Now The Washington Post Has A Problem With Political Pastors
Can anyone point out a Credentialed Media article which discussed the negative implications of the pastors, both visiting and resident, at Trinity Church discussing how great Obama is, how evil his opponents were, and their other political talk? Jeremiah Wright? Who dat?
Defying a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation Sunday that voting for Sen. Barack Obama would be evidence of “severe moral schizophrenia.”
BTW, unless the pastor happens to be preaching Black Liberation doctrine, they must be evangelical. In MSM world, they are all “fundies” unless they lean Left.
The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee’s positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist “in direct opposition to God’s truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures.” Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates’ views but stopped short of endorsing Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain.
Johnson and 32 other pastors across the country set out Sunday to break the rules, hoping to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.
The ministers contend they have a constitutional right to advise their worshipers how to vote. As Johnson put it during a break between sermons, “The point that the IRS says you can’t do it, I’m saying you’re wrong.”
The IRS was alerted to this by “opponents,” ie, far Left groups who despise religion, except when Obama is practicing it and Pflegar (I refuse to use his religious label, as anyone who acts like he does doesn’t deserve to be in that job) is using his time to flaunt IRS regulations.
This time, the church action is concerted. Yet while the ministers say the rules stifle religious expression, their opponents contend that the tax laws are essential to protect the separation of church and state. They say political speech should not be supported by a tax break for the churches or the worshipers who are contributing to a political cause.
Yes, that notion that does not appear in the Constitution. The real one, I mean, not that “Living Constitution” based on European laws one.
Anyhow, let me point out that when I go to church, I do not want to listen to political speeches. I have no problem with Church time being used at other times, but not during the worship time. But, if I was going to one where that was happening, I would switch in a minute, even if the preacher was showing support for my candidate.
I’m sure we’ll be seeing the story about the IRS investigating left side churches like Trinity United tomorrow, right? More then likely, we will see the ACLU demanding, well, something. They always demand something. It’s like they hate freedom or something.
Email This
Posted by William Teach on September 29, 2008 8:02 am
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, Communism, Elections, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Obama/Biden, religion
Trackback URL:
- Defying the IRS pinged this post.
- Defying the IRS | Adam's Blog pinged this post.
Comments
6 Responses to “Now The Washington Post Has A Problem With Political Pastors”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
It is very, very odd that one subset of ministers can actively campaign for a particular candidate, yet another subset of ministers must not speak anything about politics. Odd, how we, the normal, thinking folks, have allowed the crazy fringe elements to highjack our society.
What about political speech by unions (do they get any tax breaks) or by Acorn or any other nonprofit group not specifically made for politics? Don’t they all use their membership and platforms to endorse candidates? In fact I always felt that the Democratic Party media (MSM – defintely not mainstream to me) should be charged a fee for all their political manipulations for Obama.
This problem is very easy to solve. Take away all tax exemptions from organized religions and then the IRS won’t care what the con-man, er pastor, says about politics.
The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can seriously be interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it’s lovely work if you can stomach it.
Robert A. Heinlein
The separation may not be in the constitution (pretty debatable, really. What on earth else do you think the first amendment says?) but it’s pretty clear from their personal documents that that’s what the founders intended. See, for instance, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the Treaty of Tripoli, Article Six of the United States Constitution, and the private correspondences of Jefferson and Madison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
The IRS has a moral obligation to make these politikal preachers pay the price of politiks.
They want to preach politiks
but they don’t want to pay the price of admission.
The IRS has a duty to do and that means putting the screws to these so-called preachers of politiks.
I can’t stand politiks in my pulpit.
They aren’t preaching Christ
they’re preaching for politiks.
So make them pay for it…
just like the rest of US..
Lawrence, what they meant, through all their writings leading up to the final draft of the Bill of Rights, is that the Federal government should not establish an official religion for the USA. They were concerned over the input that the CHurch of England had over policy and the way people lived their lives.
Thomas Jeffersons famous letter, where the phrase came from, was simply stating that government should not be giving money to one group of New England Baptists while not giving money to other religions. In effect, that would have been giving preference of one religion, or branch, over another, at the federal level.
Regardless, and more importantly, the 1st reads “Congress shall pass no law….” It says nothing about government being religious, practicing, and, allowing or not allowing religious symbols on federal property. If someone wants to put up a copy of the 10 Commandments, let them. However, if someone wants to then put up a copy of some Koran Surrah, they must be allowed, too.
Interestingly, if a State wanted to establish and official State religion, it could (based on their state constitution, which could be modified,) and there is nothing Congress could legally do, because, the 1st applies to the federal government only, and, to the Federal Congress passing laws.