by William Thornton » Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:50 am
Keith said: "What the SoCaS (case law but not formally in Constitution) prohibits is (1) government institutions enforcing a religious view on its citizens or favoring one religion over another, and (2) church institutions coercing political views on it's members."
Rvaughn asked about (2) to which Keith answered:
"Any religious institution (individual church, denomination, parachurch org...) should not try persuade (or pressure) any member or society as a whole on purely political matters (say candidates/parties to vote for, or PAC contributions recipients). When there is a legitimate religious content (e.g. abortion, going to war, helping the poor with govt money, ...) soft persuasion should be permitted in my view but accept what happens if you don’t get your way.
Admittedly, drawing lines about what constitutes a “legitimate religious content” can be murky but I believe there are times when we can be sure a religious organization can and should persuade their members; but many times it is not black or white but gray. Thus claims of violation of SoCaS should only be made when the case is clear (black or white not gray) and of course made non-violently and non-judgmentally."
I was reacting to the church/state issue involved with "any religious institution...should not try and persuade (or pressure)...soft persuasion should be permitted..."
I don't see that Keith exactly explained this. Is he attempting to explain church/state law or offering an opinion on what churches should say? If the former, that is, if the state should or is restricting the free exercise of religion on the basis of legitimate religious content or on the basis of persuasion of pressure of members or society based on the object of persuasion?
Perhaps the wording is a mess but should the state restrict free exercise on the basis Keith attempted to outline above?
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog,