Let's get back to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment to the U S Constitution.

[tulc]

Exactly wrong. The church is the people of a community.
They don't lose their rights to discuss politics when they
enter a building. Anyway, what better place to discuss
the morality and the lack of it in certain political parties
and individuals in government?

You can discuss it as much as you like, in the parking lot, in the foyer heck, even in the sanctuary is fine! just not from the pulpit. If you do that as part of a religious service? you should start paying taxes. It really is that simple.
tulc(isn't sure why this would be a problem for people)

 

[JackRT]

What about discussing it in the transcept or the narthex?

 

[xmountainx]

It's funny how most Christians were so easily tricked into supporting 'religious freedom' even though at the same time Christianity was being outlawed or whatever...the cross and the Bible is banned from all public places but apparently that's the 'Christian thing to do', lol.

 

[JackRT]

the cross and the Bible is banned from all public places

That is patently untrue.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

In another thread I got into this topic, starting with education...

In general, education, good education, seems to be a worldwide problem. I mean, there remains great institutes where certain people can potentially get a solid education, but unfortunately for the most part it seems, money, politics, and corrupted powers have diluted a majority of institutes to the extent of the type of education received by students. As an American, and a Christian, I cannot help but notice how far our nation has fallen from the rich Christian heritage as it relates to our education system. Saddens me to be honest. Where it used to be freedom of religion, now it has become freedom from religion, which was never the true intent.

An example of the heritage I mention above:

"New Light Presbyterians founded the College of New Jersey, later Princeton University, in 1746 in order to train ministers dedicated to their views. The college was the educational and religious capital of Scotch-Irish America." - Wikipedia History of Princeton University

I agree with separation of Church and civil government, at least on the national level. Freedom from religion was not the intent, and yes the intent of freedom of religion "was that people would be free to live according to their own beliefs, or lack thereof if they chose." I do not know how to say this without sounding arrogant or like a history professor which I am not or someone that is a huge American history buff of all American history which I am not, but based on all of my experiences in dealings, readings, and observations, as a hypothesis I am inclined to suppose a majority of Americans know little about American history as it relates to Christianity, probably because in most classrooms, it is glossed over if mentioned ever so briefly, if not mentioned with negative undertones, because that is the mainstream non-Christian ideology presented in their interpretations of historical "facts".

On the separation of Church and civil government, I believe there is a difference between separation of Church and separation of religion and government. I agree with Noah Webster when he wrote...

"No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people... When I speak of the Christian religion as the basis of government... I mean the primitive Christianity in its simplicity as taught by Christ and His apostles, consisting of a belief in the being, perfections, and government of God; in the revelation of His will to men, as their supreme rule of action; in man's... accountability to God for his conduct in this life; and in the indispensable obligation of all men to yield entire obedience to God's commands in the moral law and the Gospel." - Noah Webster

So while I agree with the separation of Church, I do not agree with separation of religion, specifically the Christian religion.

Yekcidmij said Why would Christianity have to be the basis for securing the rights of a free people? It seems to me that Webster's comments could apply almost generically to any theist, or deist. And it still seems that someone's religious preferences may not be relevant to believing that the purpose of government is to secure the rights of it's people. All that's required is that one believe that people have rights that need to be secured.

Your thoughts?

It is a good question, and a book could probably be written in response. I will attempt a brief response, kind of a heart of the matter response. The only method that comes to my mind to secure rights is through law, and law assumes a law giver, and the god of deism for example is not concerned with human affairs, not interested in securing human rights. Most other forms of theism, deformed as such, are nevertheless derived from the same source as Christianity, the Scriptures, and even more acknowledge the Old Testament as a primary source and basis for laws, government, and the general welfare of people in a society. Christianity is superior to them because of Christ, for his teachings on the commandments, the "golden rule", and so much more, for the balance between justice and mercy in civil matters where we as sinners are concerned. I do not know how a person can believe humans have "rights" or that they need to be secured, without first assuming that humans have the value of being created in the image of God, and that revelation is known through the Scriptures.

"Every civil government is based upon some religion or philosophy of life. Education in a nation will propagate the religion of that nation. In America, the foundational religion was Christianity. And it was sown in the hearts of Americans through the home and private and public schools for centuries. Our liberty, growth, and prosperity was the result of a Biblical philosophy of life. Our continued freedom and success is dependent on our educating the youth of America in the principles of Christianity." - Noah Webster

 

[xmountainx]

In another thread I got into this topic, starting with education...

