Pastors to Talk Politics from Pulpit in Defense of Freedom

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kurt. Kurt said: Pastors to Talk Politics from Pulpit in Defense of Freedom http://bit.ly/N1gG0 [...]

Most Churches now days have Pastors that do have the guts to tell the congerations that whats going on in our country is not right.They keep quit not because of the Govt. so much but they dont want to offend someone and take a chance on the loss of offerings.You see Churches are, or most Churches are a for profit buisness these days.The Pastors are school educated and have a degree that calles them a Pastor.They get their sermons off the internet,they no longer visit the sick and dieing and a large portion of them only have services on Sunday morning ,you see the socialist have also taken over our Churches.Ther are still a few very good Churches that actually preach Gods Word and could care less what the Govt. thinks but they are getting harder to find but when you do hang on to it because they are after them just like they are after our other rights.Folks our Churches like are govt. is in trouble,if we dont start putting our trust back in our God and giveing him the Glory he deserves we are going to lose our Churches and our country. God Bless

I thought the intermingling of churhes and politics and the collusion of the the two was one of the major reasons so many fled to America. Of course Europe et al went to extremes by establishing a state or government ' delared 'church. I don't think we are in danger of that, but what is the real danger of churches promoting politicians. What if a church like the Roman Catholic Church ( or any church group) became dominant in America? What if Islam becomes dominant in America? Do we really want churhes to promote or essentially control political candidates ?

Why even go down that road ? An argument could be made that a scenario like that has little chance of happening, but if the door was left wide open for churches to actively engage in politics, then who knows what kind of maneuvering church groups might engage in. Politicians could then give large contributions to churhes to support them as candidates. It becomes a dirty business morally. Churches may think they are above that type of corruption, but history and basic human limitations says they are not.

Also do we want want any and all non-profits able to endorse political candidates? Churches stating they would be endorsing candidates because thay really would just be “guiding the congregation on moral issues”, is a bothersome statement. These pastors and church groups know full well thay can guide a congregation's 'morals' without supporing one man or one woman for a political office. Wonder if Jesus would advocate the pure teaching of morals or a church supporting a candidate for political office who matches that church's values closer than the orher candidate does.I suspect He would feel if people were taught His word which is all about good morals then the people will know what choices in life to make without a church having to reduce itself to telling them who to vote for.

People came here because government was meddling in people's religious freedom–as it has taken to doing here in the past 50 years or so.

We don't need the state quashing the freedom of the church or individual religious adherents, neither do we need religious groups running the government.

What we do need–and what is Constitutionally mandated–is the freedom for religious individuals and organizations to exercise their freedom of speech and expression as we did until 1954 when a petty liberal official decided to use the fist of government to silence those who disagreed with him.

I also need to clear up this misconception (no, this lie) about the church “telling people who to vote for.” No church that I know of “tells people who to vote for.” In fact, churches and church officials have no way of even forcing people to vote for a particular person or party.

What churches do have a duty to do, however, is to educate their members about what is right and what is wrong, and if a public official or candidate for public office is an advocate of what is wrong or is of poor moral character, in our free society churches have a duty to ensure their members are educated about those facts.

Members then have the freedom to either uphold what's right with their vote, or ignore it and try to elect immoral people to lead our government.

Hopefully they will do as John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court counseled: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

John Jay was a brilliant man and a great contributor to the formation of our Republic.He was like many early leaders of our nascent country, very religious and serves as a good example of why when the Constitution was finally written, it was obvious that certain ideas of some of the founding fathers should not be included in the Constitution. Particularly their religious views.

The quote of John Jays you mentioned serves as a perfect example- that we should prefer Chrisitians as leaders. Unfornutely Jay went further than this and in the Provential convention in New York, tried unsuccessfully to make it official that Catholics should not hold office.He and other leading protestants also felt Jews should not vote. As long as someone adhered to his specific type of religion and even his Protestant sect of Christianity, then they should be selected as leaders.

John Jay was a brilliant man who felt Catholics and other religious groups shouldn't hold office. We don't need his or anyones oppressive views of religion involved in law making. That's why the wisdom of the founding fathers prevailed and religious preferences were left out completely of the Constitution.The John Jays of those days were of the old colonial school where many of the colonies (soon to be states) were essentially under religous control. When the newly formed states wrote their constitutions and then when the US Constitution was written , the times were changing and our wise men realized that personal religious opinions had no place in the formation of our government.Many were inspired by their religion, but their personal religious views were often opressive. Jay was proof.

Something that few people know these days is that, according to the Constitution, the states were perfectly free to have their own state churches, state government requirements, etc. In fact, several states DID have state churches for some time after the revolution.

This is usually forgotten and missed because the entire principle of federalism is forgotten and missed–to our detriment.

