very little interest in cramming anything down anyones throat. Secularists need to learn that a church doesn't speak for all of it's congregation and vice versa.
Please provide me examples of how people of faith have ruined the lives of secular people.

Wow....the Spanish inquisition ?

I don't think the church is too awful intrusive at this point. They are actively pushing a political agenda though and I wish Pat and those types would stop.

More importantly, would be opening the door for secular society to intrude on the lives of religious people. If you keep on pushing on the door, it's going to open. I don't see so many secular folks pushing on the church door as church folks pushing on the schoolhouse door. And like I said, the traffic will be two way. I don't want either entity leaning on the other. It's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Care4all]

The church exist tax free. Either pay up or shut up. It's pretty simple. The government will leave religion alone as much as religion leaves the govenment alone. Keep poking at abortion and trying to weild religious influence that you don't pay for and you'll continue to get bitten at every turn.

You understand that people who go to churches pay taxes I assume ? Do you also understand the amount of time and money the churches spend on people in need that non-church goers DON'T have to pay for ?

Oh yeah, I understand. I've been in one church or another for most of my life. I don't view it as a one way street, in either direction. I think the biggest mistake that churches and church goers make is demanding or objecting or even voicing an opinion on matters like this. You can't have it both ways. You really don't want it both ways. You can try but for every inch the church pushes into government, the government will push a foot into the church. There is already way too much politics in the church and that is the only condition of the tax free status they enjoy, at the leisure of the state. Make all the arguments you want about that statement but if you want to argue that the church doesn't owe but still gets a voice, then no one owes and everyone gets a voice. Like I said, pay up or shut up. It's that simple really.

FYI

In case you didn't know, the Church's and synagogues and temples do not receive tax free status because they are religious institutions peejay.... they are considered non-profit or not for profit and they follow the same rules that ALL non profits have to follow in order to receive the tax free status...

MAKING a law specifically for religious institutions would be unconstitutional, because

Congress shall make no law respecting, (concerning) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Sadly as well, I think too many people forget about the second half of the religion clause...

Do you think prohibiting the free exercise thereof means the government can stop a group of people from getting together in the public on public grounds to study the Word or the Torah or the Koran etc or this clause protects those that want to do that in the public square or on public grounds?

Care

 

[Peejay]

You understand that people who go to churches pay taxes I assume ? Do you also understand the amount of time and money the churches spend on people in need that non-church goers DON'T have to pay for ?

Oh yeah, I understand. I've been in one church or another for most of my life. I don't view it as a one way street, in either direction. I think the biggest mistake that churches and church goers make is demanding or objecting or even voicing an opinion on matters like this. You can't have it both ways. You really don't want it both ways. You can try but for every inch the church pushes into government, the government will push a foot into the church. There is already way too much politics in the church and that is the only condition of the tax free status they enjoy, at the leisure of the state. Make all the arguments you want about that statement but if you want to argue that the church doesn't owe but still gets a voice, then no one owes and everyone gets a voice. Like I said, pay up or shut up. It's that simple really.

FYI

In case you didn't know, the Church's and synagogues and temples do not receive tax free status because they are religious institutions peejay.... they are considered non-profit or not for profit and they follow the same rules that ALL non profits have to follow in order to receive the tax free status...

MAKING a law specifically for religious institutions would be unconstitutional, because

Congress shall make no law respecting, (concerning) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Sadly as well, I think too many people forget about the second half of the religion clause...

Do you think prohibiting the free exercise thereof means the government can stop a group of people from getting together in the public on public grounds to study the Word or the Torah or the Koran etc or this clause protects those that want to do that in the public square or on public grounds?

Care

Federal tax law prohibits Churches, as tax exempt, from engaging in partisan politics. The way I phrase it seems to be the jist of it: Pay up or shut up. It really is that simple. And a church absolutely can forfeit their tax exempt status and jump right in. However, many attempt to have it both ways, influencing the system that they don't pay into.

The government has no business in preventing folks from gathering to study whatever they want. But the reality is, when that thing becomes a thorn in the goverments side, twisting and pushing deeper and deeper, there will be a response. There were a group of churches in the past election that alligned and openly defied the prohibiton on partisan politics. Real smart.

The government isn't looking around for churches to get into, it seems quite the opposite. The thing that should concern us most is the independence of the church from the government. Why would anyone want to risk that by going and poking at the beast ?

 

[Care4all]

Oh yeah, I understand. I've been in one church or another for most of my life. I don't view it as a one way street, in either direction. I think the biggest mistake that churches and church goers make is demanding or objecting or even voicing an opinion on matters like this. You can't have it both ways. You really don't want it both ways. You can try but for every inch the church pushes into government, the government will push a foot into the church. There is already way too much politics in the church and that is the only condition of the tax free status they enjoy, at the leisure of the state. Make all the arguments you want about that statement but if you want to argue that the church doesn't owe but still gets a voice, then no one owes and everyone gets a voice. Like I said, pay up or shut up. It's that simple really.

