Op-Ed: How Abolishing the Johnson Amendment Would Harm Religious Liberty

[Gregory Matthews]

Doug, a pastor, church, denomination can advocate on behalf of an issue and always could.   It cannot directly endorse a political candidate.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In an earlier post, I made reference to the 1924 National Origins Act and the 1952 McCarran act.  In responding to me, Gary K stated that the above laws repress liberty.   I assume that his repression of liberty was in reference to the U.S/. Federal Constitution.

In actual fact, he was wrong, again.  Either he misunderstands the Constitution or he has not read it in recent times and has forgotten what it actually says.

The Preamble to the Federal Constitution clearly applies to citizens of the United States of America.  Id does not apply to people who are not directly citizens.  NOTE:  I am well aware ta ht  some could asrgue that ther is in some cases an indirect application.

The two laws that I cited at the beginning of this post applied to people who were not citizens of the U.S.  Therefore, the Federal constitution did not apply to those laws.  It cannot be said that those two laws violated the Constitution.

Here is what the preamble to the Federal Constitution says:

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

 

 

 

 

[debbym]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The New Your Times has an interesting article on the Johnson Amendment.  It is a long one.  The quote below the URL is one comment:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/opinion/campaign-stops/living-in-lbjs-america.html

“A broad change to the provision would likely cause minor-level chaos within the U.S. political system,” Emma Green wrote in The Atlantic this month. “There would no longer be any meaningful difference between charitable groups and lobbying organizations.”

And yet what is Donald Trump but a sworn agent of chaos? Repealing the Johnson Amendment would most likely flood our political system — and especially Republican Party coffers — with still more money, all of which would be tax deductible.

 

 

does anyone else who is reading this thread get the point of this quote from the article?  and the significance of it?

[Gary K]

@doug yowell

 

Well, I guess it really shows the futility of trying to have a dialog with people who will not acknowledge any issue other than their own. 

[debbym]

6 hours ago, Gary K said:

Who has said anything about using the church to make donations to political campaigns?  Not a single person.  We are talking 1st amendment rights here.  And, you are arguing that you want the church to speak out about political things, when they are that which you agree with.  Do you see your position clearly now?  You want the government to punish speech that which you disagree with, but not that speech which you do agree.    That is the antithesis of liberty of conscience.

Gary honestly i cannot understand where you are  deriving your premises about my "position"... i have not one thought about the government punishing any speech i do not agree with...  you have so totally gone off the mark of my comments here i see little basis for continuing to attempt to have a conversation with you about these matters.  i have no ill feelings, wish you the best. 

[doug yowell]

18 hours ago, debbym said:

"the government has never been the source of faith and has always been the powers of the world.  The government always represents humanity and not divinity, why should we ever look to it for anything else.'  

 

 

But the government has always supposed to have been the rewarder of good behavior and the punisher of evil behavior. So if we, the people, (the government) represents our humanity, then why is it out of place for it's Christian citizens to organize and vote for those who would uphold good and oppose evils that pertain to man's treatment of his fellow man?

[phkrause]

On 2/10/2017 at 2:01 PM, Gary K said:

Let me think here.  From 1793, when our current constitution was put in place, to 1954 is how many years?  Oh, 161 years without a Johnson amendment and the wall between church and state, and religious liberty, was greater than it is now.

Yes lets think about that!! What was happening back in the 50s?? That might give us all a clue as to why we have all these wonderful laws!! Does the "moral Majority,' "the religious right," "christian right," etc., etc., come to mind?? These are groups that started implanting candidates into our political system, to keep us from "sinning!!" So very true, before we didn't need the Johnson amendment from those that are now trying to keep us on the right path!!!!!!

 

On 2/10/2017 at 2:01 PM, Gary K said:

Wouldn't our country be better off with a lot of God's people influencing what laws are created and enforced?

