Election Day is Coming

[Woody]

What is your church doing?

Some churches are having communion on Election Day to help people focus on what really matters.

What do you think of this?

[John317]

The church shouldn't be involved in the election at all, unless it's for or against the passage of a particular law. But as far as voting for people, it should be left completely up to individuals whether to vote.

I'm opposed to mixing or associating the communion service with politics in any way.

[Jeannieb43]

Some churches are having communion on Election Day to help people focus on what really matters.

Sounds to me like the way some organizations are conducting a get-out-the-vote campaign under the guise of a religious worship service. They gather the people all together then give them ballots and tell them how to vote.

Which IMO violates the separation of church and state.

[phkrause]

The church shouldn't be involved in the election at all, unless it's for or against the passage of a particular law. But as far as voting for people, it should be left completely up to individuals whether to vote.

I'm opposed to mixing or associating the communion service with politics in any way.

[phkrause]

Sounds to me like the way some organizations are conducting a get-out-the-vote campaign under the guise of a religious worship service. They gather the people all together then give them ballots and tell them how to vote.

Which IMO violates the separation of church and state.

[Naomi]

The church shouldn't be involved in the election at all, unless it's for or against the passage of a particular law. But as far as voting for people, it should be left completely up to individuals whether to vote.

I'm opposed to mixing or associating the communion service with politics in any way.

Amen & Amen

What concerns me is that even though the intentions are the best, the Religious Conservatives are pushing harder and harder to unite Church & State ... ding, ding, who will lose?

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Some churches are having communion on Election Day to help people focus on what really matters.

Sounds to me like the way some organizations are conducting a get-out-the-vote campaign under the guise of a religious worship service. They gather the people all together then give them ballots and tell them how to vote.

Which IMO violates the separation of church and state.

Actually, it does npot violate anything. Nowhere does the constitution or Declaration say that the church is not supposed to be involved with politics.

[olger]

My nephew is a Mennonite pastor. They are having communion because he is sick of politics and wants to remind people of what really matters.

g

[Naomi]

That is a good reason to have Communion on election day

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Jeannieb43

Sounds to me like the way some organizations are conducting a get-out-the-vote campaign under the guise of a religious worship service. They gather the people all together then give them ballots and tell them how to vote.

Which IMO violates the separation of church and state.

Actually, it does npot violate anything. Nowhere does the constitution or Declaration say that the church is not supposed to be involved with politics.

The explicit prohibition of political activity for churches and other nonprofit organizations is a matter of Federal statutory law. However, the foundation for that is within the US Constitution starting with Article VI, paragraph 3, which says, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." And the Establishment and Free exercise clauses of the First Amendment expands on that concept by balancing the power of the State acting to favor religion or any particular religious group with the prohibiting the government from interfering with religious exercise.

The language of Article VI was born of the reality that our nation's founders had escaped the tyranny of religion and government acting in concert as one. And the balancing of the First Amendment religion clauses was very much an effort to insure the original intent of the founders that there would be separation between church and state to insure that freedom of religion and conscience for all in this country would be absolutely guaranteed. That wall of separation is breached by those that create politically motivated religious litmus tests or religiously motivated political tests (very hard to tell the difference) to coerce the individual conscience. That act of melding religion and politics goes very much to the heart of the danger of the combined power of religion and government that our founders escaped and fought so hard to be independent from in this country.

So yes, it does violate the separation of church and state, a principle held dear by our nation's founders and for which the Adventist Church has been a staunch defender since its inception. When we lose that separation, we lose our most fundamental freedom of individual conscience and religion.

[Naomi]

[OzarkWoman]

Sounds to me like the way some organizations are conducting a The explicit prohibition of political activity for churches and other nonprofit organizations is a matter of Federal statutory law. However, the foundation for that is within the US Constitution starting with Article VI, paragraph 3, which says, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." And the Establishment and Free exercise clauses of the First Amendment expands on that concept by balancing the power of the State acting to favor religion or any particular religious group with the prohibiting the government from interfering with religious exercise.

The language of Article VI was born of the reality that our nation's founders had escaped the tyranny of religion and government acting in concert as one. And the balancing of the First Amendment religion clauses was very much an effort to insure the original intent of the founders that there would be separation between church and state to insure that freedom of religion and conscience for all in this country would be absolutely guaranteed. That wall of separation is breached by those that create politically motivated religious litmus tests or religiously motivated political tests (very hard to tell the difference) to coerce the individual conscience. That act of melding religion and politics goes very much to the heart of the danger of the combined power of religion and government that our founders escaped and fought so hard to be independent from in this country.

So yes, it does violate the separation of church and state, a principle held dear by our nation's founders and for which the Adventist Church has been a staunch defender since its inception. When we lose that separation, we lose our most fundamental freedom of individual conscience and religion.

You are wrong about your intrepetation. Just because a pastor or church discusses politics, it is not against the constitution. The only reason the federal law states what it does is because of the misinterpretation of the separation of church and state. Also, just because politics is talked about or mentioned in any church does not have a thing to do with any litmus test to gain any kind of office. You are overreaching.

[bonnie]

wikapedia

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "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."[1]

What does the prohibiting the free exercise mean?

To anyone who says that church is no place to talk about these issues, you tell them there is no place better,” Obama said at a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Nashville, Tennessee.

Defying the constitution?

[phkrause]

Oh so now his opinion counts?

[OzarkWoman]

Personally, I don't care one whit about what any politician thinks. I studied the constitution and the Declaration and I have a Masters in American History. I go by what I know and believe is all. I also don't agree with the Supreme Court about many of their decisions. That doesn't make me wrong though, as it doesn't really make them wrong I guess. It does show that there are different views of the constitution and how and why this was born the way it was. I have also read all of the Federalist papers.

