PDA

View Full Version : Separation of church and state?



LWW
01-17-2012, 05:56 AM
And here I thought the left was in favor of separation of church and state? (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-blasts-republicans-pulpit_616821.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On the Sunday before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett visited Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta to give a political speech, in support of her boss (Barack Obama) and congressional Democrats:

"Teachers, and firefighters, and policemen, whose jobs are now in jeopardy because Congress--well let me be specific--because the Republicans in Congress," Jarrett told the crowd. According to the CBS affiliate in Atlanta, at this point, "Before she could finish her sentence, people in the congregation were laughing, and applauding."

At the Sunday service, Jarrett also brought up Osama bin Laden's death in order to praise the president. "We all sleep a little better at night knowing Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants are not plotting a terrorist attack against the United States," Jarrett said. Then she pivoted to Iraq: "I saw so many soldiers returning home from their last tour of duty in Iraq, in time for the Christmas holidays."

At the end of Sunday's sermon, after Jarrett had delivered her remarks to the congregation, the church held a voter registration drive.</div></div>

So ... a clerk at the county building wearing a cross on a lapel ... or a city employee saying "MERRY CHRISTMAS" ... or a manger scene on city property ... or the BIG TEN hanging on a courtroom wall all constitute the state attempting to install a right wing theocracy?

But, amazingly, at the same time a high ranking adviser to dear leader appearing in a church and telling members how to vote is simply peachy?

cushioncrawler
01-17-2012, 04:06 PM
I am thinking that it ok for churches to enter politix. But in that case they shood looz tax exempt status.
In fakt no church shood hav any sort of tax exemption, but that iz another story.

But i am not sure where i would draw the line. If a church spent money on politix -- yes, loss of exemption. If a church leader made political speech during service -- dunno. If after the service -- dunno. If not a church leader -- dunno. Etc etc.

But iz it ok for a serving polly or hiz/her staff to go into a church for politix -- dunno.

madSherie wont let me bring shit into the house -- she calls it the separation of shit and house.
mac.

cushioncrawler
01-17-2012, 04:08 PM
Obama entering a church on a sunday. This iz politix. During Obamas second term -- praps not.
mac.

Soflasnapper
01-17-2012, 06:43 PM
mac has it right, in that churches can use their pulpits to politically instruct their congregations legally, but then if caught would lose their tax-exempt status.

Not sure about having an outside speaker in to do that, doing the same thing or not. That they are invited by the church leadership lends an implicit endorsement to what that speaker may say, so it may have the same effect (or not).

Neither is quite the same as having the state itself endorse, or appear to endorse by the statements of state officials, or displays upon state property, one religion over another. There is a kind of anti-parallelism here you mistake for parallelism.

LWW
01-18-2012, 02:31 AM
Translated:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'</div></div>

Qtec
01-18-2012, 04:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mac has it right, in that churches can use their pulpits to politically instruct their congregations legally, but then if caught would lose their tax-exempt status. </div></div>

It happens all the time.

eg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdtJwg_8aG8)

Q

LWW
01-18-2012, 04:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mac has it right, in that churches can use their pulpits to politically instruct their congregations legally, but then if caught would lose their tax-exempt status.</div></div>

No, they can't ... because by your own admission they would no longer legally be a church.

Unless, of course, they do so in support of dear leader and his regime.

What a tool y'all are.

Qtec
01-18-2012, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, they can't ... because by your own admission they would no longer legally be a church.
</div></div>

Only if they get caught and get prosecuted idiot.

Holding a voter registration drive is not the same as campaigning for a SPECIFIC candidate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mac has it right, in that churches can use their pulpits to politically instruct their congregations legally, but then if caught would lose their tax-exempt status. </div></div>



Q.........try and keep up.

LWW
01-18-2012, 03:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, they can't ... because by your own admission they would no longer legally be a church.
</div></div>

Only if they get caught and get prosecuted idiot.

Q </div></div>

The regime was caught.

Will they be prosecuted?

No.

Why?

They were on the side of the regime.

eg8r
01-19-2012, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mac has it right, in that churches can use their pulpits to politically instruct their congregations legally, but then if caught would lose their tax-exempt status.

Not sure about having an outside speaker in to do that, doing the same thing or not. That they are invited by the church leadership lends an implicit endorsement to what that speaker may say, so it may have the same effect (or not).

</div></div>I get what you are saying but you are purposefully changing the subject. The subject is not the church and what they do. The subject is about people in and out of Government doing everything they can to get the church out of Goverment yet they turn a blind eye if it suits government to be in "church" to make their statements.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-19-2012, 01:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Translated:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'</div></div> </div></div>

Translated:

I don't know what anti-parallel means!!! Please make him stop using words I do not know!!! Waaaaaah!

Soflasnapper
01-19-2012, 02:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I get what you are saying but you are purposefully changing the subject. The subject is not the church and what they do. The subject is about people in and out of Government doing everything they can to get the church out of Goverment yet they turn a blind eye if it suits government to be in "church" to make their statements.

eg8r </div></div>

I don't think this crossed any line, but if you think so, please, get some people talking about it, raise the issue, and get whatever action you think can be gained here.

Just don't be surprised if it goes nowhere, which I think is the state of play of the law in such cases.

As for politicking making one not a church, that's not true, if one is willing to be a church that doesn't enjoy tax deductibility for donations. Just as some non-profit 'charities' I donate to do not create tax deductions, because they choose to engage in politicking.

CLEARLY enough, had the preacher him or herself made these comments, there would have been a potential problem. That it was not made by the preacher, but by a government official, probably lets the church off the hook, and in no way really is any kind of issue (except as a case of irony, perhaps) for a political person, who when not engaged in politics, typically talks politics and advocates their and their bosses' positions on politics to any and all audiences.

As a matter of 1st amendment rights, neither the preacher doing this, nor a politician doing it (in a church or elsewhere), can be prohibited as a criminal matter, particularly considering this is in the context of political speech. It can only be a civil matter regarding tax exempt status, and however much you stomp your feet, wail and complain, bringing in outside speakers probably doesn't have this effect at all.

Or perhaps it does, under law and precedent. I support your stamping your feet and wailing away, to find out if it does. Good luck.

LWW
01-19-2012, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I get what you are saying but you are purposefully changing the subject. The subject is not the church and what they do. The subject is about people in and out of Government doing everything they can to get the church out of Goverment yet they turn a blind eye if it suits government to be in "church" to make their statements.

eg8r </div></div>

I don't think this crossed any line ...</div></div>

TRANSLATED:

Nothing crossed the line unless dear leader says it crossed the line ... in fact, I don't even see a line unless I'm told that I see a line.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2012, 03:46 PM
Check the batteries on your mind-reading universal translation device, or return it for a replacement.

It is returning error after error message.

I know about the lines. I support Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and maintaining these lines is the core of their mission.

Plenty of politicians speak in plenty of churches around the country. This doesn't raise a legal issue, per se, if that's all that happened.

Disagree? On what basis, other than your hilariously uninformed theories of law that are unique to you? I'm asking if you have any (cough) expert opinion from your right wing sources that agrees with your take. You know, academics, lawyers, any other credentialed party, of which I believe there are more than a handful on the right who are plenty prolific in publishing their points. Heritage, Cato-- AEI, or even the right wing religious crowd? Anyone?