FYI

In case you didn't know, the Church's and synagogues and temples do not receive tax free status because they are religious institutions peejay.... they are considered non-profit or not for profit and they follow the same rules that ALL non profits have to follow in order to receive the tax free status...

MAKING a law specifically for religious institutions would be unconstitutional, because

Congress shall make no law respecting, (concerning) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Sadly as well, I think too many people forget about the second half of the religion clause...

Do you think prohibiting the free exercise thereof means the government can stop a group of people from getting together in the public on public grounds to study the Word or the Torah or the Koran etc or this clause protects those that want to do that in the public square or on public grounds?

Care

Federal tax law prohibits Churches, as tax exempt, from engaging in partisan politics. The way I phrase it seems to be the jist of it: Pay up or shut up. It really is that simple. And a church absolutely can forfeit their tax exempt status and jump right in. However, many attempt to have it both ways, influencing the system that they don't pay into.

The government has no business in preventing folks from gathering to study whatever they want. But the reality is, when that thing becomes a thorn in the goverments side, twisting and pushing deeper and deeper, there will be a response. There were a group of churches in the past election that alligned and openly defied the prohibiton on partisan politics. Real smart.

The government isn't looking around for churches to get into, it seems quite the opposite. The thing that should concern us most is the independence of the church from the government. Why would anyone want to risk that by going and poking at the beast ?

I NEVER said they should PJ...but you do seem to be festering some animosity....?

Should Obama's church have its tax free status taken away from them, according to your "rules" they should....after all they were preaching from the pulpit against Hillary Clinton....and for Obama?

I happen to think that Churches should keep as far away from scuzzy politics as they can...or they become as dirty as the people they play with...

But that doesn't mean that the citizens of each church or temple don't have the right to speak up on issues of importance to them....after all, they are citizens too, and even if I disagree with them, they have the same right as I do to express themselves to their government, as individual citizens of this country.

care

 

[Peejay]

FYI

In case you didn't know, the Church's and synagogues and temples do not receive tax free status because they are religious institutions peejay.... they are considered non-profit or not for profit and they follow the same rules that ALL non profits have to follow in order to receive the tax free status...

MAKING a law specifically for religious institutions would be unconstitutional, because

Congress shall make no law respecting, (concerning) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Sadly as well, I think too many people forget about the second half of the religion clause...

Do you think prohibiting the free exercise thereof means the government can stop a group of people from getting together in the public on public grounds to study the Word or the Torah or the Koran etc or this clause protects those that want to do that in the public square or on public grounds?

Care

Federal tax law prohibits Churches, as tax exempt, from engaging in partisan politics. The way I phrase it seems to be the jist of it: Pay up or shut up. It really is that simple. And a church absolutely can forfeit their tax exempt status and jump right in. However, many attempt to have it both ways, influencing the system that they don't pay into.

The government has no business in preventing folks from gathering to study whatever they want. But the reality is, when that thing becomes a thorn in the goverments side, twisting and pushing deeper and deeper, there will be a response. There were a group of churches in the past election that alligned and openly defied the prohibiton on partisan politics. Real smart.

The government isn't looking around for churches to get into, it seems quite the opposite. The thing that should concern us most is the independence of the church from the government. Why would anyone want to risk that by going and poking at the beast ?

I NEVER said they should PJ...but you do seem to be festering some animosity....?

Should Obama's church have its tax free status taken away from them, according to your "rules" they should....after all they were preaching from the pulpit against Hillary Clinton....and for Obama?

I happen to think that Churches should keep as far away from scuzzy politics as they can...or they become as dirty as the people they play with...

But that doesn't mean that the citizens of each church or temple don't have the right to speak up on issues of importance to them....after all, they are citizens too, and even if I disagree with them, they have the same right as I do to express themselves to their government, as individual citizens of this country.

care

Absolutely, if anyone ever needed to lose their tax exempt status it would be the chucrh that allowed Rev. Wright to go on like he did. Seems he had quite a history of going on about politics from the pulpit.

And I do respect the idividual rights more than just about anything. But no one individual can dictate issues of morality to another. Persuasion is a great tool. Forcing religious morality, with the government serving as the tool, isn't something I'm confortable with.

And yes, I do have a giant chip on my shoulder about organized religion, in general. The folks from the Jehovahs temple come by regularly, about every month and allow me to go on and on at them. They take notes, study up and come back the next month with some answers. The lady that cuts my hair went off and told her pastor that I play the piano and wouldn't you know it, there is a great shortage of piano players around here. So then I had that pastor and his deacons showing up at my house repeatedly until I agreed to attend their service a few times. I went and sang for them at revival and enjoyed it right up until this despicable little man preached as a guest pastor. He ran around jumping and shouting, describing the gory details of an abortion to the young children up front. Then he went on a long, thiny veiled endorsement of the republican party, did everything but use the "n" word when speaking of our president to be.

