So, WAIT A MINUTE!! A Christian Evangelical is being hounded by the IRS because he doesn't agree that Mormon theology is Christian theology in one of his daily email devotionals. Whether we agree with Bill Keller or not, think about this:
Anybody here heard about how the IRS is hounding for:
"Though Wright did not mention Obama by name, he spoke about how a biracial child could use that same hope to overcome racism, go to an Ivy League law school and become a politician. Obama received his law degree from Harvard University and was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review."How many children of biracial parents can make it in a world controlled by racist ideology?" Wright said.
"Children born to parents who are of two different races do not have a snowball's chance in hell of making it in America, especially if the momma was white and the daddy was black. A child born to that union is an unfortunate statistic in a racially polarized society," he said."But, if you use your mind, instead of a lost statistic in a hate-filled universe, you just may end up a law student at Harvard University. In fact, if you use your mind, you might end up as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. If you use your mind, instead of [being] a statistic destined for the poor house, you just may end up a statesman destined for the ... Yes, we can!" Wright said, using the popular Obama slogan to bringt the crowd to its feet in cheers."
Oh, I KNOW!....Maybe Bill Keller should have just said "that Mormon" instead of Romney in his diatribe, huh? Oh, sure...THEN he'd have been off the hook like Jeremiah Wright's church is, right? (tongue stuck in cheek here) WHY HASN'T the Trinity United Church of Christ come under fire? "God D... America?" Tax exemption? WHAT?
UPDATE, Sunday Afternoon: In that article saying McCain's meeting with Billy Graham (now you see why I posted the update!?), we also read this: "(Wesley) Clark said that while he honored McCain's service as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war and on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain has no executive experience and that the Navy squadron McCain commanded was not a wartime squadron.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall," Clark said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
When moderator Bob Schieffer noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down, Clark replied: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall," Clark said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
When moderator Bob Schieffer noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down, Clark replied: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Z: "How's about asking and comparing LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE, Bobby baby?" (better not, huh?) And, maybe Schieffer was even a little afraid to ask Clark what McCain might have been doing in Vietnam while he couldn't "order the bombs to fall!"?
28 comments:
Pastors preached up a storm about politics in the early days of America, in the revolutionary period and probably up until fairly recently.
Romney has decent politics from a conservative point of view, but Keller is right, a Christian must not vote for a Mormon. But you know what, a Christian cannot rightly vote for a Catholic either --how many opposed John Kennedy's nomination on those grounds? -- as I recall some did, but I wasn't a Christian then. Nor should we vote for any candidate who in any way supports or tolerates laws that oppose God's law. That's narrowing our political options quite a bit, but we have to remember that our kingdom is not of this world.
Can't wait for the results of that Sept 28 challenge to the IRS law.
We have to work with what we have, pray before the election and most certainly afterwards.
The heart of the king is in the Hand of the Lord, HE turns it whatever way HE Wills.
tmw
I see two problems:
1. IRS exemption applies to the principle of separation of church and state. When churches become political entities, then there is no separation from the state. I believe that is the argument. But Z is correct to observe that the application of the law is not “fair and balanced.” The race baiters have so cowed government officials that they are hesitant to bring similar suit against TUCC. If I had my way, no politician would be allowed to deliver a political speech (as too many do today) from a House of God, and my justification for this is the story of how Jesus drove away tax collectors.
2. Most of us criticize Islam because it is not so much a religion, as it is a theocracy. I think we are justified in doing this, but like many other things in life, it is a two-edged sword. We cannot criticize Islamism if we engage in a similar practice as Christians. It may be true that politics found its way inside our churches in earlier times, and I surely do recall the anti-Catholic biases spoken from the pulpit when Kennedy was running for the presidency. It was wrong then, and I think it is wrong today as well . . . that is, if we truly do believe in separation of church and state. Personally, I won’t attend a politicized Church because for me, the word of God is much too important; the House of God is one place we should not permit the telling of lies, or making false promises.
Mustang is exactly right and neither would I attend a church where the pastor, preacher, reverend, priest or what-have-you, engages in political speeches. That's not what church is supposed to be about. We are supposed to be worshiping our Lord and God, period.
This separation of church and state business can get complicated. It was originally promised by Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist congregation as a protection of the CHURCHES against GOVERNMENT dictation of what churches were to teach and preach, yet now we find it made to do the exact opposite. Jefferson's letter was occasioned by the Baptist group's worry that they would be persecuted by a federal "established" church, which had happened in various of the colonies that did have state churches.
