|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote: On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote: RHF wrote: On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote: Kurt_Lochner wrote: What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious, an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept of separation of church and state.. You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the government out of your religion will follow along nicely.. You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although for different reasons. Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The church. No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was politically active. These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have nothing to do with the government. You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different category from Robertson and Falwell. - This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations - are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated - purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper - for them to be politically active. So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens ! -re- T h i n k i n g . . . . . I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights as any other group. My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of proclaiming His kingdom. - Partisan politics is outside their scope. Are they any less Human ? - - - and your Equal ? Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ? - - - and your Equal ? - This is my belief, others differ. Clearly We Differ ~ RHF . If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status. Incorrect. That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be done away with. Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right. |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State : It's About EqualTreatment and Equality for All
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote: On Nov 28, 5:26 pm, David Hartung wrote: wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF wrote: Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers {Secularist}. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson sure as **** don't. Evidence? - - Their mission is to replace all secularists with - - "believers" and to change the function of government - - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of - - course) Wrong. - On this we likely agree. Wrong Again. Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers" and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens. - - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All : Believer and Non-Believer Alike. (OT) : The Separation of Church and State : It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for doing so after his last defeat in a primary Presidential election. Cite? Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton Cite please? http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_11news.html Thank you, but I was hoping for something more credible than Salon. |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
RHF wrote: Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU when it comes to Politics. The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person uses the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work. A preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any political position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a lay person use the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such purpose. As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including those in the armed services). |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
"David Hartung" wrote in message ... wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:28:54 -0600, David Hartung wrote: It is patently wrong for a religious dominated person to control public officials with threats and retaliation. Immoral as hell, BTW Why would it be more immoral for a "religious dominated person" to control public officials with threats, and okay for a "non-religious dominated person" to do so? Constitutional proscriptions There are no constitutional proscriptions against private relifios organizations engaging in partisan political activity. His network is (probably) tax exempt So? No Constitutional proscriptions per-se.. but there are specific laws about tax exempt status and lobbying or political campaigning that are very clear (and have been in existance for quite some time). http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf See pp. 5-8 et.seq. especially. |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... RHF wrote: Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU when it comes to Politics. The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person uses the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work. A preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any political position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a lay person use the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such purpose. As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including those in the armed services). http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf See pp. 5-8 et. seq especially |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... RHF wrote: Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU when it comes to Politics. The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person uses the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work. A preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any political position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a lay person use the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such purpose. As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including those in the armed services). Sorry, the ban of using churches to promote candidates only exists becase of one power-hungry Texas senator, one Lyndon Johnson, who had the codicil added to the IRS code in 1954 so he could get re-elected and not have to rely on Box 13 again. Until Bill Clinton, I held Lyndon Johnson to be the worst president in my lifetime. Sir Charles the Curmudgeon |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
On Nov 29, 4:56*am, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote: On Nov 28, 8:24 pm, David Hartung wrote: RHF wrote: On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote: RHF wrote: On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote: Kurt_Lochner wrote: What's become of the Republican Party? *Kow-towing to religious, an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept of separation of church and state.. You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the government out of your religion will follow along nicely.. You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although for different reasons. Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The church. No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was politically active. These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have nothing to do with the government. You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different category from Robertson and Falwell. - This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations - are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated - purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper - for them to be politically active. So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens ! -re- T h i n k i n g . . . . . I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights as any other group. My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of proclaiming His kingdom. - Partisan politics is outside their scope. Are they any less Human ? - - - and your Equal ? Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ? - - - and your Equal ? - This is my belief, others differ. Clearly We Differ *~ RHF - Do you understand that something may be legal - and constitutional, but still be inappropriate? OK - So tell me how is exercising one's basic human rights inappropriate ? Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU when it comes to Politics. ? Are People-of-Faith To Be Denied a Seat . . . at the Table of American Politics ? * And Thereby be Relegated to the Role of Second-Class Political Citizens. * Hey may be Ministers, Preachers, Rabbis, Imams, Priests, etc should not even be allowed to Vote. Has Religion become "The-R-Word" in American Politics ? has god -proclaimed- thou shall not be political and religious too ~ RHF - A question, if I may. - - In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister? -basically- To Be Faithful to His/Her Faith and Minister to the Faithful. |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
"David Hartung" wrote in message ... Soumay Nonay wrote: RHF wrote: On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote: RHF wrote: On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote: Kurt_Lochner wrote: What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious, an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept of separation of church and state.. You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the government out of your religion will follow along nicely.. You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although for different reasons. Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The church. No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was politically active. These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have nothing to do with the government. You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different category from Robertson and Falwell. - This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations - are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated - purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper - for them to be politically active. So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens ! -re- T h i n k i n g . . . . . I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights as any other group. My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of proclaiming His kingdom. - Partisan politics is outside their scope. Are they any less Human ? - - - and your Equal ? Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ? - - - and your Equal ? - This is my belief, others differ. Clearly We Differ ~ RHF . If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status. Incorrect. That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be done away with. Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right. As a matter of fact the change was made by one power-hungry Texas Senator by the name of Lyndon Johnson in 1954 so he could get re-elected. We've had 3 really bad presidents in my lifetime, LBJ, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama. Sir Charles the Curmudgeon |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com