Seperation of Church and State

badlandbucks

Ten Pointer
What are your thoughts on the Executive order signed by president Trump regarding churches endorsing political candidates? My two thoughts are: In the first place I don't understand the intended purpose. What difference does it make? 2nd, and more importantly, why would any church (honest question here) want to delve into politics? Christianity has nothing to do with politics, and Jesus specifically commanded his disciples to be no part of the world. For an individual to have a certain political view is a different matter, but for a religious institution to actively endorse or condemn a political candidate, platform, or ideology, and use the pulpit to do so, is IMO the definition of hypocrisy. I would not personally have anything to do with a church that did so...even if I agreed with their political view. It just isn't something a Church should even be involved in. Think of the ramifications for church members who have a different political view. Will they be chastised for disagreeing with the church sanctioned political view? Shunned, excommunicated? At any rate it doesn't seem likely a member will feel loved or encouraged by the Church if they do not agree with the political view. That in turn could adversely affect a person's personal relationship with God, which is a much larger issue than any political one.

Just my 2 cents.
 

UncleFester

Old Mossy Horns
What are your thoughts on the Executive order signed by president Trump regarding churches endorsing political candidates? My two thoughts are: In the first place I don't understand the intended purpose. What difference does it make? 2nd, and more importantly, why would any church (honest question here) want to delve into politics? Christianity has nothing to do with politics, and Jesus specifically commanded his disciples to be no part of the world. For an individual to have a certain political view is a different matter, but for a religious institution to actively endorse or condemn a political candidate, platform, or ideology, and use the pulpit to do so, is IMO the definition of hypocrisy. I would not personally have anything to do with a church that did so...even if I agreed with their political view. It just isn't something a Church should even be involved in. Think of the ramifications for church members who have a different political view. Will they be chastised for disagreeing with the church sanctioned political view? Shunned, excommunicated? At any rate it doesn't seem likely a member will feel loved or encouraged by the Church if they do not agree with the political view. That in turn could adversely affect a person's personal relationship with God, which is a much larger issue than any political one.

Just my 2 cents.

I would have agreed with you except for the fact that we as taxpayers are forced to pay for abortions. Don't really care to debate what abortion is to anyone else, but to me it's flat out murder. I have lost a child to abortion and will never support a candidate that is pro choice period. Another reason is that our government is or has been making it to where it is an issue if a church/religion preaches that homosexuality is a sin and immoral. Sooo I can see why institutions would get involved in this arena.
 

Part-time hunter

Ten Pointer
I am not a religious person myself but I think if a church decides to get into politics then they should lose their tax exempt status. And that goes for any particular religion. As for the comment by Uncle Fester, in my opinion abortion and LGBT rights are more of a moral issue than a political one. In the spirit of full disclosure I am pro-choice and I support the gay rights movement but I respect that others have different opinions on these issues and they can voice theirs and vote for their candidates as they see fit.
 

41magfan

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
The only "Separation of Church and State" that the Founders intended was that the government to keep itself out of the Church, NOT the other way around.
 

badlandbucks

Ten Pointer
The only "Separation of Church and State" that the Founders intended was that the government to keep itself out of the Church, NOT the other way around.

I am not really concerned with what the government's intent was for churches. That is backwards. I am concerned with what God's intent was for Churches, which is pretty clear.

Christianity (as a whole, not all individuals) is the only religion that has abandoned it's own creed. Think about that for a minute.
 

41magfan

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
I am not really concerned with what the government's intent was for churches. That is backwards. I am concerned with what God's intent was for Churches, which is pretty clear.

Christianity (as a whole, not all individuals) is the only religion that has abandoned it's own creed. Think about that for a minute.

Christians have the right and duty to involve themselves in the workings of their government. To argue otherwise is mindless.
 

badlandbucks

Ten Pointer
Christians have the right and duty to involve themselves in the workings of their government. To argue otherwise is mindless.

I would agree Christians have a right, but I disagree 100% that it is a duty of a Christian to be involved in Government. Jesus certainly didn't think it was mindless to be separate from Politics. He made that pretty plain at John 15:19, 17:14-16, 18:36.
 

sky hawk

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
for a religious institution to actively endorse or condemn a political candidate, platform, or ideology, and use the pulpit to do so, is IMO the definition of hypocrisy.

Just my 2 cents.

Wrong...

In areas where the government has decided to delve into moral (i.e. social) issues, the church has not only the right, but the obligation to stand firm on a particular ideology. To NOT do so would be hypocrisy. The Church is the moral authority, not the government.

Nowhere in scripture does it forbid Christians from being involved in politics or government. Thankfully, your opinion is in the minority. Can you imagine our country's founders if all of the Christians avoided getting involved? Can you imagine our country today if all Christians took your approach and removed themselves from the government of our country, state, county, city, and school boards?

You've heard the expression, "Be in the world and not of the world". That statement come from several NT scriptures. "In" the world means mixed in with the world, not hiding in a bubble in the corner.

You may argue that a church should not endorse a particular candidate, and that may very well be a good policy, but to argue that they shouldn't take a stance on any topic that is addressed in politics in unfounded and incorrect.
 

badlandbucks

Ten Pointer
Wrong...

In areas where the government has decided to delve into moral (i.e. social) issues, the church has not only the right, but the obligation to stand firm on a particular ideology. To NOT do so would be hypocrisy. The Church is the moral authority, not the government.

Nowhere in scripture does it forbid Christians from being involved in politics or government. Thankfully, your opinion is in the minority. Can you imagine our country's founders if all of the Christians avoided getting involved? Can you imagine our country today if all Christians took your approach and removed themselves from the government of our country, state, county, city, and school boards?

