Trump & Religion

[knapplc]

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

[zoogs]

"...the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow."

 

The only problem I have with this is that it's not true for any reasonable definition of tomorrow in America, especially if those in power now have anything to say about it. As much as this argument should be compelling, it is a scenario that cannot feel real to people.

 

Fighting for Christian dominance is also an effective means of staving off that future. "Religious freedom" is the justification, but I'd like to see some evidence that this is really the goal. A USA with true religious freedoms is one where this Christian majority may well dwindle significantly. The state can be a powerful sponsor.

[knapplc]

"...the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow."

 

The only problem I have with this is that it's not true for any reasonable definition of tomorrow in America, especially if those in power now have anything to say about it. As much as this argument should be compelling, it is a scenario that cannot feel real to people.

 

Fighting for Christian dominance is also an effective means of staving off that future. "Religious freedom" is the justification, but I'd like to see some evidence that this is really the goal. A USA with true religious freedoms is one where this Christian majority may well dwindle significantly. The state can be a powerful sponsor.

This is a scenario that cannot possibly feel real.

 

I read this twice and I'm still not sure what you mean.

[Landlord]

Religious freedom is not under threat, with the possible exception of Islam.

 

 

 

To the privileged, the erosion of privilege feels a lot like persecution.

[funhusker]

I'm a Lutheran living in Nebraska. I will probably be snatched up while typ...............

[zoogs]

 

"...the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow."

 

The only problem I have with this is that it's not true for any reasonable definition of tomorrow in America, especially if those in power now have anything to say about it. As much as this argument should be compelling, it is a scenario that cannot feel real to people.

 

Fighting for Christian dominance is also an effective means of staving off that future. "Religious freedom" is the justification, but I'd like to see some evidence that this is really the goal. A USA with true religious freedoms is one where this Christian majority may well dwindle significantly. The state can be a powerful sponsor.

This is a scenario that cannot possibly feel real.

 

I read this twice and I'm still not sure what you mean.

 

 

In the US, religion ~ Christianity, and those demographics aren't changing anytime soon. So I don't think an appeal to think about how policies favoring Christianity today being used to favor Islam tomorrow will feel real to people. Perhaps I'm wrong.

 

Anyway, the second half is me saying that the "fight for religious freedom" is really a fight for dominance of Christianity. I'm curious to see an argument that religious freedom is actually the goal.

 

Lastly, to me promoting actual religious freedom is the sort of thing that will open the door to Christianity declining in the U.S -- because no religion will be permitted to have primacy.

 

(I mucked up my post a little bit. The last line shouldn't be there.)

[Danny Bateman]

zoogs made a very salient point, and one that I agree with 100%.

 

To me, "religious freedom is under siege" is just coded language for "we want to be able to more heavily impose Christianity on people through the government". I wish they'd just come out and say that. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they think that's an appropriate means to their end. But the people who are leading this charge are always going to mislead and obfuscate about their true intentions.

 

Now, I'm a pretty easygoing Christian. Not the in church every Sunday, proselytizing to strangers on the street type.

 

I do not understand the "our religion is under attack" outcry one iota. I don't get it at all.

 

But legislating our morality vis a vis our religion is something I couldn't be more fundamentally opposed to. Bad, bad idea, IMO.

[Fru]

zoogs made a very salient point, and one that I agree with 100%.

 

To me, "religious freedom is under siege" is just coded language for "we want to be able to more heavily impose Christianity on people through the government". I wish they'd just come out and say that. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they think that's an appropriate means to their end. But the people who are leading this charge are always going to mislead and obfuscate about their true intentions.

 

Now, I'm a pretty easygoing Christian. Not the in church every Sunday, proselytizing to strangers on the street type.

 

I do not understand the "our religion is under attack" outcry one iota. I don't get it at all.

 

But legislating our morality vis a vis our religion is something I couldn't be more fundamentally opposed to. Bad, bad idea, IMO.

 

 

Could've sworn something like that had a name... Where separation of church and state didn't exist, and the words of a holy book ruled as the law of the land...

[Oade]

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in turn limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

[Lil' Red]

 

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

 

 

If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

 

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

[Oade]

 

 

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

 

 

If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

 

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

 

 

That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing.

