Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

[theDoctorisIn]

I think it's pretty funny that the same people advocating this are constantly bitching about Media Matters being tax-exempt.

Repealing the Johnson Act would allow Media Matters, and every other non-profit, to endorse candidates as well...

You mean directly, as opposed to indirectly, right?

"Directly" is the only thing affected by the law.

Let try to distinguish between the Role of a Religious Institution in the role of Ethics and Morality, and that of an Organization with a Political End. What are the Functions of a Religious Body? What are the functions of an Entity like Media Matters? How do they even compare? Does Media Matters run Charities? Hospitals? Food Banks? Shelters?

They "compare" because under the Johnson Act, they're classified the same. They are both 501c3s.

 

[The Infidel]

I think it's pretty funny that the same people advocating this are constantly bitching about Media Matters being tax-exempt.

Repealing the Johnson Act would allow Media Matters, and every other non-profit, to endorse candidates as well...

Not sure what universe you live in... but they already endorse candidates, and its ALWAYS the liberal.

No, they don't. They're not allowed to, per the Johnson Act.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

it sickens me to see any pastor or guest in a Church involved in politics from the pulpit and endorsing a political candidate during a time of worship.

What you are so proud of, is a sin in my book.

preaching on issues, like against abortion and Biblically why you do not support it, is fine and dandy, but to take your parishioners who come to church to worship the Lord and honor His day of rest, while they are put through your stupid, idiotic sermon of telling this captive audience on who they should vote for or ''else'' they are gonna burn is SHAMEFUL and a disgrace.

in your preacher's personal life, he can give his political opinion, all he wants, he pays taxes as you say....

but to use a situation like forcing his parishioners to sit through a scummy political rally while basically held captive by him during the church hour in a church that is not taxed, from a pulpit that is not taxed, with pews that have never been taxed does not give that preacher the right to do this....let alone how He is spitting in God's face while involving him self in the scummiest thing there is out there....politics.

ANY pastor worth his/her salt does not have to endorse a candidate... if he/she teaches the correct Godly message, the parishoners will know which candidate lines up with Biblical principles.

My pastor would never endorse Romney from the pulpit, but we all know he would NEVER have us vote for Obama.

And that's completely legal as the tax system stands now.

The point of this thread is that some pastors are demanding the ability to directly endorse candidates - the only thing that they're prevented from doing by the Johnson Act.

 

[The Infidel]

it sickens me to see any pastor or guest in a Church involved in politics from the pulpit and endorsing a political candidate during a time of worship.

What you are so proud of, is a sin in my book.

preaching on issues, like against abortion and Biblically why you do not support it, is fine and dandy, but to take your parishioners who come to church to worship the Lord and honor His day of rest, while they are put through your stupid, idiotic sermon of telling this captive audience on who they should vote for or ''else'' they are gonna burn is SHAMEFUL and a disgrace.

in your preacher's personal life, he can give his political opinion, all he wants, he pays taxes as you say....

but to use a situation like forcing his parishioners to sit through a scummy political rally while basically held captive by him during the church hour in a church that is not taxed, from a pulpit that is not taxed, with pews that have never been taxed does not give that preacher the right to do this....let alone how He is spitting in God's face while involving him self in the scummiest thing there is out there....politics.

ANY pastor worth his/her salt does not have to endorse a candidate... if he/she teaches the correct Godly message, the parishoners will know which candidate lines up with Biblical principles.

My pastor would never endorse Romney from the pulpit, but we all know he would NEVER have us vote for Obama.

And that's completely legal as the tax system stands now.

The point of this thread is that some pastors are demanding the ability to directly endorse candidates - the only thing that they're prevented from doing by the Johnson Act.

They should not be able to skirt the law... They need to learn to teach the followers w/o breaking the law.


I just love to see my own opinion in writing...

 

[Intense]

I think it's pretty funny that the same people advocating this are constantly bitching about Media Matters being tax-exempt.

Repealing the Johnson Act would allow Media Matters, and every other non-profit, to endorse candidates as well...

You mean directly, as opposed to indirectly, right?

"Directly" is the only thing affected by the law.

Let try to distinguish between the Role of a Religious Institution in the role of Ethics and Morality, and that of an Organization with a Political End. What are the Functions of a Religious Body? What are the functions of an Entity like Media Matters? How do they even compare? Does Media Matters run Charities? Hospitals? Food Banks? Shelters?

They "compare" because under the Johnson Act, they're classified the same. They are both 501c3s.