You've heard the expression, "Be in the world and not of the world". That statement come from several NT scriptures. "In" the world means mixed in with the world, not hiding in a bubble in the corner.

You may argue that a church should not endorse a particular candidate, and that may very well be a good policy, but to argue that they shouldn't take a stance on any topic that is addressed in politics in unfounded and incorrect.

You vastly misunderstood my comment. Churches should absolutely make a stand for moral issues (Homosexuality, Abortion etc.), but that is different than endorsing a candidate. I am speaking of Churches using the pulpit to spout political rhetoric that does not involve natural or moral law, and nothing at all with religion or Christ. Individual members of churches certainly have the right to have political views and to be involved. But an institution that by its creed, should be concerned with following Christ, that gets involved in non religious political affairs like tax reform, healthcare, immigration, etc. have no business doing so. It will do nothing but detract from the purpose of the church, to draw people closer to God.
 

nchunter

Twelve Pointer
Does the EO not affirm separation of church and state? It keeps the govt out of the church's business. Right?
Seems logical to me.
 

Tipmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
The concept of separation of church and state is a completely fabricated creation by the 9 oligarchs on the "Supreme" court. It appears nowhere in the constitution or its amendments and from a founders perspective does not exist. All the constitution says is that the government cannot establish a state religion. Period.
 

Tipmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
As for Trump's EO, I support it. Getting the govt out of the church's business is much more important than getting the church out of the govt's business.
 

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
The concept of separation of church and state is a completely fabricated creation by the 9 oligarchs on the "Supreme" court. It appears nowhere in the constitution or its amendments and from a founders perspective does not exist. All the constitution says is that the government cannot establish a state religion. Period.

Agreed. They worded it so there wouldn't be an official state religion/denomination that would then require persecution of dissenters, which bedeviled Europe for centuries. Smart men in many ways, our founders.
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
I don't but not for the subject matter. I don't support executive orders by any president but that's a different topic than what is being discussed.

"executive orders" (not always in that name) have been issued by Presidents since George Washington,,,,so I guess you are in the minority,,,,,,,,
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
it's been stated by others,,,,,it's a decent EO,,,,,,and the 1st is about keeping from a state mandated religion,,,that is all,,,,,,nothing to do with "keeping religion out of government",,,way to many examples counter to that notion for it to be true (just read our founding documents, and their references to GOD),,,,,,,
 

Homebrewale

Old Mossy Horns
"executive orders" (not always in that name) have been issued by Presidents since George Washington,,,,so I guess you are in the minority,,,,,,,,

I'm well aware of the history of executive orders, thankyourverymuch.

Many of the executive orders today versus the ones back in Washington's era are legislative in nature. I believe legislating show be left to Congress. Executive orders today are used to bypass the Congress.
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
I'm well aware of the history of executive orders, thankyourverymuch.

Many of the executive orders today versus the ones back in Washington's era are legislative in nature. I believe legislating show be left to Congress. Executive orders today are used to bypass the Congress.


and yourwelcomesoverymuch,,,,,,,,

ok, that I agree with (use of EOs as legislative action),,,,but you blanketed your statement as you "don't support executive orders by any president",,,,

and this EO by President Trump was not legistlative in nature by any means,,,,in fact it merely mandates to the EXECUTIVE branch the intent to formulate policy and act in a manor consistent with our laws on religious freedom,,,

in other words,,,the IRS needs to stop harassing Christian organizations!!! (that is if what some organizations have stated are true),,,,,,,,,

so based on your clarification that you don't oppose ALL Executive Orders,,but just those that pretend to legislate,,,that you actually SUPPORT this one???
 
Last edited:

Homebrewale

Old Mossy Horns
so based on your clarification that you don't oppose ALL Executive Orders,,but just those that pretend to legislate,,,that you actually SUPPORT this one???

Actually, I would prefer that Congress would be the body that amends or repeals the Johnson Amendment to the IRS Code. Executive orders should go back to trivial stuff so that Congress isn't distracted from working on important stuff. Let Trump declare next Monday funky hairdo day.
 
Last edited:

nchunter2

Eight Pointer
The church of England was a political institution that worked hand in hand with the government to the detriment of the British subject. The Constitution simply made the State separate from endorsing a state church. This due to the experiences of the generally Christian fathers & founders. Nowhere does it say the Church shouldn't be involved in politics...only that the government should stay out of the Church! The whole concept has been bastardized!!
 

Tipmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
I don't but not for the subject matter. I don't support executive orders by any president but that's a different topic than what is being discussed.

As long as nobody uses them, I'm fine with my side not using them. Since that's not the case, then I support a scorched earth policy when it comes to EOs.
 

Zach's Grandpa

Old Mossy Horns
The "Johnson" bill was being used for the purpose of allowing the IRS to pull the tax exempt status of churches and other nonprofit organizations. From experience I am aware of what would be considered a violation. Any staff member or active volunteer in a leadership position with a bumper sticker or article of clothing (hat) worn on the church campus is a violation. During the previous administration the IRS stepped into high gear using their power to shut down any opposition.

Overturning it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It has to do with limiting the power of the IRS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The only "Separation of Church and State" that the Founders intended was that the government to keep itself out of the Church, NOT the other way around.
So true, yet now we live in times where some people have twisted this to mean that a high school coach can't lead his team in a prayer,.... or that an elementary school teacher can't put up a decoration that says Merry Christmas.
 

Eric Revo

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Amazing that this idea of a separation of church and state frequently overrules an. actual amendment to the COTUS. How often is the First Amendment twarted by this idea?
 
Top