[bonnie]

Oh so now his opinion counts?

Actually I intended to remove the specific name and neglected to do so. Didn't say it did for me,asked if it crossed the line

No,the opinion doesn't count for me but it does for many.

However you didn't answer the question of what "free exercise of religion" means.

If a church does not endorse a specific nominee but does address certain issues based on the belief and doctrines of the church how does that cross the line of the government establishing a religion?

No,I don't want my pastor telling me how to vote,but that same pastor should be free to address abortion/late term abortion etc.

The years I went to public school,assembly was started with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance.Atheists,Jews and anyone that did not share the belief was free to ignore and not participate.

No one was forced.Should it still be allowed? Don't know,but I do know that the public school system looked a whole lot different than it does today.God was not considered almost a profanity.

Fri mornings were reserved for religious instruction in the various local churches,NOT MANDATED.Those of us that didn't go for that went to homeroom.

No one was ridiculed,bullied,or forced

[OzarkWoman]

If a church does not endorse a specific nominee but does address certain issues based on the belief and doctrines of the church how does that cross the line of the government establishing a religion?

No,I don't want my pastor telling me how to vote,but that same pastor should be free to address abortion/late term abortion etc.

Exactly my point. There is nothing most pastors and churches are doing that is against the constitution, except according to people who don't seem to understand fully the words, "establishing a religion".

[Woody]

Wow. This thread has really gone off the deep end.

Look folks - the constitution does not indicate that the church can not have communion on any certain day. And that is all this is about. If you look at the Original Post I said: "Some churches are having communion on Election Day to help people focus on what really matters."

Now if some of you feel that "what really matters" is to promote a certain political agenda - then you are really wrong. The purpose of having communion is to focus on JESUS - not on voting - in ANY form or way. The purpose is just the opposite. It is to get our focus WAY far away from voting or politics.

These churches are simply having communion and not promoting or even discussing any political agenda.

Now - you are telling me that having Communion on this day is contrary to our constitution. Man - WILD.

[bonnie]

Wow. This thread has really gone off the deep end.

Now - you are telling me that having Communion on this day is contrary to our constitution. Man - WILD.

Actually this went off the deep end from the first post following yours.The assumption was immediately made that there was a political agenda

John317 Online content

The church shouldn't be involved in the election at all, unless it's for or against the passage of a particular law. But as far as voting for people, it should be left completely up to individuals whether to vote.

I'm opposed to mixing or associating the communion service with politics in any way.

#579954

Jeannieb43

Registered: 12/29/01

Posts: 3722

Loc: California

Originally Posted By: Woody

Some churches are having communion on Election Day to help people focus on what really matters.

Sounds to me like the way some organizations are conducting a get-out-the-vote campaign under the guise of a religious worship service. They gather the people all together then give them ballots and tell them how to vote.

Which IMO violates the separation of church and state.

_________________________

pkrause

I'm opposed to mixing or associating the communion service with politics in any way.

thumbsup

_________________________

Amen & Amen

What concerns me is that even though the intentions are the best, the Religious Conservatives are pushing harder and harder to unite Church & State ... ding, ding, who will lose?

_________________________

"Truth is one [absolute], sages call it by various names" - Rig Veda

[Woody]

Amazing isn't it Bonnie.

It got so hijacked that it had to be sent to the political forum.

And this was the ANTI- political event that was proposed.

This was about a CHURCH event. NOT politics. It is ANTI- politics - it's totally about JESUS. I am shocked at the impression that people have about communion.

[bonnie]

Amazing isn't it Bonnie.

It got so hijacked that it had to be sent to the political forum.

And this was the ANTI- political event that was proposed.

This was about a CHURCH event. NOT politics. It is ANTI- politics - it's totally about JESUS. I am shocked at the impression that people have about communion.

I think that is a bit of a stretch as to the impression people have of communion in general.

It was seen as a political agenda,blurring the line between church and state.

In addition both political and religious topics are not to be posted in Townhall.Communion and the meaning and importance of it is beyond a doubt a religious topic. Granted that is ignored by many and I agree the political overtones,not the religious tone to this is what prompted the move.It probably should have been placed in the Religious liberty forum but I suspect it would not have gotten the attention you wanted it to generate

[Woody]

To be honest Bonnie. I give up on getting my posts in the right forums. I don't purposefully place them in the wrong forums. But at times I don't have the energy it takes to analyze where it needs to go. And after all - it's above my pay grade. Where to put threads can be argued till the cows come home. And it just depends upon who you are talking to.

I am happy to have anyone who chooses to move my threads. No big deal. That is just one of the particulars that we have here at this forum. But it is clear to me that this thread got hijacked into a political thread when it was not. The date that one has communion should not be political.

[bonnie]

To be honest Bonnie. I give up on getting my posts in the right forums. I don't purposefully place them in the wrong forums. But at times I don't have the energy it takes to analyze where it needs to go. And after all - it's above my pay grade. Where to put threads can be argued till the cows come home. And it just depends upon who you are talking to.

I am happy to have anyone who chooses to move my threads. No big deal. That is just one of the particulars that we have here at this forum. But it is clear to me that this thread got hijacked into a political thread when it was not. The date that one has communion should not be political.

Communion was tied to election day and from the first response it was seen as having a communion with a political agenda

[Woody]

Yes Bonnie. Some have a big imagination. Not sure how you have a communion with a political agenda. But then perhaps some have a different concept of communion than I do.