Comments on: Now The Washington Post Has A Problem With Political Pastors http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:01:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Defying the IRS | Adam's Blog http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/comment-page-1/#comment-99050 Defying the IRS | Adam's Blog Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:41:57 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=13401#comment-99050 [...] 33 pastors defy an unconstitutional ban on statements about candidates from the pulpit. (Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU.) [...] [...] 33 pastors defy an unconstitutional ban on statements about candidates from the pulpit. (Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU.) [...]

]]> By: Defying the IRS http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/comment-page-1/#comment-99044 Defying the IRS Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:47:13 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=13401#comment-99044 [...] 33 pastors defy an unconstitutional ban on statements about candidates from the pulpit. (Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU.) [...] [...] 33 pastors defy an unconstitutional ban on statements about candidates from the pulpit. (Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU.) [...]

]]> By: William Teach http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/comment-page-1/#comment-98954 William Teach Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:49:05 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=13401#comment-98954 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. 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.

]]> By: Steve Real http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/comment-page-1/#comment-98945 Steve Real Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:24:14 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=13401#comment-98945 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.. 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..

]]> By: Lawrence http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/comment-page-1/#comment-98921 Lawrence Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:23:00 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=13401#comment-98921 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 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

]]> By: Mark Jacobs http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/comment-page-1/#comment-98914 Mark Jacobs Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:41:06 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=13401#comment-98914 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 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

]]> By: Krystal http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/comment-page-1/#comment-98909 Krystal Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:19:34 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=13401#comment-98909 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. 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.

]]> By: Two Dogs http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/09/29/now-the-washington-post-has-a-problem-with-political-pastors/comment-page-1/#comment-98906 Two Dogs Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:59:12 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=13401#comment-98906 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. 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.

]]>