Posted on 01/31/2016 9:09:40 AM PST by Kaslin
The American church has a problem. It's one part fear, one part confusion and one part apathy. Pastors, priests and rabbis have long swallowed the false notion that all things religious and all things political are somehow mutually exclusive - that never the twain shall meet.
Leading up to Ronald Reagan's landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, captured the crux of the church's apathy problem. "I'm being accused of being controversial and political," he said. "I'm not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn't my fault that they've made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn't stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them. …"
"What then is wrong?" he continued. "I say the problem, first of all, is in the pulpits of America. We preachers must take the blame. For too long we have fearfully stood back and failed to address the issues that are corrupting the republic. I repeat Proverbs 14:34: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation.' Not military might, though that's important. Not financial resources, though that has been the enjoyment of this nation above all nations in the last 200 years. But spiritual power is the backbone, the strength, of a nation."
Indeed, it is not just within the church's purview, but it is the church's duty to insert itself into state matters relating to morality, public policy and culture at large.
Contrary to popular opinion, the words "separation of church and state" are found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Yet many are misled into believing they are.
So why the confusion?
It's been intentionally fomented. It's the byproduct of a decades-long religious cleansing campaign. The First Amendment's "Establishment Clause," a mere 10 words, is the primary tool secular separatists misuse and abuse to "fundamentally transform" America to reflect their own anti-Christian self-image.
Yet these words remain abundantly clear in both scope and meaning. The Establishment Clause states merely: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. …"
That's it.
And the founders meant exactly what they said: "Congress," as in the United States Congress, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
In a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, often touted by the left as the great church-state separationist, spelled out exactly what this meant then, and what it means today. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was simply intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively "establishing," through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).
As Jefferson put it: "[T]he clause of the Constitution" covering "freedom of religion" was intended to necessarily preclude "an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States."
The individual states, however, faced no such restriction. In fact, until as late as 1877, and after religious free exercise became absolute with passage of the 14th Amendment, most states did have an official state form of Christianity. Massachusetts, for example, sanctioned the Congregational Church until 1833.
Even so, today's anti-Christian ruling class insists on revising history. The ACLU's own promotional materials, for example, overtly advocate unconstitutional religious discrimination: "The message of the Establishment Clause [to the U.S. Constitution] is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion," they claim.
This is abject nonsense. It's unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination - a twisted misrepresentation of the First Amendment. Secular-"progressivism" depends upon deception as much as it relies upon revisionism. Yes, "separation" applies, but only insofar as it requires the state to remain separate from the church. That is to say, that government may not interfere with the free exercise of either speech or religion.
For decades, hard-left anti-theist groups like the ACLU, People for the American Way (PFAW) and Barry Lynn's Americans United (AU) have employed a cynical disinformation scheme intended to intimidate clergy into silence on issues of morality, culture and Christian civic involvement - issues that, as Falwell noted, are not political so much as they have been politicized; issues that are inherently "religious."
AU, for instance, annually sends tens-of-thousands of misleading letters to churches across the nation warning pastors, priests and rabbis that, "If the IRS determines that your house of worship has engaged in unlawful intervention, it can revoke the institution's tax-exempt status."
That's a lie.
In reality, there is no legal mechanism whatsoever for the Internal Revenue Service to take away a church's tax exemption. Churches are inherently tax-exempt, or, better still, "tax immune," simply by virtue of being a church. Churches do not need permission from the IRS, nor can the IRS revoke a church's tax immunity.
Since 1934, when the lobbying restriction was added to the Internal Revenue Code, not a single church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. Since 1954, when the political endorsement/opposition prohibition was added, only one church has ever lost its IRS letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status. The case involved the Church at Pierce Creek in New York, which placed full-page ads in USA Today and the Washington Times opposing then-Gov. Bill Clinton for president. The ads were sponsored by the church, and donations were solicited. The IRS revoked the church's letter ruling, but not its tax-exempt status. The church sued, and the court noted that churches are tax-exempt without an IRS letter ruling. It ruled that "because of the unique treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial." Not even this church lost its tax-exempt status, and not one donor was affected by this incident.
As Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel has observed, "Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues, such as natural marriage and abortion, can urge the congregation to register and vote, can overview the positions of the candidates, and may personally endorse candidates. Churches may distribute nonpartisan voter guides, register voters, provide transportation to the polls, hold candidate forums, and introduce visiting candidates."