In general, education, good education, seems to be a worldwide problem. I mean, there remains great institutes where certain people can potentially get a solid education, but unfortunately for the most part it seems, money, politics, and corrupted powers have diluted a majority of institutes to the extent of the type of education received by students. As an American, and a Christian, I cannot help but notice how far our nation has fallen from the rich Christian heritage as it relates to our education system. Saddens me to be honest. Where it used to be freedom of religion, now it has become freedom from religion, which was never the true intent.

An example of the heritage I mention above:

"New Light Presbyterians founded the College of New Jersey, later Princeton University, in 1746 in order to train ministers dedicated to their views. The college was the educational and religious capital of Scotch-Irish America." - Wikipedia History of Princeton University

I agree with separation of Church and civil government, at least on the national level. Freedom from religion was not the intent, and yes the intent of freedom of religion "was that people would be free to live according to their own beliefs, or lack thereof if they chose." I do not know how to say this without sounding arrogant or like a history professor which I am not or someone that is a huge American history buff of all American history which I am not, but based on all of my experiences in dealings, readings, and observations, as a hypothesis I am inclined to suppose a majority of Americans know little about American history as it relates to Christianity, probably because in most classrooms, it is glossed over if mentioned ever so briefly, if not mentioned with negative undertones, because that is the mainstream non-Christian ideology presented in their interpretations of historical "facts".

On the separation of Church and civil government, I believe there is a difference between separation of Church and separation of religion and government. I agree with Noah Webster when he wrote...

"No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people... When I speak of the Christian religion as the basis of government... I mean the primitive Christianity in its simplicity as taught by Christ and His apostles, consisting of a belief in the being, perfections, and government of God; in the revelation of His will to men, as their supreme rule of action; in man's... accountability to God for his conduct in this life; and in the indispensable obligation of all men to yield entire obedience to God's commands in the moral law and the Gospel." - Noah Webster

So while I agree with the separation of Church, I do not agree with separation of religion, specifically the Christian religion.



It is a good question, and a book could probably be written in response. I will attempt a brief response, kind of a heart of the matter response. The only method that comes to my mind to secure rights is through law, and law assumes a law giver, and the god of deism for example is not concerned with human affairs, not interested in securing human rights. Most other forms of theism, deformed as such, are nevertheless derived from the same source as Christianity, the Scriptures, and even more acknowledge the Old Testament as a primary source and basis for laws, government, and the general welfare of people in a society. Christianity is superior to them because of Christ, for his teachings on the commandments, the "golden rule", and so much more, for the balance between justice and mercy in civil matters where we as sinners are concerned. I do not know how a person can believe humans have "rights" or that they need to be secured, without first assuming that humans have the value of being created in the image of God, and that revelation is known through the Scriptures.

"Every civil government is based upon some religion or philosophy of life. Education in a nation will propagate the religion of that nation. In America, the foundational religion was Christianity. And it was sown in the hearts of Americans through the home and private and public schools for centuries. Our liberty, growth, and prosperity was the result of a Biblical philosophy of life. Our continued freedom and success is dependent on our educating the youth of America in the principles of Christianity." - Noah Webster

Interesting, it's like if they want to ban the cross from the public thoroughfare, it shouldn't take a genius to realise they want it removed from the hearts of man as well.

 

[JackRT]

No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people...

I appreciated your post but I find that I must take issue with Noah Webster's quote above. As history has worked out we did not a bad job for the free people but a very much poorer job with the slaves, with the aboriginal peoples and even with the immigrants and peoples of nonChristian faiths.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I appreciated your post but I find that I must take issue with Noah Webster's quote above. As history has worked out we did not a bad job for the free people but a very much poorer job with the slaves, with the aboriginal peoples and even with the immigrants and peoples of nonChristian faiths.

"We"? Pertains to who? As a country? I am unsure who we applies to, and even more unsure who we're giving credits to for necessary changes, for correcting errors in our ways. Perhaps someone with more historical insights acquired by studying those issues, will come along. On an aside, how would or could returning to freedom of religion, even freedom of the Christian religion operating in government be a return to the errors of the past?

