Separation of church and state

[William Thornton]

Is it necessary to specify that it is illegal already to attempt in some cases to persuade action on some things? That the first amendment is not absolute? And I don't understand your use of "duty" either.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Tough to know if you truly do not understand these things or are just being contrarian. There is no restriction on free exercise and speech by pastors or churches (save for the same exceptions that apply to all). Gummit has no prerogative to classify speech as political, or religious or whatever nor do they have any right to assess church teaching, even if it is on secular subjects. Gummit has rules for organizations whose donors receive donation credit for income taxes. There is no restriction on that orgs speech, only on whether the org is able to offer donors IRS approved tax deductions.

You seem to be saying that gummit should restrict speech that is too political or not truly religious. If not...simple to say so.

As for precedent, it is well known that the National Socialists specifically targeted dissent by the churches. Gummit at the time deemed such speech as unacceptable, unpatriotic, or whatever. You seem to be looking down that road with the difference being that our Gummit is more capable of restricting speech in a proper manner for the common good as they determine it.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

You said: "What I am saying is that SoCaS means churches ought not comment/persuade/coerce people in purely political matters (like who to vote for or who to give contributions to). If they do, the IRS ought to end their tax exemption."

So, you favor law as it stands but would like for Gummit to be aggressive in enforcing the Johnson amendment? It is not being enforced currently.

Your problem is that you have been given a close reading.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

You said: "SoCaS means churches ought not comment/persuade/coerce people in purely political matters "

It doesn't mean that at all.

[Rvaughn]

[William Thornton]

A good place to start would be to understand that the us Constitution is directed at the state with provisions that prevent the gummit from interfering with religious free exercise. You word it as if the church is bound by the state, thus achieving separation.

The state may establish tax policy for the common good so long as such doesn't interfere with church first amendment freedom. I don't think the Johnson amendment has been litigated to scotus.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Shouting would be "NO!" You made several assertions. All were wrong; hence, no, no, no.

I think your problem is in being reflexively contrarian and I'm no stranger to that. Close to that would be your feeling that the Gummit needs to be protected from churches. The Bill of Rights was exactly the opposite.

Tax law is keenly subject to litigation. Perhaps SCOTUS will get to the JA. You are aware that the IRS bluffs and blusters but chooses not to enforce the JA. I think it good churchmanship not to be partisan as a church or pastor.

[Rvaughn]

[Sandy]

Keith has a point. The first amendment guarantee of religious liberty is an individual right, just like every other right guaranteed in the first ten amendments. It essentially makes any "religious" belief or practice a matter of individual conscience. But the other provision is the establishment clause, which means that there is no official government recognition of the church. The inherently religious nature of a church body is protected by the government's restriction to recognize and relate to it as an institution. If you want to read some fascinating arguments for this position, go to just about any evangelical conservative source that protested the sending of an ambassador to the Vatican. Put simply, that's the same argument used to support the tax exempt status of a church. If a church is not recognized as an entity by the government, and what takes place inside is protected religious liberty, then taxing it would be official recognition, i.e. "establishment of religion." Technically, in the government's eyes, as defined by court rulings and law, it ceases to be a "church" in this sense when the content of its message is no longer purely religious in nature. It is then an organization subject to taxation.

[Rvaughn]

I'd be surprised to find two people who can agree on what constitutes a message of a purely religious nature.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Back to your original misguided view of the separation of church and state: "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..."

This is categorically incorrect. Maybe one day you will figure it out. Tax and election laws are probably what you are mixing with C/S issues in your confusion. What I find dangerous is what looks like an attitude and approach to church and state that acts as if the government needs to protect itself from the church by restricting the free exercise of religion by defining matters as religious or secular/political and punishing the church if it strays into the latter.

Another cruise might clear your mind on this.

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Jim]

[KeithE]