Every day is a good day! Some are just better than others. =)

Despite the fact that I feel they have no real relevance to the conversation I will entertain your request for some quotes. Here are just a few.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
--Thomas Jefferson

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The Creator has not thought proper to mark those in the forehead who are of stuff to make good generals. We are first, therefore, to seek them blindfold, and then let them learn the trade at the expense of great losses."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God."
--Benjamin Franklin

"Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." --Benjamin Franklin

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see." - Letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University, March 9, 1790
--Benjamin Franklin

Kerry O I don't think you realize what you are doing here so let me help you out.


First you made a personal attack on Christians, and made the assumption that I am a Christian.


Then you showed the letter the Danbury Baptists, which if you read Jefferson's letter back to them, did not contradict my interpretation at all.


Then you made a personal attack on me(ad hominem), took my argument and suggested that while I'm at it I do things like "compel candidates for office to pass religous tests, mandate prayer in the public schools and get public money for religious education" when I have made no such suggestions or said anything that even warrants that thought process (ad absurdiam).

Then you actually made a decent argument, to which I responded. If you missed my response feel free to go back and read it.

Then you went into Jefferson's personal feelings on Christianity, once again narrowing the perspective of this argument from religion in general to Christianity, which makes me wonder if you don't just have some kind of personal vendetta with Christians. Regardless of whether you do or not however, Jefferson's personal feelings really have no bearing on what the 1st Amendment states quite clearly, or the matter of if a Church is able to be involved in politics and still retain it's tax exemption.



As much as I was tempted to stop reading after seeing a childish remark like this, I decided to push past the adaption of a South Park quote and see if you would redeem yourself. Instead what I found was an attempt to change the subject to creationism in public school curriculums.

So, Kerry O. please tell me what you really want this debate to be about so I can give a response. However let me state that if you want this to be a name calling match, a subjective debate on how I do or do not feel about a particular religion, or if you intend to keep changing the subject then I will not be a part of it.

-Ken

Good luck and congratulations on your retirement templter!



Depending on what you mean by "called on it" (if you mean legal ramifications) then I disagree. As much as I disagree with what he said, I am more against the idea of taking away his freedom to say what he did.

And to Kerry O. You have quoted Jefferson's personal feelings on Christianity. I have never said anything about Christianity, so Jefferson's personal feelings on that subject are irrelevant. My argument is that the church has not gone beyond its legal rights. What religion that particular church happens to represent is of no interest to me. Jefferson, despite what his personal feeling on religion were, also supported this little part of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." You have, yet again, failed to deliver a meaningful rebuttal.

I am not sure about the money over salaries and overhead, however take a step back from that argument for a moment and look at it in a broader perspective. Yes the larger churches can contribute more, but so can larger special interest groups such as the ACLU, and continuing in that trend the larger corporations such as microsoft, and boeing. I remember my father telling me once in response to a feeling I had about life not being fair, he told me "That's the way life is, the golden rule in life is he who has the gold, makes the rules." Sadly, I find that to be very true now that I am old enough to actually understand it.

I have been giving you facts of law, and constitution. If you want my personal opinion there should be a donation limit on everyone if you want truly fair and equal representation. But at the end of the day it is the voters who decide. From my experience most people at the churches I have gone to have been people of at least average intelligence and people who were independent thinkers. That being said, there are always the going to be the people who will vote whichever way the church recommends, but are they really any different than the people who always vote by their political affiliation?

Our government is by no means the perfect system, but the way I see it, the more federal restrictions citizens request, the more federal restrictions citizens will get, and some day, way down the road, we will no longer be citizens but subjects. The idea of democracy is that the people don't need an extremely large and strong central government, but the more restrictions we vote to place on ourselves the closer we come to tyranny.

The way it seems to me, what you are failing to realize is that a church can only give so much support. Essentially it boils down to the beliefs of the congregation. If they are going to that church, they most likely believe in the side the church is supporting anyway. The church isn't "forcing" their opinion on anyone, they are only letting it be known. There are often times, even churches that are on opposite sides of a proposition. California's Props 4 and 8 are prefect examples of that. Essentially all the church can do is offer propaganda, which is no different than any other non-profit, so my question is, are you attacking church so strongly because of the fact it is a non profit or because of the fact that it is a non-profit with religious ties? No disrespect meant by that question, but in order for me to defend my position and understand what we are really discussing here I need to know if the issue is the religion or the tax exemption.

I am aware of that. But the question at hand isn't "does the church belong in politics?" because that is a very subjective question, the answer will be based on each individuals opinion. The question is, can the church legally be involved in politics and if so why does it maintain its tax exemption.

So legally yes, the church can be involved in politics, if you have read my prior posts you will know my reasoning on this. And second, the church can maintain its tax exemption despite being involved in politics because it is a not for profit organization (some churches adhere to this more than others but essentially they all fall under that umbrella) and churches DO NOT receive any government funding. By the way, adj4u, nearly all non-profit organizations have a payroll and do pay at least some people to work for them.

Hm, it seems I have upset you by presenting facts Kerry. I am hardly a "religionist". I am just capable of comprehending the meaning of Jefferson's statement and the 1st Amendment of the constitution. I am not suggesting that the government mandate prayer in public schools, or that candidates for office should have to pass religious tests, or that there should be public money for religious education. I am merely stating the fact that if a church wants to support some form of legislature it is well within their right to do so. Also, the original intent of the 1st Amendment and Jefferson's concept of "seperation of church and state" was to protect the church from the government not vice versa. So unless you have a response to that, that does not involve an attack on what you assume to be my personal beliefs (ie calling me a religious zealot) then I will lay that to rest and move on to your next response.

If you want to call a church donating to a cause Representation without taxation then you should also be targeting Planned Parenthood, Let California Ring, the ACLU, and any other tax exempt organization that has opposed or supported state and federal legislature. An organization supporting something truly means very little if the people voting on it don't support it. However, since there are no laws or anything else to support this or oppose it, it is little more than an opinion as is your statement.

-Ken

Planned Parenthood is a "non-profit" organization, as a matter of fact they even get government grants, however the problem with the tax exemption code is the word substantial. Substantial is very vague, and making donations to people who are fighting a certain proposition can be written off pretty easily as long as it is not accompanied with lobbying.

Oh the wonderful loop-holes in US law.

Perhaps you should target planned parent hood then. They donated over $4.5 million to fight Proposition 4.

Kerry O, I fail to see how that contradicts anything I have said? Forgive me but could you explain your views on this?

The way I see it, if nothing else, the wording of the first amendment makes it clear that this was to protect religion from the government, not the other way around. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Considering the history of the reason many people came to America in the first place, (King controlling the Church of England) this would also make sense in a historical context.

Please also see the response sent to the Danbury Baptists by Jefferson. He makes it clear that the issue at hand is the government involving itself with the affairs of the church not the church involving itself with the affairs of the government.

"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802."

-Ken

Quick history lesson. Separation of Church and state is not a law of any kind. It is shorthand for a phrase that Jefferson used in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase used was "wall of separation between church and state,". The intent of this was that the government would not get involved in church affairs, not the other way around. This concept was added into the constitution as the 1st Amendment which you may know as Freedom of Religion, Press, and Expression which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As you can see there is nothing there addressing the church getting involved in federal affairs. So love it or hate it, there is really nothing even implied in the idea of "separation of church and state" that says the church cannot/should not be involved in the government.