Then of course, when my dad found out he had PLS he ended up following Benny Hinn around and gave the man half his life savings cause he thought Benny could heal him. It cost $5K to sit up front, you know. Then we found out he had cancer and a couple different holy rollers relieved him of the rest of his cash. It doesn't appear that any of them healed him. A doctor took out his prostate and his bladder. None of them volunteered to help pay for that and I did ask. They offered to pray some more for the $60K they got.

They say Satan was born in the pulpit. I think I've met him there.

 

[Care4all]

Federal tax law prohibits Churches, as tax exempt, from engaging in partisan politics. The way I phrase it seems to be the jist of it: Pay up or shut up. It really is that simple. And a church absolutely can forfeit their tax exempt status and jump right in. However, many attempt to have it both ways, influencing the system that they don't pay into.

The government has no business in preventing folks from gathering to study whatever they want. But the reality is, when that thing becomes a thorn in the goverments side, twisting and pushing deeper and deeper, there will be a response. There were a group of churches in the past election that alligned and openly defied the prohibiton on partisan politics. Real smart.

The government isn't looking around for churches to get into, it seems quite the opposite. The thing that should concern us most is the independence of the church from the government. Why would anyone want to risk that by going and poking at the beast ?

I NEVER said they should PJ...but you do seem to be festering some animosity....?

Should Obama's church have its tax free status taken away from them, according to your "rules" they should....after all they were preaching from the pulpit against Hillary Clinton....and for Obama?

I happen to think that Churches should keep as far away from scuzzy politics as they can...or they become as dirty as the people they play with...

But that doesn't mean that the citizens of each church or temple don't have the right to speak up on issues of importance to them....after all, they are citizens too, and even if I disagree with them, they have the same right as I do to express themselves to their government, as individual citizens of this country.

care

Absolutely, if anyone ever needed to lose their tax exempt status it would be the chucrh that allowed Rev. Wright to go on like he did. Seems he had quite a history of going on about politics from the pulpit.

And I do respect the idividual rights more than just about anything. But no one individual can dictate issues of morality to another. Persuasion is a great tool. Forcing religious morality, with the government serving as the tool, isn't something I'm confortable with.

And yes, I do have a giant chip on my shoulder about organized religion, in general. The folks from the Jehovahs temple come by regularly, about every month and allow me to go on and on at them. They take notes, study up and come back the next month with some answers. The lady that cuts my hair went off and told her pastor that I play the piano and wouldn't you know it, there is a great shortage of piano players around here. So then I had that pastor and his deacons showing up at my house repeatedly until I agreed to attend their service a few times. I went and sang for them at revival and enjoyed it right up until this despicable little man preached as a guest pastor. He ran around jumping and shouting, describing the gory details of an abortion to the young children up front. Then he went on a long, thiny veiled endorsement of the republican party, did everything but use the "n" word when speaking of our president to be.

Then of course, when my dad found out he had PLS he ended up following Benny Hinn around and gave the man half his life savings cause he thought Benny could heal him. It cost $5K to sit up front, you know. Then we found out he had cancer and a couple different holy rollers relieved him of the rest of his cash. It doesn't appear that any of them healed him. A doctor took out his prostate and his bladder. None of them volunteered to help pay for that and I did ask. They offered to pray some more for the $60K they got.

They say Satan was born in the pulpit. I think I've met him there.

I can't help it that some people end up following Money Changers....that doesn't make the money changers Christians, no matter what title they give themselves....

I had a Jehovah witness family come to my door several times a week, i was patient at first, and gave her and her pastor the time of day....while i explained very soundly and clearly why i did not accept the jehova's Doctrine....that i was a Christian already and she and he, did not need to come back and try to "save" me, and that they were wasting their precious time witnessing to me when there were plenty of people out that that had never heard the Word.....they got the message and they never came back.

And as you have stated, many Christians have foolishly followed some of these losers out there that only want their money, or that preach hatred instead of LOVE in the name of God.... it is sickening to me as well.....BUT we live in a free country with the free will we were given and I can't stop someone from being fooled, or making mistakes....i can only be truthful and pray that they will see the light, so to say, on their own.

BUT, I will defend their right to be idiots if this is what they choose....Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu etc are citizens as with anyone else and if they feel like bombarding their representatives regarding their views on issues of importance that are being legislated, than they CERTAINLY have the right to do such.......JUST AS YOU or I have the right to petition our government to represent us on how WE FEEL OR THINK on the issue of public interest or importance. And if they want to come together as a group and march in front of the Capital they can, just as I can join a group against the stance they may take on an issue.

This is NOT a one way street for the nonreligious only in this country....nor is it a one way street for the religious only.....it was not formed that way, every man is created equal, regardless of religion here....this does not give the right for people to push their own agendas down our throats, FROM EITHER SIDE of these issues.

Care