 

To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will.

 

If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office

 

If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit?

 

If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians?

 

Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, several were adamantly against a revenue-system of any kind, and the IRS wasn't created until about 90 years after The Declaration of Independence was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS.

[Oade]

Religious freedom is not under threat, with the possible exception of Islam.

 

 

 

To the privileged, the erosion of privilege feels a lot like persecution.

 

 

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

- Reverend MLK

[Lil' Red]

 

 

 

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

 

 

If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

 

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

 

 

That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing.

 

To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will.

 

If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office

 

If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit?

 

If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians?

 

Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, it wasn't created until about 90 years after the Declaration was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS.

 

 

 

The Johnson amendment only prevents ministers from endorsing candidates and assisting their campaigns. It does not prevent them from voicing their thoughts on political issues. So a minister is free to voice his concerns on all the issues you listed but I don't think he should be allowed to dictate which particular politician his congregation should vote for. Similarly, I don't think universities should be allowed to tell their students which politician to vote for which is also prevented by the Johnson Amendment.

[Oade]

 

 

 

 

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

 

 

If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

 

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

 

 

That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing.

 

To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will.

 

If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office

 

If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit?

 

If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians?

 

Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, it wasn't created until about 90 years after the Declaration was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS.

 

 

 

The Johnson amendment only prevents ministers from endorsing candidates and assisting their campaigns. It does not prevent them from voicing their thoughts on political issues. So a minister is free to voice his concerns on all the issues you listed but I don't think he should be allowed to dictate which particular politician his congregation should vote for. Similarly, I don't think universities should be allowed to tell their students which politician to vote for which is also prevented by the Johnson Amendment.

 

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that a Priest or Teacher should not have the ability to dictate how their congregation or student's votes. But to voice concern and opinion is fundamental to our freedom. That doesn't mean the congregation or students have to agree or vote that way, or that they have to vote at all.

 

These people, ideally, are role models and ambassadors to human-equality, peace, and love. Promoting human kindness, education, and equality is part of their job descriptions..... They aren't celebrities at an award show, and if these genuine role models should not have an influence over societies view/opinion on politicians, why should movie stars? Why should Lebron James get to endorse a specific politician, but not a Priest or Minister from Kearney Nebraska?

 

Its quite simple in my eyes.

 

Also, I'll have to read up on the Johnson Amendment. I really don't know enough specifically about it to say much more. I've only been sharing my experience and philosophical view on the issue.

[Lil' Red]

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

 

 

If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

 

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

 

 

That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing.

 

To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will.

 

If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office

 

If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit?

 

If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians?

 

Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, it wasn't created until about 90 years after the Declaration was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS.

 

 

 

The Johnson amendment only prevents ministers from endorsing candidates and assisting their campaigns. It does not prevent them from voicing their thoughts on political issues. So a minister is free to voice his concerns on all the issues you listed but I don't think he should be allowed to dictate which particular politician his congregation should vote for. Similarly, I don't think universities should be allowed to tell their students which politician to vote for which is also prevented by the Johnson Amendment.

 

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that a Priest or Teacher should not have the ability to dictate how their congregation or student's votes. But to voice concern and opinion is fundamental to our freedom. That doesn't mean the congregation or students have to agree or vote that way, or that they have to vote at all.

 

These people, ideally, are role models and ambassadors to human-equality, peace, and love. Promoting human kindness, education, and equality is part of their job descriptions..... They aren't celebrities at an award show, and if these genuine role models should not have an influence over societies view/opinion on politicians, why should movie stars? Why should Lebron James get to endorse a specific politician, but not a Priest or Minister?

 

Its quite simple in my eyes.

 

Also, I'll have to read up on the Johnson Amendment. I really don't know enough specifically about it to say much more. I've only been sharing my experience and philosophical view on the issue.

 

 

Ministers, like LeBron, are allowed to make endorsements when they aren't serving as a minister. LeBron isn't allowed to make endorsements while involved with NBA activities and games.

 

The Johnson Amendment also prevents churches from making advertisements and coordinating field efforts for candidates. If repealed, churches and charities could potentially function somewhat like tax-exempt Super PACs.