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Senate Parliamentarian Kills Efforts to Lift Rules Against Churches' Political Speech

To be sure, this would have to be undone by the Congress and will have to await the election of individuals that can accomplish this, which is not currently the case. It would take another Trump victory in 2020 and the election of many new conservative faces in congress.

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

Nothing about political issues. Just candidates. The Holy Spirit only advocates for Jesus.

 

[JackRT]

"We"? Pertains to who? As a country? I am unsure who we applies to, and even more unsure who we're giving credits to for necessary changes, for correcting errors in our ways. Perhaps someone with more historical insights acquired by studying those issues, will come along. On an aside, how would or could returning to freedom of religion, even freedom of the Christian religion operating in government be a return to the errors of the past?

Sadly "the Christian religion operating in Government" has used the Bible (it's own foundational document) to justify terrible atrocities ranging from slavery, to genocide to residential schools. Do we need to repeat the errors of our past history?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Sadly "the Christian religion operating in Government" has used the Bible (it's own foundational document) to justify terrible atrocities ranging from slavery, to genocide to residential schools. Do we need to repeat the errors of our past history?

I will disagree and attribute those atrocities to freedom of religion operating, rather than connecting them to the Christian religion operating, there is a price to be paid for freedom, true freedom simply does not exist, nor can it, one persons freedom trespasses another persons freedom. Also should note, that historically, deism used to be popular, to the extent deists had roles in the American government.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

All too often my ears have been subject to the worn out saying; "religion and politics don't mix" but what is left of politics without religion? What are politics involving laws to be based on? Politics are but one piece of a worldview pie.

 

[tulc]

Interesting, it's like if they want to ban the cross from the public thoroughfare, it shouldn't take a genius to realise they want it removed from the hearts of man as well.

Uhmmm...I'm not a genius, but even I can see that's not true. It's more along the lines of: government money shouldn't be used to support religious symbols.
tulc(welcome to CF!)

 

[WolfGate]

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

Nothing about political issues. Just candidates. The Holy Spirit only advocates for Jesus.

Close - the regulations (IRS publication 1828) also state they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation. But certainly no prohibition on speaking out on issues.

Faith based support of issues absolutely must be part of the square of public debate. Normally that would be based on understanding of God's word as it relates to the issue at hand. That is vastly different from partisan activity where political goals take priority over theology - a sad circumstance I've seen too often lately.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

I can't help but think we should be careful not to mix religion and politics. It's easy to assume from our own religious perspective how better it would be if only this or that. But my worry is there's a thin line not to cross, if any religion is able to get a foot in the door and establish a stronghold; it's not guaranteed what we'd expect. Even as a Christian I value secularism as not all Christians agree, so expecting Christianity to be the one to triumph isn't comforting. Historically religion and government co-opt and corrupt each other for authority and power. Don't undervalue secularism, it's not necessarily atheism against religion; nor underestimate the loss of separation to ensure your religious freedom.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Faith based support of issues absolutely must be part of the square of public debate. Normally that would be based on understanding of God's word as it relates to the issue at hand. That is vastly different from partisan activity where political goals take priority over theology - a sad circumstance I've seen too often lately.

I think the risk comes in assuming that religious leadership would be able to stick to prioritizing theology over political goals and stick to the word of God. But right out of the gate it seems that may be a bad assumption because nobody seems interested in giving up a tax exempt status. It seems the interested parties are looking out for their own interest, which is fine, but it immediately calls into question the ability to be objective in their interpretation of the word of God and prioritizing it over political issues.

So at least one of the problems here is a problem of incentives. Churches interested in repealing this amendment have an interest in it's repeal that goes beyond a simple and sole reason of free speech. They have a financial interest in it's repeal as well. Not only is there a financial interest in the form of maintaining the organizations tax exempt status while engaging in political activity, but there's a financial interest in the contributors to the organization as well. A contributor (perhaps a large "tithe" giver) could give large sums to the organization for the purposes of furthering their political activity and aims - and those contributions, since they're given to the church, are tax deductible (and anonymous). Hopefully you can see the potential harm these incentives have toward maintaining objectivity of churches.

There is an additional interest of influence and power as well, and that could be another explanation of why Republican voters are interested in this more than Democrats. Churches, and especially evangelicals, are largely Republican voters, and this repeal would give them new influences and power in the political process through the churches.