Would we????? Really????? Enforced!!!!!! That will come soon enough!!!!! I say stand up for the separation of church and state, not allowing the government to blurr those lines!!!!!

[doug yowell]

7 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Doug, a pastor, church, denomination can advocate on behalf of an issue and always could.   It cannot directly endorse a political candidate.

 

Why not if the candidate is supporting the same moral issue as the church, pastor, or denomination? If Bernie Sanders was advocating an opposition of a Sunday law and Doug Yowell was running on a platform of passing a Sunday law what principle would Gary be violating if he, as pastor, admonished his congregation of SDA's to vote for Bernie? What's the difference between Ellen White admonishing all Adventists to vote for only prohibition candidates without naming a particular candidate and identifying one or all of those the candidates by name?  Or back to the question, how did the country manage to survive without the Johnson Amendment for over 160 years?

[doug yowell]

19 hours ago, debbym said:

 it is the religious extremist who want the reins of political power.   They are up in arms about whatever the government is doing and getting sympathies of the Christian masses,  justifying themselves to step into controlling the government for their own agendas... and erasing the separation of church and state.

Which "extremist" religous group has been doing this over the past 40 years? And what is the agenda that they mean to impose on the government?

[Gregory Matthews]

Doug asked Why not?  & What's the difference?

That is not the issue that I have been discussing.  I have been telling what the law says and how it is applied.

You have now introduced a totally different subject.  If you really want to know Why, go to the legislative history of the law.  You just might find the answer there.

If you want to know the difference, take a basic course in understanding the law.  Briefly, under the law, the rights that an individual has may differ from the rights of a legal entity  and the individual at that moment of time that the individual is representing the legal entity.

 

 

 

[Gary K]

15 minutes ago, phkrause said:

Yes lets think about that!! What was happening back in the 50s?? That might give us all a clue as to why we have all these wonderful laws!! Does the "moral Majority,' "the religious right," "christian right," etc., etc., come to mind?? These are groups that started implanting candidates into our political system, to keep us from "sinning!!" So very true, before we didn't need the Johnson amendment from those that are now trying to keep us on the right path!!!!!!

 

Would we????? Really????? Enforced!!!!!! That will come soon enough!!!!! I say stand up for the separation of church and state, not allowing the government to blurr those lines!!!!!

Actually, you are wrong about the problems in the 50's.  They were a slight problem compared to what happened in the Woodrow Wilson administration.  He brought people into his administration that had very deep pockets and friends with very deep pockets.  Those people did their best to create a government sponsored morality.  They were the progressives of their day.  This is decades before the Johnson amendment and they failed.  They failed miserably.  Liberty is not so easy to destroy when people love it.  It is when people desire government interference in everything that liberty disappears. 

[debbym]

the Jews thought by creating more laws, they would bind themselves by obedience to to the will of God.  The idea we can make people be better by law is dangerous. passing more and more laws does not make a nation more moral.  Church people attempting to express more authority in government and make more laws that involve morality as they define it.. will not be corrective to the nation.

getting church people involved in reaching for the arm of government authority and increasing Christian legislation will not cause anyone to know God or cause our land to be healed.  it's great for our vice president to say.. if my people who are called by my  name will humble themselves and pray.... i will hear from heaven and heal the land.  what legislation will he support to bring this about.   he represents government not church.  this is eerie to me. He is using scripture as a Spiritual leader... and knowing the religious right has been working to control and use government to somehow moralize the country... by legislation... i cannot help but see the same efforts by the Jews  and how it was an epic fail.. and they ended up crucifying Jesus.

[CoAspen]

I seem to remember a President who was a very self avowed christian and tried to act in that was while in office......he was pilloried from pillar to post.....but then he was a Democrat!!!

Can someone tell when and where a nation who advanced 'christian values' through legislation or other means, was a freedom of choice/thought/action/belief/speech nation? As Deb pointed out its been tried and failed. I have listened to the above thought over the years and the bottom line comes down to "my interpretation is the correct one"! No thank you! I want no part of that of that system of oppression. Freedom, poppycock!

