The egregious misinterpretation and application of the First Amendment

Winken

Heimat
Site Supporter
Sep 24, 2010
5,709
3,505
✟168,847.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others






October 27, 2016


Many of those who seek to drive expressions of faith from the public square cite Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association in which he referenced the First Amendment's "wall of separation between Church & State." Faith, they claim, should contain itself within the four walls of the church and stay separated from the rest of society. The First Amendment, however, sought the opposite, to keep government from intruding upon the church. And never more than now has such protection been needed. From the IRS to states' attorneys general, real life examples of government intrusion into the church are not lacking.

(staff edit)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married






October 27, 2016


Many of those who seek to drive expressions of faith from the public square cite Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association in which he referenced the First Amendment's "wall of separation between Church & State." Faith, they claim, should contain itself within the four walls of the church and stay separated from the rest of society. The First Amendment, however, sought the opposite, to keep government from intruding upon the church. And never more than now has such protection been needed. From the IRS to states' attorneys general, real life examples of government intrusion into the church are not lacking.

According to IRS interpretation, the Johnson Amendment prohibits speech by pastors and churches which is supportive or opposed to certain candidates for public office. Thus, the IRS is monitoring sermons for this objectionable content. The amendment is used as a litmus test to determine which pastor speech is or is not acceptable to the government in order to receive tax exempt status. Sermon content is monitored under the law, and certain sermons are flagged and the pastor and church are punished with the removal of tax exempt status as the price for exercising his First Freedom. This is an unacceptable intrusion into church autonomy and First Amendment rights. Churches and pastors should not have to deal with this, but should be free to speak according to the scriptures without government interference or coercion, which the Johnson Amendment does.

Apparently, the state of Georgia is taking their cues from the IRS in its treatment of Dr. Eric Walsh. The state had hired him to head up the state's public health system, but found out he was a lay pastor and started reviewing his sermons and obviously found content it didn't like, and fired him. Now the state is seeking to obtain his sermons and related materials again, in order to monitor and sift through them again as part of this lawsuit. Just like the IRS monitors churches and terminates their tax-exempt status based on certain content, the state of Georgia monitored Dr. Walsh's sermons and terminated his job based on certain content of his sermons. This is an unacceptable intrusion into a pastor's autonomy which Dr. Walsh should not have to deal with; rather, he should be free speak, and that includes the freedom to preach. His freedom has been taken away by the state of Georgia, and it should be restored.

In both cases, the government has seized authority over churches and pastors which it simply does not have. Government does not have authority over the things of God, but only over the things of men. Pastor Dave Welch from Houston (who was one of the "Houston Five" pastors who were subpoenaed by the city in another case two years ago) made this point well in the press conference held yesterday for Dr. Walsh. He noted how this case is like that of the "Houston Five" because in both cases it's important to stand up to government authorities who would assume authority over churches and sermons. No pastor is afraid of their sermons being public – they invite everyone into their churches every Sunday to hear what they have to preach. Rather, the issue is that a really bad precedent will be set if we sit back and allow the government to just assume it can demand anything from pastors and churches, and expect them to turn it over.

As of November 1st, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal will be appointing a new Attorney General for the state of Georgia. He can make sure he appoints someone who will show respect for religious liberty and remedy the wrong that has been done to Dr. Walsh here. Governor Deal's administration was absolutely wrong to fire Dr. Walsh in the first place for the content of his religious beliefs, and the Governor's appointment for Attorney General should fix this now – by stopping its intrusion into his religious affairs, and by concluding this lawsuit. If you haven't yet joined the over 23,000 Americans who have signed FRC's petition urging Governor Deal to do just that, sign it now here.

Tony Perkins' Washington Update

What's interesting is many forget the letter FROM the Danbury Baptists. What Perkins points out on an overbearing government limiting religious liberty, the Danbury Baptists pointed out their state government was doing!

Here's the letter and Jefferson's response. Having both letters puts the matter in perspective.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Winken
Upvote 0

imind

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2005
3,687
666
50
✟30,062.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The First Amendment, however, sought the opposite, to keep government from intruding upon the church.
no, it sought to do both...one cannot have intrusion one way and not expect it to go back the other way. there is no argument given as to why this is such an "egregious" misinterpretation, leading me to suspect that the disagreement lies in what the author WANTS to be true, rather than what is actually true.

In both cases, the government has seized authority over churches and pastors which it simply does not have.
it did no such thing...churches are able to preach whatever they wish. if they wish to remain tax-exempt, however, which is NOT a first amendment right, then they must abide by the law. and the IRS does NOT actively monitor sermons...
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,637
59
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
it did no such thing...churches are able to preach whatever they wish. if they wish to remain tax-exempt, however, which is NOT a first amendment right, then they must abide by the law.

Wrong. Tax exemption goes back beyond America's
beginning, and has always been our law. Why? Because
churches are a necessary part of our way of life.

The deception is the 501c3. No church needs it, because
accepting it only ties strings around their tax exempt
status, and does nothing positive FOR the churches.

As for churches staying out of politics, that is just the
wishful thinking of the ungodly (on all sides). If I were
an ordained pastor, I see nothing wrong telling my
flock that there are people that no bible-believing
person should ever vote for, and naming them. Of
course, that goes with training in all areas of life,
because if someone is only a Christian on Sundays and
Wednesdays, what are they the rest of the time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0