Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

Gosh, "captive" for a whole forty-five minute sermon. As I said, congregations have the power over the pastor, a situation where he offends them by a political speech isn't going to happen often if at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You said "require candidates," but I assume you meant "require churches" or "require religions" or something like that.I looked this up and found out a little about the law you're referring to. Passed in 1954, it prohibits tax-exempt organizations from supporting or opposing political candidates (I don't think it mentions political causes like gun control, abortion, etc.). Prior to 1954 religious organizations could become involved in elections.After reading about this a bit and finding that the primary justification for tax-exempt status derives from social or public good, traditionally things like religion, charity and education, I had a couple thoughts. Couldn't one question whether it's justified to consider religion together with other organizations that contribute to the social good, since it ignores why freedom of religion is included in the First Amendment, namely the danger of one religion influencing government to favor their own views and circumstances at the expense of other religions or the general good. It seems that one could argue that religion should be considered in its own category, given the potential for abuse.The best known modern example in the US is abortion. One religious group of Americans is attempting to impose their religious views about abortion upon all other Americans of all religions. Examples of abuse like this seem to call for laws that in some way blunt religion's potential for imposing its will upon government.--Percy

One can question anything. But not wanting religion imposed on people is different from saying that religions cannot or should not promote or even do not contribute to the social good. In fact to claim that the first amendment prohibits any organization of citizens, including a religious organization from petitioning the government just does not seem correct to me. Do you think you can justify that view by looking at say, Jefferson's view of church and state? And environmentalists attempt to impose their views on conservation. Civil rights workers want to impose their version of freedom, etc. In this country we don't have churches with undue access to the government. We have church goers some of whom want to prohibit access to abortion for others. Laws that prevent those people from having the same access to legally pass constitutional laws as you do would seem to violate the first amendment among other things.I think you've got enough law along these lines. The first amendment limits the ability to pass laws with a religious purpose. Currently access to abortion is constitutionally protected.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But it was also one religious group (and actually pretty much the same religious group that now opposes abortion) that succeeded in getting abortion decriminalized in the US.

I'd sure agree with that. No, but I have a different view. I was questioning whether we should consider religion (undoubtedly consisting of organizations that contribute to social good) together with other organizations that also contribute to social good. But I was posing my question in the context of religion's history of abuse when combined with government. Couldn't allowing it too free a hand in the realm of politics risk increased exposure to such abuse?--Percy

Of course. All freedoms have the potential for abuse. Perhaps you could propose a law/guideline that accomplishes what you want without intruding too much on the first amendment. Let's recall that the first amendment has two religious Clauses.

Of course I believe they should be allowed to say whatever they want in terms of legality. But in terms of general principle I would like it much more if pastors refrained from talking politics and focus more on the gospel. If we look at the Reverends I mentioned, there's not even a semblance of religious topics in their diatribes. They use the pulpit as a mouthpiece to push political agendas.

Nobody likes the fact that, say, the Church of Scientology can claim tax-exemption and rake in billions of dollars just because it calls itself a religion. We all know and agree they are scamming the system. However, it's a slippery slope. That money come from donations, whether they are guilted or pressured in to it or not. There's no exchange of goods or services per se. However, any goods or services offered should be taxed. So if a church opens up a coffee shop for-profit, they should be taxed like any other business enterprise. But I don't think they ought to be taxed for tithes since they are essentially donations.

Well I for one wouldn't stay in a church where the pastor pushed for a political agenda that had no scriptural support. However, there are scriptural grounds for arguing against Obamacare, against its socialism for instance, against the misuse of funds for instance, which are major objections to it.

I do. It's one thing to lead a horse to water, but it's another thing to push its head underwater. Admonish them to vote their conscience without offering any specific endorsements.Case in point, I don't equate a candidate who supports socialism to necessarily be doing that on behalf of the poor. Taxation does not equal donation since it is through force or coercion and there's no way to tell how the funds are appropriated or misappropriated.If Jesus said feed and clothe the poor, to me that means actually go out there and directly feed them and clothe them. Cut out the middle man

You do bring up a problem with tax exemption when you mention Scientology, certainly not a "religion" the tax-exempt status was intended to protect, but I'm sure it's too late to argue us out of that one, or the same status applied to cults and wicca and Satanism for that matter. It's all part of the end times package designed to destroy western civilization. Au revoir Great Experiment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I said, I believe they should legally be allowed to do it, but I find it a particularly ugly feature in a church. If I'm there, it's not to receive a political endorsement about who the pastor thinks makes for a good candidate, but rather to teach the intricacies of the gospel and to allow people to make informed decisions based on the scriptures.I don't want a pastor telling me that Trump or Sanders make for good candidates. I want the gospel itself to make it evident through revelation.

Sounds reasonable but in reality I don't think it is. Unfortunately the "gospel itself" isn't identical in everybody's mind no matter how well the preacher expounds it. We've had it argued from an amazing variety of angles here at EvC for instance. Scripture tells us we are to be salt and light to the culture, which is an exhortation to present the biblical truths for the sake of preventing the culture's deterioration under the influence of the fallen nature*, and the church has been given God's gift of pastors and teachers because most of us don't have the time or the ability to properly interpret scripture without help, and they've been trained for the job -- they won't all agree either but we should be able to expect them to share principles that bring most of them into agreement. That means they ought to present any issues of the day through a biblical lens as they seem important.{ABE: Also few of us have the time or take the time or have the biblical perspective to analyze the relevant factors in any particular candidate's claims. I definitely I feel I need a strong biblical preacher to inform me of what's important about Trump or Sanders from a political perspective./abe}*Some of us see this very deterioration as having picked up speed over the last few decades until now it would take a miracle to turn it back: hence the idea we are in the last of the last days, sliding down to the rule of the Antichrist, followed by Jesus' return.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In that vein, I could see it very possible how out of 20 churches, 8 endorse Ted Cruz, 7 endorse Donald Trump, 3 endorse Mike Huckabee, and 2 endorse Marco Rubio. Isn't it splitting hairs? I mean, if the gospel is subject to interpretation, how much more is determining the right candidate in light of the gospel? All the more reason not be concerned with it since whatever will be, will be.

I added a paragraph about why we need preachers to investigate candidates too, that you probably missed. Anyway, it isn't just a matter of which church "endorses" which candidate, it's a matter of the thoroughness of the biblical analysis of each candidate's history and thinking.As for letting the end times slide as slide they will, we are never told in scripture to let evil triumph. Our job is always to be supporting righteousness even against impossible odds.