The first amendment was to be a safeguard against government encroachment on the freedom of religion, which meant freedom of churches to preach and teach according to their own beliefs and conscience. This was in the form of prohibiting the LEGISLATURE'S making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In practice this has all been turned upside down and backwards in our day. Now it is often construed as a protection AGAINST religion, even, bizarrely enough, a protection of government itself against religion, which was never the idea at all.
What we have now is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion in the name of freedom of religion, twisting the First Amendment beyond all recognition.
Mustang said "When churches become political entities, then there is no separation from the state." The thing is, Mustang, the First Amendment was not intended to address or restrict what churches do AT ALL, in fact it was intended to do the opposite, to protect them against ANY interference by government. It was completely intended to restrict what GOVERNMENT is allowed to do and leave the churches in complete freedom. It is hardly freedom of religion to dictate that churches may not preach about the godly or ungodly character of candidates for office or the God-given moral principles that should guide the voters.
Christianity is NOT intended to be confined to the churches. It is a way of life, Christians are to be "salt and light" in the world, to take the gospel and its biblical underpinnings into the streets and every facet of our life, both to live it AND to talk about it and preach it, in fact a lot more than most of us do these days. You cannot confine it to the churches without violating the true meaning of the First Amendment.
I would agree, however, that even understood rightly, freedom of religion is subject to abuse by churches that aren't really churches but are given that status by government. The term "religion" encompasses everything down to out-and-out satanism, which violates the criminal code, and Islam, whose Sharia law is completely at odds with Western law. We now have to honor Wicca as a legitimate religion in our armed services. If this is really what the founders meant by freedom of religion, then the nation is doomed.
I think this whole situation is sad. We cannot talk about much secularly anymore let alone from the pulpit, or even a daily devotional.
I do not have a problem with pastors who responsibly use political issues such as abortion or homosexuality into their religious sermons.
However, I do think that both politicians and preachers, pastors and the ilk, should chose their words wisely because there are watchdogs out there in the waiting to make mince meat out of them all. Usually it is the left, but some on the right are not above it too.
Our whole political scene is so sad, and maybe both sides, political and religous pastors should do what they tell us to do - practice what they preach and think before they speak.
Great write-up and update on this subject, which really is food for thought for us all.
if bill is doing charitable work with donations, then what he does with his own time is fair game - that means if he's paying for his air time out of his own pocket, whatever he says cannot be scrutinized by the irs - everything is accountable and transparent as far as i've read about him. he's just one of the new whipping boys.
just think - when we're outta here - who will they pick on then? who will do charitable work?
the government. everything will be right in the world then...
...comes the judgment.
let's hope and pray this one becomes landmark - a little something to set the tone of what a pastor may or may not say in the pulpit.
This subject really comes down to tax exemption. If what a preacher says in his sermon, risks losing a tax exemption, so be it.
A minister can say anything he wants in the name of his religion providing he doesn't preach violence or sedition. If he feels constrained by the IRS, then forego the tax exemption. It isn't a matter of free speech, it's a matter of money.
In Preacher Keller's case, there is no question that there is a double standard, given Rev. Wright's seeming freedom to preach almost entirely politically.
It seems to me that, if it is a matter of faith, a tax exemption is a small thing, and certainly not Godly.
If, on the other hand the church is seen as a business venture, it is hostage to material considerations. Not exactly a pursuit for the welfare of the soul.
I see the biggest threat to the church in hate speech laws, not taxes. One man's conviction, may be another man's idea of hate. Therein lies the rub.
In a country with free speech, how can hate speech laws even exist?
For myself, I would not sit in a pew for five minutes listening to a Wright diatribe, or a preacher telling me who or who not, to vote for. I don't believe either is enlightenment or nourishment for the soul.
Pris
I don't think ordering British troops to attack Russian forces landing in Sarajevo and kicking off World War 3 is a qualification to be commander of NATO.
And neither did the Joint Cheifs of Staff when they FIRED you, Weasley.
Go find your buddy Ratko Mladic.
Well, Beamish beat me to it. I was going to say the exact thing.
Clark is a whiny piece of garbage. He wasn't qualified to run for President but it didn't stop him. Now he's begging for a role in the Obama cabinet. He makes me ill.
oh, Z.
They only ask the questions they want to hear answered. sigh.
all softballs.
nothing to the point.
And I'm sickened that Wright's church hasn't had tax exemption stripped....long ago. What's up with that?