Which, in a Rational Universe, would be reason to challenge the Johnson Act. They have nothing in common as far as their roles, now do they? One in Theory puts Ethics and Moral Value above Self Interest, the Other often enough abandons it. Principle V.S. Agenda.

On the issue of Direct or Indirect Support of a Candidate or Party? Word games.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You mean directly, as opposed to indirectly, right?

"Directly" is the only thing affected by the law.

Let try to distinguish between the Role of a Religious Institution in the role of Ethics and Morality, and that of an Organization with a Political End. What are the Functions of a Religious Body? What are the functions of an Entity like Media Matters? How do they even compare? Does Media Matters run Charities? Hospitals? Food Banks? Shelters?

They "compare" because under the Johnson Act, they're classified the same. They are both 501c3s.

Which, in a Rational Universe, would be reason to challenge the Johnson Act. They have nothing in common as far as their roles, now do they? One in Theory puts Ethics and Moral Value above Self Interest, the Other often enough abandons it. Principle V.S. Agenda.

On the issue of Direct or Indirect Support of a Candidate or Party? Word games.

The "morality" of either Media Matters, or Churches in general, is entirely irrelevant to the situation. The tax system can't be based on the subjective view of whether a group is "moral" or not.

Do you think the Westboro Baptist Church puts Ethics and Morality above self-interest?

The common thread between Media Matters and Churches (and all other 501c3s) is that they are not designed for profit.

And on the subject of direct vs. indirect support - it may be word games, but it's also the point of this thread. Churches are not stopped from "indirectly" supporting candidates.

 

[Intense]

it sickens me to see any pastor or guest in a Church involved in politics from the pulpit and endorsing a political candidate during a time of worship.

What you are so proud of, is a sin in my book.

preaching on issues, like against abortion and Biblically why you do not support it, is fine and dandy, but to take your parishioners who come to church to worship the Lord and honor His day of rest, while they are put through your stupid, idiotic sermon of telling this captive audience on who they should vote for or ''else'' they are gonna burn is SHAMEFUL and a disgrace.

in your preacher's personal life, he can give his political opinion, all he wants, he pays taxes as you say....

but to use a situation like forcing his parishioners to sit through a scummy political rally while basically held captive by him during the church hour in a church that is not taxed, from a pulpit that is not taxed, with pews that have never been taxed does not give that preacher the right to do this....let alone how He is spitting in God's face while involving him self in the scummiest thing there is out there....politics.

ANY pastor worth his/her salt does not have to endorse a candidate... if he/she teaches the correct Godly message, the parishoners will know which candidate lines up with Biblical principles.

My pastor would never endorse Romney from the pulpit, but we all know he would NEVER have us vote for Obama.

And that's completely legal as the tax system stands now.

The point of this thread is that some pastors are demanding the ability to directly endorse candidates - the only thing that they're prevented from doing by the Johnson Act.

I do understand your point. What I question, is the Johnson Act, itself. Why? If it is so critical, how did we even survive until Johnson's Epiphany? Seems like Government strong arming free Speech, to me. That is in theory, an abuse. If the Church's Primary Role was to Campaign for Political Office one might have an argument. To gag Clergy, because something they say might offend? Seems more like Someone protecting something they have reason to hide? Should we now protect Clergy from Government and the Press to make things fair? That's the kind of Progressive Statist crap that Compounds the destruction of fair reason. No? True, it further Fucks things up across the board, bring equal misery and abuse, but aren't we above that? Why can't a Rabbi, a Priest, a Pastor, have to fear the IRS for voicing a perspective? My opinion is that the Johnson Act is Unjust. I do understand that Bad Government has every reason to be concerned with it's critics. That is however, Cause and Effect.

 

[bodecea]

it sickens me to see any pastor or guest in a Church involved in politics from the pulpit and endorsing a political candidate during a time of worship.

What you are so proud of, is a sin in my book.

preaching on issues, like against abortion and Biblically why you do not support it, is fine and dandy, but to take your parishioners who come to church to worship the Lord and honor His day of rest, while they are put through your stupid, idiotic sermon of telling this captive audience on who they should vote for or ''else'' they are gonna burn is SHAMEFUL and a disgrace.

in your preacher's personal life, he can give his political opinion, all he wants, he pays taxes as you say....

but to use a situation like forcing his parishioners to sit through a scummy political rally while basically held captive by him during the church hour in a church that is not taxed, from a pulpit that is not taxed, with pews that have never been taxed does not give that preacher the right to do this....let alone how He is spitting in God's face while involving him self in the scummiest thing there is out there....politics.

ANY pastor worth his/her salt does not have to endorse a candidate... if he/she teaches the correct Godly message, the parishoners will know which candidate lines up with Biblical principles.