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  The term legislative history has come up in this discussion.  I have started a thread on that, in this section. review it if you wish.

 

[doug yowell]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

That is not the issue that I have been discussing.  I have been telling what the law says and how it is applied.

What's the title of the OP-ED again? How abolishing the Johnson Amendment Would Harm Religious Liberty. And the defense of the opinion piece is included with quotes from the anti-conservative NYT of the "dangers" (alleged) to religious liberty if the law was abolished. So why the need to simply restate what the law says when the issue raised by the op-ed is the general health of religious liberty? And how consistently has the JA been applied in principle to real "dangers" from the religious community? To legitimately claim that religious liberty is being indangered by an abolition of a law instituted 160 years after the founding of the country should require some sort of evidence that it was a necessary religious liberty protection in the first place, don't you think? And why no religious liberty conflict over the government's taxation of religious conservatives to fund society's moral practices that they are in direct competition with their religious teachings? IOW, the government has the right to use the tqx dollars of religious groups to fund anti-religious policies but those groups cannot appeal those policies in a corporate manner or those corporate entities along with the funding of their supporters will lose their tax exempt status? Once again, if a political persuasion attempts to pass a Sunday law would SDA's lose their tax exemption status if they advocated that their members vote for candidates who opposed those Sunday laws? How does the JA apply to the political actions of a corporate religious entity that will be directly affected by a pending legislation? Are there legitimate concerns surrounding the repeal of the JA? Yes.  Does the conclusion of the op-ed deserve to go without questioning? No.

[doug yowell]

1 hour ago, debbym said:

getting church people involved in reaching for the arm of government authority and increasing Christian legislation will not cause anyone to know God or cause our land to be healed.

What exactly is the "Christian legislation" that you are referring to? There are no Sunday laws pending. There are no laws requiring any Christian identity for voting rights under consideration. There are no attempts to establish a "Christian Nation" by either political party. And just a reminder that Christians are just as vital a part of the establishing of the laws that govern this nation as are non-religious, and non-Christians as well. Please provide documentation of your assertions?--- BTW, I love your "Love awakens love" addendum. A great principle.

[Gregory Matthews]

Doug & Gary, the opening article speaks for itself.  Your arguement should be with the author of that article, not with we who had nothing to do with it.

 

Here is an almost closing quote from that article.  For more, read the entire article and its context.

 

Don’t fall for the hype that the Johnson Amendment is necessary to restore your pastor's freedom of speech and see the attempt to repeal it for what it is – a plan by politicians to grab your tax-deductible offering money.  Politicians would love to able to claim a church's stamp of approval as "God's favorite candidate" in return for giving churches more political power.

[debbym]

http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-97

 

this is a good read on this subject.  here is a bit of it.

The Moral Majority

No organization more clearly manifested the convergence of the legal, political, and media changes that led to the rise of the Religious Right than the Moral Majority. Southern Baptist minister Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979 after a number of religious and conservative political activists urged him to use the resources of his sizable Virginia-based Thomas Road Baptist Church to mobilize Christians to social and political action.....

Political Action Committees

Falwell’s commitment to cultural engagement and political activism culminated in the late 1970s with the organization of the Moral Majority. Under the leadership of Robert Billings, by 1980, the Moral Majority claimed more than two million members and a $1.5 million budget. The organizational structure of the Moral Majority was a product of significant developments in the regulation of the financing of political campaigns in the 1970s.....

Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and James Robison all developed successful syndicated broadcasts while Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker pioneered evangelical entry into the cable market with the formation of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). Although many of these programs remained apolitical, the robust and omnipresent media ecology of the electronic church contributed to the organizational and financial development of the Religious Right and also fueled concerns about the cultural and political dominance of politicized Christianity......