But I agree with TMW. We must trust the Lord...in all things.
TMW's post expressed the right idea briefly and to the point.
We have no CHOICE but to trust in the infinite wisdom of the Lord, because it's obvious that when we try to do His job, all we can do is tear each other to pieces.
"Rejoice in the Lord alway, and again I say rejoice.
"Be careful for nothing, but in everything with prayer and supplication let your requests be made known unto God.
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, will keep your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ, our Lord."
FreeThinke
Bias, bias, more and more stinking bias eh. I suppose in this screwed up new world, those who give both candidates a fair go are biased in favor of the Conservative.
CJ said Romney has decent politics from a conservative point of view, but Keller is right, a Christian must not vote for a Mormon. But you know what, a Christian cannot rightly vote for a Catholic either --how many opposed John Kennedy's nomination on those grounds? -- as I recall some did, but I wasn't a Christian then. Nor should we vote for any candidate who in any way supports or tolerates laws that oppose God's law. That's narrowing our political options quite a bit, but we have to remember that our kingdom is not of this world.
Exactly right.
If only Christians could have banded together and made a pact not to be swayed by the media or anyone else, but to vote in every primary for someone who uncompromisingly obeys the Bible and accept nobody else, I wonder if the result we see today might have been different.
God is ultimately in control, but what a rocky road we are facing under either of the two candidates as Christians.
BTW using the threat of an IRS investigation to stifle free speech is contemptible in the extreme when applied to Christians of any and all varieties, but it's probably a useful weapon in the constant war against subversion, sedition, usurpation and perversion of the values and principles on which this country was founded.
Islamists, Communists, Mafia, and other obvious troublemakers up to no good should be harassed, deprived in every possible way of comfort and encouragement till they give up the war of attrition they have been waging against US since the early 1920's.
When we tolerate the intolerant and the intolerable, we are committing a slow and very painful form of suicide.
Bill Keller does things I don't particularly like. He invades private espaces uninvited and in a very polite, earnest, wholesome sincere way assures his correspondents that if they do not adopt HIS understanding of Christianity, they will surely go to Hell.
I don't appreciate such tactics, he actually used them on me at one point a couple of years ago, but I never felt for an instant that what he was doing should be FORBIDDEN or PUNISHED. No sir!
Keller is a nice clean guy who has beliefs I don't happen to share. When I wrote to him and politely asked him to stop sending me these well-meaning threats, he stopped and that was the end of it, thank God.
There is nothing that Mr. Keller or any others of his kind are doing that undermines national security or screws up the nation's financial system, or deprives anyone of their liberty.
Freedom of Speech should–––and MUST–––extend to the pulpit.
Restricting the rights of Christians, who FOUNDED this nation and made it great, is unacceptable. Restricting the rights of the enemies who work within our borders is PATRIOTISM in action.
~ FreeThinke
I'm not gonna comment on the Christian-Mormon thing, I know outstanding people in both camps.
I think the IRS is ITCHING to get political again after 7 long years of being kept at arms length by the Bush Administration. The Clintons used the IRS as political attack dogs and they got a taste for it.
How to fix that?
Enact the FairTax and eliminate 90%of the IRS. The remaining 10% wopuld be for revenue collection enforcement only. FairTax to the rescue again!
Morgan
Sometimes I feel like somebody's already in that coliseum feeding the lions!
QUESTION:
Should it be considered political/politicized to discuss, from the pulpit, things like abortion? gay marriage?
If pastors and rabbis can't discuss this except only in the broadest strokes, 'hinting' around the subject, what then?
Good questions Z. The cure is to get the tax code OUT of the business of religion. This tax exemption is nothing more than a methopd of control. I'm working for the Americans For Prosperity today so I'll see ya a bit later!
Morgan
"(Wesley) Clark said that while he honored McCain's service as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war and on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain has no executive experience and that the Navy squadron McCain commanded was not a wartime squadron.
He belittles McCain's commandment of a Navy Squadron because it wasn't a "wartime squadron"? It's bs. McCain turned that squadron around, and it does qualify for executive experience, moreso than anything Obama has to show for his past accomplishments to qualify him with executive experience.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall," Clark said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
When moderator Bob Schieffer noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down, Clark replied: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
And this is called "I honor McCain's Vietnam service".....? It's called being politically partisan. If McCain was the Democratic nominee, you can be sure Clark would be singing a different tune.