My pastor would never endorse Romney from the pulpit, but we all know he would NEVER have us vote for Obama.

Of course..

 

[hazlnut]

Thousands of Pastors across the nation took part in a challenge against the un-Constitutional Johnson amendment, (named for President Johnson who put forth the un-Constitutional amendment in 1954 while a Senator), today by publically endorsing specific candidates from the pulpits of their churchs.

Hopefully your church will pay taxes this year.

And Obama will forgive you.

 

[bodecea]

ANY pastor worth his/her salt does not have to endorse a candidate... if he/she teaches the correct Godly message, the parishoners will know which candidate lines up with Biblical principles.

My pastor would never endorse Romney from the pulpit, but we all know he would NEVER have us vote for Obama.

And that's completely legal as the tax system stands now.

The point of this thread is that some pastors are demanding the ability to directly endorse candidates - the only thing that they're prevented from doing by the Johnson Act.

I do understand your point. What I question, is the Johnson Act, itself. Why? If it is so critical, how did we even survive until Johnson's Epiphany? Seems like Government strong arming free Speech, to me. That is in theory, an abuse. If the Church's Primary Role was to Campaign for Political Office one might have an argument. To gag Clergy, because something they say might offend? Seems more like Someone protecting something they have reason to hide? Should we now protect Clergy from Government and the Press to make things fair? That's the kind of Progressive Statist crap that Compounds the destruction of fair reason. No? True, it further Fucks things up across the board, bring equal misery and abuse, but aren't we above that? Why can't a Rabbi, a Priest, a Pastor, have to fear the IRS for voicing a perspective? My opinion is that the Johnson Act is Unjust. I do understand that Bad Government has every reason to be concerned with it's critics. That is however, Cause and Effect.

Thus time to get rid of tax exemptions.

 

[hazlnut]

I hope people were video taping today and they send those tapes to the IRS.

 

[PredFan]

Nope, I am pretty adamant that politics of any stripe have no place in a church, they just do not have any respect for their followers making their own decisions.

Ha! I seriously doubt that. I've seen the two-faced hypocritical garbage you post day after day. You aren't fooling anyone.

You are going to hell for that one.

Cool, that's where all my friends will be.

 

[PredFan]

Rule of Law does not necessarily equal government. If I had wanted to mean government, I would have said government.

It's right there in black and white pal.

Exactly...rule of law does not necessarily mean government. In fact, rule of law means even the government must follow the law...it is superior to the government itself.

There in black and white.

 

[bodecea]

It's right there in black and white pal.

Exactly...rule of law does not necessarily mean government. In fact, rule of law means even the government must follow the law...it is superior to the government itself.

There in black and white.

Sad to see that you don't know what Rule of Law means.

 

[Unkotare]

You can't tax religions and still honor the separation of church and state.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I think the time has come to end such tax exempt status.

I disagree, it would open the door to allowing churches to become primarily political organizations, for the good of the country we must hold the line against legitimizing a nation of extremist Westboroughs.

Plenty of churches are ALREADY political organizations! They need their tax exemption removed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why is it that no one is questioning this law, or the historical context in which it was passed.

Let me give you a few things to consider.

Passed in 1954 and proposed by a southern democrat.
What movement was just getting started in the US. Hint, Civil Rights.
Where did the prominent civil rights leaders come from. Hint, Churches

Could this law possibly be a remnant of the democrats civil rights oppression campaign.

Let's see who can actually be intellectually honest. Can you still defend the law in historical context.

I have no problem with ideas coming from churches. They should not have tax exempt status tho. That needs to go away.

Churches played a large roll in the formation of this country, political activity in the churches was never questioned from before our founding to 1954, curches have always enjoyed tax exemption.

Just because something has been done for a long time does not mean it was or is the RIGHT thing.

 

[waltky]

Would imagine the black ministers were tellin' their congregations to vote democrat...

... `cause Uncle Joe sayin' the Republicans gonna put `em back in chains.

 

[RosieS]

You can't tax religions and still honor the separation of church and state.

Precisely. If the churches refuse to quit meddling in the affairs of the state...tax their land, their buildings, even their pulpits.

If they want continued freedom from taxation they need to continue to avoid politics.

An elementary concept.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Unkotare]

You can't tax religions and still honor the separation of church and state.

Precisely. If the churches refuse to quit meddling in the affairs of the state...tax their land, their buildings, even their pulpits.

If they want continued freedom from taxation they need to continue to avoid politics.

An elementary concept.

Regards from Rosie

What do you consider "politics"?