 Young evangelicals evolved on critical social issues, notably adopting more liberal positions on same-sex marriages and gay rights. Meanwhile, the economic populism embodied in the Tea Party movement managed to mobilize aspects of the older Religious Right and make their presence felt in the congressional midterm elections of 2010 and 2012.

[CoAspen]

Warning!!

A more complete look at the original article, more detail.

[debbym]

“In order for the United States to form an image of the beast [that is, in the likeness of Papal Rome during a 1,260-year period in which the Church manipulated, dominated and controlled both kings and emperors], the religious power [or “powers”] must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends” (The Great Controversy, page 443, my comments added).

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/02/15/how-repealing-johnson-amendment-harms-religious-liberty

 

And what happens when the church gets this kind of power?

“Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience. An example of this is given in the long-continued persecution of dissenters by the Church of England. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thousands of nonconformist ministers were forced to leave their churches, and many, both of pastors and people, were subjected to fine, imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom” (The Great Controversy, page 443).

Could that happen in America? Will churches seek to use the power of the state to punish those who dissent from their doctrines? We can already see that some churches would love to have this power, and White warns us that we will one day experience similar, if not much more severe, persecution in America. That is why this matters and why we need to work now to preserve liberty of conscience.

Repealing the Johnson Amendment is not about giving pastors “freedom of speech.” Pastors are already able to speak to issues. It is about giving churches the financial power to influence elections using tax-deductible donations. When it is gone, pity the politician who does not have a large congregation willing to fund a political campaign and who has to rely on traditional taxable donations.

[debbym]

this is on topi regarding the issue of Christianity and politics.

https://kimberlystover.com/2017/02/15/if-being-a-christian-means-xyz-then-i-am-not-a-christian/

In his book, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts Faith and Threatens America,  Randall Balmer cites Billy Graham’s concern about a marriage between the political right and religious fundamentalism.

Billy Graham warned, “I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.” Parade Magazine, 1981.

His profound warning is exactly what is happening in our current culture. GOP policy and agenda has manipulated good people into succumbing to the perversion of Jesus’ teachings for monetary gain.

Therefore, I resist with a poem:

If being a Christian means I have to deny healthcare to another human being, then I am not a Christian.'''  ........

 

[Stan]

wow. I quote that last sentence on my Facebook 

 

thank you 

[debbym]

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

wow. I quote that last sentence on my Facebook 

 

thank you 

Stan that is just the first line of the poem... check the whole article.

[Ron Lambert]

The political right is the only faction that could ally itself with the religious right wing, because the political left is anti-religion. So we have a choice between two evils. As I see it, we have to take the approach of a plant or animal breeder, who select the most favorable characteristics to encourage, even if it is not the final end they are seeking. If it is a step in the right direction, that can led to the desired end. Likewise in politics, we can only select those characteristics that are the most favorable steps along the way toward the right goal. If later that process is going to be corrupted and hijacked by the enemies of truth, we can do what we can to oppose that, but still we must support those things that are right. Voting for political agendas that are hostile to religion and to Biblical moral values would be like voting for the Devil. You can't do that and claim to be a Christian. In today's political arena, who is opposed to the Biblical definition of marriage? Who is opposed to religious liberty, and has openly stated that "fundamentalists must change their beliefs"? Who would leave our nation vulnerable to hostile terrorists by turning a blind eye to reality in vetting refugees? Who has demonstrated themselves to be hostile especially to Christianity of any kind at every turn? Anyone who suggests we should vote for such people because someday the religious right might take over the state does not know how to think soundly.

[Ron Lambert]

Who today is in favor of allowing to continue the present state of affairs in America where over 50 million unborn babies have been murdered for convenience since Roe vs. Wade? If we support those who offend God and most directly challenge His authority, then we are helping those who cause God to withdraw His protection from our nation, withdraw the restraining influence of His Holy Spirit. And THAT is what will most directly lead to the rise of the end-time apostasy that will result in real persecution of those who would be faithful to God.