Since 2008, the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom has spearheaded a First Amendment exercise called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Since then, thousands of pastors across America have boldly exercised their guaranteed constitutional rights by addressing "political" issues from the pulpit. This has included directly endorsing candidates. These pastors have dared the IRS to come after them, and, not surprisingly, the IRS has balked.
Pastors, this election season follow the lead of Christ. Speak moral/political truths, in love, fearlessly. Remain undaunted by the threat of government intervention or punitive action by the state. And encourage your congregation to vote for candidates who sincerely reflect, in both word and deed, a biblical worldview and biblical principles.
Be "salt and light."
Because Christ didn't give us an option to do otherwise.
Secularism is the established religion of the United States. A clear violation of the First Amendment. But what the heck, the rest of the Constitution isn’t followed either.
tl;dr
If he’s advocating for the church to pay taxes like any other business, then sure, do it. Anyone that’s old enough to vote already can, so their input into political discourse is and has been there all along. And Lord knows black churches don’t abstain from pulpit politicizing, anyway.
Yup
We no longer live in the 1960s and the threat to Christians (and even to those Jews who are not secular and anti-Christian) comes not from the Supreme Court or the ACLU but from the Muslim incursion. The fastidiousness of the Warren court in erecting walls between church and state can only be seen as quaint anachronisms when juxtaposed against the onrushing wave of sharia.
What this article does not understand is that Christians must now make a choice. Either we accept the Warren court view and demand that it be applied equally against Muslims, or we look to impose a Christian sharia on Muslims-but there is no third way. We cannot have a quasi-separation of church and state which favors Christians in a world containing a determined minority of Muslims. It must be all one or all the other.
This is the great decision which God-fearing Christians must face.
Does that mean that churches can start influencing elections once they lose tax exempt status?
There is no “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. The question is, what activities or policies taken by the federal, state, or local governments actually constitute “establishment of religion”. Merely praying by officials or talking about our Judeo-Christian heritage and values does not force anyone to believe or accept religion. IMO, the right to free exercise of religion, as long as no person is thereby excluded from participating fully in civic or political affairs, outweighs the possibility that non Christians become “offended”. The problem today is that we have a religion, Islam, becoming more prevalent, but which is antithetical to the tenets of Western civilization and our Judeo-Christian based mores and laws.
Of course. Just like black churches already do.
I think President Donald John Trump is just the man to blow the whistle, throw a brown flag and call BS once and for all on this Separation malarkey. It’s a cinch, nobody else, clergy or legislator has had the spine to do it all these years.
OTOH, he might merely provide the legal backing and let Dr. Jeffress, or one of the Falwells proclaim it; Let the House knock that whole business into the round file along with the rest of the PC baloney, and give us back our preeminent right. Bill of Rights Item 1.
Of course, that will be after all the jihadists, shariah pushers and sundry other non-assimilators are sent back to where they can have as much of that sort of misery as they desire.
Trump has already said, repeatedly, that restoring Bill of Rights Item 2 to its rightful exalted position will take place early-on, as well.
Very well said.
Nothing else justifies examining a church’s politics - or absence thereof.
Great article! Thank you for posting Kaslin!!!
Did you parse that article? Churches can’t “lose” tax exemption, they’ve never been liable in the first place.
It was rhetorical threat. The gloves come off if a legitimate church is threatened. For example Catholic Church is huge and we probably don’t want them actively involved in government. RE the first amendment. How about if churches continue with tax exemption?
Yep . . . .
bump
Churches are exempt. The don’t need to file anything. Any church that files for some type of tax status is getting in bed contractually with the government and agreeing to their terms and conditions.
Yes I know. But there is always complaints from the left and even atheists and they need to be reminded why.
Their is indeed a third way, which is not that of Christian sharia, as the gov. cannot punish which faith one simply professes, only its actions, nor and teach formal religious education, but there is that which was the Constitutional way for about 150 years, which is to recognize that the state cannot be separate from religion the ACLU way, as its moral laws flowed from religion, and reflected the beliefs of the Founders overall and the general Christian faith of those who choose them, and indirectly those who elect the early interpreters of the Constitution. The latter electorate is what has changed, often with a form of "secular sharia law' reflecting the secularization of society.
But if the Constitution was truly interpreted the way the Founders manifested they intended, many of whom said and did things that the ACLU type would object to, then there could not be Islamic sharia law, nor the secular sharia that is hostile to any official proclamation expressive of Christian (vs. Muslim) faith, but our laws would reflect the general Christian faith under which the Constitution was written and reflects.
There is a third way. We put cotton in our ears so we can’t hear the shrieks of the MSM and the progressives and we kick the Muslims out. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.