• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The egregious misinterpretation and application of the First Amendment

Winken

Heimat
Site Supporter
Sep 24, 2010
5,709
3,505
✟213,877.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
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
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

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.
 
Reactions: Winken
Upvote 0

imind

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2005
3,687
666
51
✟37,562.00
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
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
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?
 
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0