So, I dunno. It seems that wanting to repeal this may be asking for trouble in American Christendom in the form of misalignment of incentives between churches and politics. It seems something more than wanting free speech is going on here since the interested parties have financial, influential, and power reasons as well. It certainly seems beyond "free speech" since churches are free to preach the Gospel, which seems to be where the focus of the church should be. As long as the language is couched in "free speech" I think we're correct be a little cynical. I think the real risk is corruption in the church and division in the American church along American partisan lines; basically, a (perhaps further?) decline in the reputability and credibility of a commitment to "God's Kingdom" above the American kingdom and a decline in American Christianity in general.

 

[WolfGate]

I think the risk comes in assuming that religious leadership would be able to stick to prioritizing theology over political goals and stick to the word of God. But right out of the gate it seems that may be a bad assumption because nobody seems interested in giving up a tax exempt status. It seems the interested parties are looking out for their own interest, which is fine, but it immediately calls into question the ability to be objective in their interpretation of the word of God and prioritizing it over political issues.

So at least one of the problems here is a problem of incentives. Churches interested in repealing this amendment have an interest in it's repeal that goes beyond a simple and sole reason of free speech. They have a financial interest in it's repeal as well. Not only is there a financial interest in the form of maintaining the organizations tax exempt status while engaging in political activity, but there's a financial interest in the contributors to the organization as well. A contributor (perhaps a large "tithe" giver) could give large sums to the organization for the purposes of furthering their political activity and aims - and those contributions, since they're given to the church, are tax deductible (and anonymous). Hopefully you can see the potential harm these incentives have toward maintaining objectivity of churches.

There is an additional interest of influence and power as well, and that could be another explanation of why Republican voters are interested in this more than Democrats. Churches, and especially evangelicals, are largely Republican voters, and this repeal would give them new influences and power in the political process through the churches.

So, I dunno. It seems that wanting to repeal this may be asking for trouble in American Christendom in the form of misalignment of incentives between churches and politics. It seems something more than wanting free speech is going on here since the interested parties have financial, influential, and power reasons as well. It certainly seems beyond "free speech" since churches are free to preach the Gospel, which seems to be where the focus of the church should be. As long as the language is couched in "free speech" I think we're correct be a little cynical. I think the real risk is corruption in the church and division in the American church along American partisan lines; basically, a (perhaps further?) decline in the reputability and credibility of a commitment to "God's Kingdom" above the American kingdom and a decline in American Christianity in general.

Yes. I indicated earlier that I think even if churches are allowed to endorse candidates and lobby I do not think they should do it - for the reasons you mentioned.

My reference to Faith based support of issues being part of the square of public debate is different and non-partisan and already legal but often suppressed in debate. The church should be allowed to offer biblical support for issues that impact their community. For example, say a community is considering whether to offer business incentives either to a company that would create 50 highly skilled high paying jobs where the workers would have to move into the community or to a company that would provide 100 blue collar jobs that could be filled by unemployed already in the community. A church might understand biblical principals to teach that the blue collar jobs are in line with taking care of the poor and that would override the greater total economic impact of the company with the high paying jobs. If that is their conclusion, that they are supporting the blue collar company for biblical reasons should be considered valid in the debate (though of course in a government that in no way should trump arguments of secular groups). Current climate would tell the church that their reasons aren't acceptable in the debate, so find some economic or other non-faith reason for your support or stay out of the discussion.

 

[pat34lee]

Ok..... and....?

And, why should any church apply for the 501c3 when it
does nothing for them and can be used against them if
they preach about moral issues and immoral politicians?

 

[pat34lee]

You can discuss it as much as you like, in the parking lot, in the foyer heck, even in the sanctuary is fine! just not from the pulpit. If you do that as part of a religious service? you should start paying taxes. It really is that simple.
tulc(isn't sure why this would be a problem for people)

It's a problem because it is unConstitutional. Remember that
document that most politicians generally ignore today? And
that you don't seem to understand. How many of the founding
fathers were either preachers or church leaders/elders? Do you
think that any of them kept quiet about politics in the church?
I very much doubt it.

Churches were the original town halls, schools and generally
where the people met for anything important, from births,
marriages, deaths, communions, baptisms, elections, trials, etc.

 

[pat34lee]

I appreciated your post but I find that I must take issue with Noah Webster's quote above. As history has worked out we did not a bad job for the free people but a very much poorer job with the slaves, with the aboriginal peoples and even with the immigrants and peoples of nonChristian faiths.

Name any country that did better.