| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
buckeye
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject: Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, No. |
 |
|
PROPAGANDA ALERT
Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, No.
http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2008/10/separation-of-state-from-church-yes.html
Monday, October 20, 2008
The issue of the "separation of church and state" is back in the news.
Especially, it seems, here in Dallas, where pastors of several
denominations have promoted certain views from the pulpit, and have even
endorsed candidates. This seems to happen every election, and it's getting
annoying.
The "separation of church and state" does not mean that churches do not get
to have an opinion about political issues. Quite the contrary. Insofar as
the church covers the realm of ethics, and governments do things within
that realm, churches have a right and obligation to make it clear what is
right or wrong in the realm of governance. This so-called separation of
church and state, then, does not cover churches being involved in informing
their parishioners about how they should vote, whether that be in general
terms, as the Bishops of Dallas and of Forth Worth have done, or to
specifically endorse a candidate. The 501(c)(3) status of churches
prohibits the latter, but it is still done anyway -- and to my mind, it
points out a flaw in the nonprofit system that churches are prohibited from
engaging in political endorsements. The state should not prohibit the
expression of a pastor's opinions in any way, and 501(c)(3) status has been
turned into a way to do that. A different category should be made for
churches so that the pastors of churches can be allowed full religious and
political expression without fear of the government. It is the lack of fear
of government by the churches that the 1st Amendment s designed to address,
so that the state cannot set up a state-recognized and -supported church,
thus prohibiting other religious beliefs. The state is not to enter the
realm of the church, according to the 1st Amendment, but that same
Amendment does not in any way, shape, or form prohibit religious leaders
from being involved in the political process, including explaining to their
parishioners what the church supports ethically, meaning, politically. To
deny that is to deny one's 1st Amendment freedom of speech, and to impose a
lack of religion on all discussions regarding politics, which for most
people means removing ethics from politics. Certainly many would like for
that to happen, but when it does, we end up with brutal governments with no
boundaries. This is certainly not what we want in and from government.
Posted by Troy Camplin at 1:46 PM
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS ˇ Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
**************************************************************** |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Anlatt the Builder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: Re: Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, |
|
|
Why should churches be tax-exempt at all, if they're going to do all
the things that non-religious groups do? Why should they get special
rights? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Curly Surmudgeon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: Re: Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:34:54 -0400, buckeye wrote:
| Quote: | PROPAGANDA ALERT
Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, No.
http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2008/10/separation-of-state-from-church-yes.html
Monday, October 20, 2008
The issue of the "separation of church and state" is back in the news.
Especially, it seems, here in Dallas, where pastors of several
denominations have promoted certain views from the pulpit, and have even
endorsed candidates. This seems to happen every election, and it's getting
annoying.
|
The solution is simple, revoke their non-taxable corporate status and
submit to governance as do all other individuals and businesses.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Legacy: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
| Quote: | >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
buckeye
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, |
|
|
sk8r-365 <sk8r-365@sk8r.debian.lenny.invalid.org> wrote:
| Quote: | :|buckeye made a definite or systematic statement of:
 > PROPAGANDA ALERT
> Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, No.
> http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2008/10/separation-of-state-from-church-yes.html
> Monday, October 20, 2008
> The issue of the "separation of church and state" is back in the news.
> Especially, it seems, here in Dallas, where pastors of several
> denominations have promoted certain views from the pulpit, and have even
> endorsed candidates. This seems to happen every election, and it's getting
> annoying.
> The "separation of church and state" does not mean that churches do not get
> to have an opinion about political issues. Quite the contrary. Insofar as
> the church covers the realm of ethics, and governments do things within
> that realm, churches have a right and obligation to make it clear what is
> right or wrong in the realm of governance. This so-called separation of
> church and state, then, does not cover churches being involved in informing
> their parishioners about how they should vote, whether that be in general
> terms, as the Bishops of Dallas and of Forth Worth have done, or to
> specifically endorse a candidate. The 501(c)(3) status of churches
> prohibits the latter, but it is still done anyway -- and to my mind, it
> points out a flaw in the nonprofit system that churches are prohibited from
> engaging in political endorsements. The state should not prohibit the
> expression of a pastor's opinions in any way, and 501(c)(3) status has been
> turned into a way to do that. A different category should be made for
> churches so that the pastors of churches can be allowed full religious and
> political expression without fear of the government. It is the lack of fear
> of government by the churches that the 1st Amendment s designed to address,
> so that the state cannot set up a state-recognized and -supported church,
> thus prohibiting other religious beliefs. The state is not to enter the
> realm of the church, according to the 1st Amendment, but that same
> Amendment does not in any way, shape, or form prohibit religious leaders
> from being involved in the political process, including explaining to their
> parishioners what the church supports ethically, meaning, politically. To
> deny that is to deny one's 1st Amendment freedom of speech, and to impose a
> lack of religion on all discussions regarding politics, which for most
> people means removing ethics from politics. Certainly many would like for
> that to happen, but when it does, we end up with brutal governments with no
> boundaries. This is certainly not what we want in and from government.
> Posted by Troy Camplin at 1:46 PM
<snip
:|This is probably the singular best expression of my outlook on the
:|matter excepting one point: end all tax exemptions for every non-profit
:|group or tax none.
|
What of all what makes you think anyone cares what your outlook is?
The above is full of errors as well so what does that say about your
outlook?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS ˇ Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
**************************************************************** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
buckeye
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, |
|
|
Curly Surmudgeon <curlysurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
| Quote: | :|On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:34:54 -0400, buckeye wrote:
> PROPAGANDA ALERT
> Separation of State from Church, Yes; Church from State, No.
> http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2008/10/separation-of-state-from-church-yes.html
> Monday, October 20, 2008
> The issue of the "separation of church and state" is back in the news.
> Especially, it seems, here in Dallas, where pastors of several
> denominations have promoted certain views from the pulpit, and have even
> endorsed candidates. This seems to happen every election, and it's getting
> annoying.
:|The solution is simple, revoke their non-taxable corporate status and
:|submit to governance as do all other individuals and businesses.
|
By all means remove tax exempt status and benefit the Radical Religious
Right
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS ˇ Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
**************************************************************** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
