Posted on 11/25/2015 6:07:04 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Republican presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made a point of seeking the support of conservative Christians this election cycle.
In Iowa, the first state in the presidential primary process, he has the support of dozens of pastors who hail from each of the state's 99 counties. But, he has the same kind of support in each of the early-voting states.
"I am excited by the growing number of endorsements we are receiving from pastors," Cruz said recently.
Tuesday, his campaign announced a major endorsement that may affect his standing in the biggest primary event that follows the "first four" states: the "SEC Primary" to be held March 1. More than one-fourth — 634 of the total 2,472 — delegates will be determined that day.
Among the states voting that day are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia (as well as Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming). And a name known to many in each of those states is Dr. Jeff Fugate...
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
And he’s not a social justice pimp.
Thanks for this article.
I oppose the concept of any pastor endorsing a political candidate.
Ever.
Of any stripe.
My opinion.
To paraphrase the intrepid General Savage...
“Padre, your business is sin. Henceforth you will confine your activities to that theatre of operations.”
Read up on the history of America. Through much of the 19th Century, the pulpit was a place where politics and candidates were freely discussed. Many pastors themselves were also politicians.
When pastors endorse a candidate they then lose the tax-exempt status.
Says who?
There’s a lot of history I don’t prefer to repeat...
Understood, but this particular bit of history appears to not be problematic either constitutionally or culturally. In fact, America in the 1800’s, one of the most glorious examples of a free society in human history, was fueled during that time by the great spiritual vitality of the Christian churches around the country. The Leftist heresy of “separation of church and state”, not found in the Constitution, had not yet taken hold, and politics, pastors, and churches mixed very well as a testing ground to aid in vetting and electing solid, virtuous leaders.
You are welcome to your opinion.
I disagree.
I don’t want gov’t in my church.
And I don’t want my church in government.
Then you must really despise the founding fathers, some letters they wrote to the newspapers called the Federalist Papers, and a piece of paper they drafted called the American U.S. Constitution.
So that's why the "Reverend" Al Sharpton has so many tax problems.
IMHO, churches should seriously think of eschewing the "tax breaks" and go for the Freedom to fully practice their religion w/o the Feds being able to hang a purse string exclusion over their heads.
Not even close.
The Federalist papers are nowhere near the same as a pastor endorsing a specific candidate.
Issues, yes.
Candidates, no.
False, pastors are Americans and have free speech rights just as anyone else. Pastors are not tax exempt, their church is. So the church can not endorse candidates without losing their tax exemption.
You’re failing to make an important distinction between the organized “church” and the “free exercise of religion.” The activities of a church as a religious organization and denomination is certainly not the same thing as the activities of individuals in the free exercise of their religion. But the modern-day Leftists have blurred this distinction to unconstitutionally curtail individual free exercise of religion and have used the unconstitutional phrase “separation of church and state” to justify doing so.
Nobody wants government in their church or meddling with their free exercise of religion. This governmental meddling is patently unconstitutional.
But religion and religious beliefs (not necessarily your organized denominational church) can and should be freely exercised in government. The Constitution and the stone carvings all around Washington D.C. and state government buildings across the country testify to the need for just that: the free exercise of religion in government.
The Church which are God’s people who have the Tree of Life (Jesus Christ) and are the Tree of Life to this world, has the medicine a government needs for a nation’s healing, cure and wholeness (Rev 22:2). To separate the free exercise of religion from government is to take away the doctors that would keep the patient healthy. That is EXACTLY what has taken place in our modern times and is EXACTLY why the government is so sick and destructive.
If you take the free exercise of religion out of government, Satan will have free reign to turn government against you so you will have neither a church OR free exercise of religion. This is taking place right now as we so enjoyably discuss this.
Only if the candidate is a republican, and a danger to the regime.
I’m not failing anything.
I have an informed and well contemplated opinion.
The fact we disagree makes my opinion no less valid, well researched, or thoughtful, much less prayerful.
Pastors have, in my opinion, no business endorsing other men, all of us failed, for positions of political power.
There is an implied power and persuasion available from the pulpit, and it is a slippery and dangerous path when men of the cloth delve into candidate politics.
Should the Pope, or Cardinal Law individually endorse specific men? Should the Elder of Salt Lake? How about brother Graham? Do we want preacher Joel to tell us who he supports specifically? What about Qahdi - should he support individual candidates by name?
Evidence including the history of America in the 1800's suggests otherwise.
Should the Pope, or Cardinal Law individually endorse specific men? Should the Elder of Salt Lake? How about brother Graham? Do we want preacher Joel to tell us who he supports specifically? What about Qahdi - should he support individual candidates by name?
That is up to them, but history suggest as long as there is NO governmental interference or meddling in such endorsement, the society as a whole benefits.
There’s a lot of things from the 1800s I don’t care to repeat...
Face it - we disagree.
It’s ok.
It really is.
You won’t convince me, so please stop trying.
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.