BY THE WAY......I mentioned this at the bottom of my piece here and so I'm updating again;
Yahoo's headline this morning was "Clark: McCain a hero, but lacks command experience"
A YAHOO HEADLINE? is that SUCH a big story that it's necessary? Like Clark's so important or even known by that many people? Or is it a chance to slam McCain on Yahoo?...........
ya, I thought so, too.
I'm saving my HUGE anti-Wesley Clark rant for when / if Obama names him as a running mate.
Weseley Clark's real name is Weasely Cluck. He changed it for obvious reasons when he became politically ambitious.
As for the rest, I'm very much afraid that many Christians are losing sight of the all important distinction made by Jesus, Himself:
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
If we abstain from voting, because we cannot find Christ's perfect representative in a political candidate, we will never be able to vote. I believe that hands a victory to the Devil by default.
We are never given the luxury of making a perfectly right choice in anything that relates to daily life.
It is the nature of Existence that we must always choose among evils of varying degree.
~ FreeThinke
Should it be considered political/politicized to discuss, from the pulpit, things like abortion? Gay marriage?
No, but remember that the only reason such issues are “politicized” is because the so-called gay rights leaders took these issues to the bench and the court of public opinion. Lifestyle choices do belong in our churches and pastors have a responsibility to promote and reaffirm Christian values. This does not mean that preachers should send people out to blow up abortion clinics or murder doctors who perform abortions. I think in many cases (too many, in fact), ministers forget that God gave each of us the freedom to make choices in life. That is because we are individually accountable to God for our decisions and our behavior. Zeal is a wonderful thing, and particularly when it involves our dedication to the word of God; too much zeal and you end up with idiots like Jimmy Jones.
Ministers have no business telling congregations how to vote. They have no right to sit in judgment of those who follow a different religious path. This also happens too often, as when Christian ministers make untrue and highly insulting remarks about Catholics and Jews. In my view, such is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, and contrary to our shared values as embodied in the Bill of Rights – which is to say, tolerance of religious views other than our own.
In short, Christians should not be calling other people "infidels." We already have a bunch of nuts running around doing that.
Semper Fi
thanks, Mustang.
I have to admit I've never heard any Christian, let alone someone in the pulpit, call a Catholic or a Jew anything even remotely condemnatory, but I know that happens. (i'm still reeling from having just watched James Hagee's AIPAC speech at Defiant Infidel's blog;
http://defiant-infidel.blogspot.com/
and remembering how our media says he's antisemitic!! SOME ANTISEMITE!)
your point about zealotry turning people into "nuts" is a good one. It's what made some Christians follow Hitler! They were mostly good Lutherans and Catholics but they had gone somewhere far, far from Christianity...nothing in the teachings could possibly lead them to what happened in Germany.
As for the teachings of Jesus, he tells us who He is in no uncertain terms. And nothing about who He is tells us to kill anyone or hate anyone...quite the contrary. But, let's make no mistake, He DOES tell us who He is. He would teach tolerance of other religious views, yes..tolerance.
No doubt about it! Thanks so much for addressing that point of mine...makes good sense (as usual!)
How did the conversation go from the right to give a political viewpoint from the pulpit to bombing abortion clinics and forcing people to vote a certain way?
Also, how did a Christian church's right to warn a congregation about groups that claim to be Christian but in fact are not Christian, which usually involves a comparison of doctrines from a Biblical point of view, become "sitting in judgment of those who follow a different religious path. This also happens too often, as when Christian ministers make untrue and highly insulting remarks about Catholics and Jews."
This isn't about Catholics and Jews, this is about the right of pastors to elucidate Biblical Christian doctrine for the sake of their congregations.
This conversation began with an assertion that it was against "separation of church and state" for politics to be preached from the pulpit. At all. I answered this and certainly didn't have insults and tyrannical edicts on how to vote in mind. But I will add that I expect such things ALSO to be protected by the First Amendment.
Sorry to keep going on but I just reread this and I'm sorry but it makes me MAD:
"Ministers have no business telling congregations how to vote. They have no right to sit in judgment of those who follow a different religious path."
I'm sorry, but ministers have the God-given responsibility to "sit in judgment" on anything that violates Biblical principles. There is no such thing as a "different religious path" from the point of view of Biblical Christianity -- Christ is the way, the truth and the life and noone comes to God without Him. Christians have an obligation to teach this wherever possible and freedom of religion is all about the right to do so. This is NOT "intolerance." THAT is a liberal lie. One tolerates views one disagrees with and ought to be able to argue that disagreement as loudly as necessary.
Post a Comment