It is to our detriment not because state-recognized churches are a good thing (I'm glad they fell by the wayside…and more glad still that they did so naturally without the heavy hand of an oppressive central government mandating it), but because federalism is a key component of what used to keep the central government in check and within its constitutional authority.

Nevertheless, the evidence that our nation was founded by Christians on Christian principles is overwhelming, and virtually all the founders recognized that the moral foundation provided by Christianity and the Christian churches was absolutely essential to the maintenance and good health of our nation.

Without their voice in the public square, there would have been no civil rights movement, no abolitionists movement…and no Revolution that resulted in independence, either.

How sad that secularists and God-haters have become so contemptuous of our origins (and we have allowed their revisionist history to stand largely unchallenged) that the very engine that makes our republic successful is now viewed with suspicion, hostility, and public rejection.

I am not sure that all these secularists are God haters per se, but I think it is just that they reject all the deities throughout the history of mankind that supposedly have existed. The rejection of the Christian God lies in the same realm as the rejection of Zeus, Baal or any other. I think it is some aspects of the various religions that many find objectionable. But that is a whole different discussion.

Of course it is true that many of the founders and those that followed derived their morals from Christianity. It is also true that the founders and future leaders realised that many of the Christian morals of the day, like Catholics shouldn't hold office and Jews shouldn't vote, were not moral at all. Some of these Christian morals had to be trimmed out and a secular Constitution written. The entire moral system of a John Jay never would have made for an equitable government.So the Christian values and morals of these great men must be put in proper perspective.

Does the federal government have too much control ? Yes, in my view.

John Jay was a brilliant man and a great contributor to the formation of our Republic.He was like many early leaders of our nascent country, very religious and serves as a good example of why when the Constitution was finally written, it was obvious that certain ideas of some of the founding fathers should not be included in the Constitution. Particularly their religious views.

The quote of John Jays you mentioned serves as a perfect example- that we should prefer Chrisitians as leaders. Unfornutely Jay went further than this and in the Provential convention in New York, tried unsuccessfully to make it official that Catholics should not hold office.He and other leading protestants also felt Jews should not vote. As long as someone adhered to his specific type of religion and even his Protestant sect of Christianity, then they should be selected as leaders.

John Jay was a brilliant man who felt Catholics and other religious groups shouldn't hold office. We don't need his or anyones oppressive views of religion involved in law making. That's why the wisdom of the founding fathers prevailed and religious preferences were left out completely of the Constitution.The John Jays of those days were of the old colonial school where many of the colonies (soon to be states) were essentially under religous control. When the newly formed states wrote their constitutions and then when the US Constitution was written , the times were changing and our wise men realized that personal religious opinions had no place in the formation of our government.Many were inspired by their religion, but their personal religious views were often opressive. Jay was proof.

Something that few people know these days is that, according to the Constitution, the states were perfectly free to have their own state churches, state government requirements, etc. In fact, several states DID have state churches for some time after the revolution.

This is usually forgotten and missed because the entire principle of federalism is forgotten and missed–to our detriment.

It is to our detriment not because state-recognized churches are a good thing (I'm glad they fell by the wayside…and more glad still that they did so naturally without the heavy hand of an oppressive central government mandating it), but because federalism is a key component of what used to keep the central government in check and within its constitutional authority.

Nevertheless, the evidence that our nation was founded by Christians on Christian principles is overwhelming, and virtually all the founders recognized that the moral foundation provided by Christianity and the Christian churches was absolutely essential to the maintenance and good health of our nation.

Without their voice in the public square, there would have been no civil rights movement, no abolitionists movement…and no Revolution that resulted in independence, either.

How sad that secularists and God-haters have become so contemptuous of our origins (and we have allowed their revisionist history to stand largely unchallenged) that the very engine that makes our republic successful is now viewed with suspicion, hostility, and public rejection.

I am not sure that all these secularists are God haters per se, but I think it is just that they reject all the deities throughout the history of mankind that supposedly have existed. The rejection of the Christian God lies in the same realm as the rejection of Zeus, Baal or any other. I think it is some aspects of the various religions that many find objectionable. But that is a whole different discussion.

Of course it is true that many of the founders and those that followed derived their morals from Christianity. It is also true that the founders and future leaders realised that many of the Christian morals of the day, like Catholics shouldn't hold office and Jews shouldn't vote, were not moral at all. Some of these Christian morals had to be trimmed out and a secular Constitution written. The entire moral system of a John Jay never would have made for an equitable government.So the Christian values and morals of these great men must be put in proper perspective.

Does the federal government have too much control ? Yes, in my view.

[...] Dakota Voice: “Dozens of pastors across the country will preach this Sunday providing biblical perspectives on the position of political candidates . . . ‘Pastors have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment,’ said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. ‘No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights.’” [...]