You would think that churches would be the biggest defenders of separation of church and state? They always claim that atheists are the ones that benefit from it, but it is the exact opposite. I think the main objective of the separation of government and religion is so you can worship freely.

Churches and pastors can tell their congregations whatever they want to, from the pulpit, the 1st Amendment guarantees that right, but when they weigh in on political issues they are over stepping their boundries and should have to pay taxes as a PAC not a church.

The worst part about this is that churches are being manipulated by the Initiative 11 people. The exceptions really are non-existant and they plan to strip them in the state legislature if this measure passes anyway.

It’s one thing to manipulate voters, it is another low to manipulate your parishoners.

7 Thoughts on “800 SD Churches rally against the 1st Amendment . . uh . . I mean abortion

  1. Angry Guy on September 10, 2008 at 8:42 am said:

    Isn’t there a sheep analogy in there somewhere?

  2. Velcro gloves?

  3. Angry Guy on September 10, 2008 at 9:05 am said:

    I thought the gloves had magnets in them… oh wait.. that’s an entirely different rant.

  4. Huh? I can’t hear you. My ears are still ringing because the sound guy last night at the show didn’t know WTF he was doing . . .

  5. So how come any other non-profit organization in this country can openly express their opinion on politics, but you think the church should be silenced? Is it because they don’t agree with your point of view? What if the church endorsed abortion? What if the church endorsed the liberal views of Obama? Would you be supportive of it then?

    And for the record – the Johnson Amendment is very clear that a church can not endorse a candidate – they can say whatever they want to about other initiatives on the ballot.

  6. Um, did you read my post?

    “Churches and pastors can tell their congregations whatever they want to, from the pulpit, the 1st Amendment guarantees that right,”

    When they start influencing Initiatives and Candidates in the PUBLIC FORUM they should be considered PAC’s. I see you have been eating that Johnson Amendment crap DooHickey has been feeding you.

    BTW, there are churches in SD that are against the ban, and I think the same rules should apply to them.

    and, what does Obama and Liberalism have to do with this?

  7. Wrong – you speciically said “but when they weigh in on political issues they are over stepping their boundries and should have to pay taxes as a PAC not a church” — And what I was saying about the Johnson amendment corrected you. The only thing that a pastor can not say is “Vote for X candidate”

    And you completely avoided the first part of my comment which stated about other non-profit organizations being silenced. If you don’t want to hear the church’s opinion because we hold a 501c3 status, then Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to weigh in on this either as they also are considered NonProfit. If they have an opinion about ballot issues they too should have to pay taxes, don’t ya think?

    Or does this only apply to the church as far as your concerned?

Post Navigation