Yes

That's not teaching the Bible. That's being political.

njohn87 said:

---

As a weekly Baptist churchgoer, I'd sincerely rather be slaughtered in the sanctuary along with my entire family by Sharia super soldiers than hear about border policy from the pulpit.

---

Sharia super soldier thing was a little out there, but yes keep pitiful team politics entertainment slop out of church. Jesus wouldn't support or waste his time promoting any of these useless con-men on either side.

Also one of the guests keeps making pretty big leap in logic where he quotes Paul about the need for strong leadership in the church and applies it to responsibility in government. I didn't go to seminary, but it seems self-evident that our respective roles in our own churches and our respective roles as citizens are two different things. I mean you're talking about a setting with the presumption of regenerate leadership versus one where it's presumed, uh, not to be that. Certainly in Paul's time.

Got a Natty! said:

---

Yes

That's not teaching the Bible. That's being political.

---

"Teaching the Bible" is an amorphous concept, and Christianity predates the Bible. The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn abortion.

Religion is inherently political, and all politics flow from moral precepts. Politics are how we interact with each other in society. If a pastor wants to read from extra biblical Church documents that condemn communism or about social doctrine, those are political in nature, AND they're part of the Church's magisterial teaching. Teaching that we have a moral duty to participate in government in a certain way by voting for people whose politics align with our own on things like the dignity of the human person is a part of what the Church teaches.

The Sun said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

It's discrimination against a certain type of speech.

Your view is held by lots of Libs. Doesn't make it right.


Thank you Pres Trump for effectively fixing this!

---

No it isn't. Churches got tax exemptions because they were apolitical. If they choose to drop that facade they should pay taxes just like everyone else does.

---

Churches got exemption from income tax because at the time that the income tax was foisted on the citizens of the United States, the backlash against taxing churches would have prevented the 16th amendment from being passed in Congress. At the time, the large majority of the citizens of the United States were Christians who attended church and would have opposed taxing churches.

At the time the 16th Amendmentwas passed, most of the citizens of the US never expected that they as individuals would earn enough to be required to pay income tax. Of course, in hindsight the 16th amendment was the nose of the camel underneath the edge of the tent.

The threat of removing tax exemption from churches that take a stance on political issues has only ever been applied to churches that take a conservative stance. Lyndon Johnson was thrilled to have the Great Society welfare programs cheered from the pulpits of the Democrat party's newly purchased loyal voting block, which was ironically the same voting block that the Democrat party had sought to suppress by fighting against the end of segregation and the Civil Rights Act.

Buying votes by welfare programs and suppressing conservative dissent from churches is just what the system is designed to do.

Will the natural evolution of churches that present political positions be the takeover of politics as the center of church activity and organization of political entities as churches? Has this already essentially happened?

Good preacher: Congregation has no clue his politics.

Great preacher: Every one is certain the preacher agrees with their personal opinions.

Bob Lee said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

I'm very far to the right but I agree with Alex. And this needs to be enforced.

We have had way too much of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

People can politic and say what they want, but they should then not be able to stand behind a tax exemption shield.

We do have separation of church and state. Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from.

---

Where do you draw the line between the religious and the political?

---

This question right here should be EOT. You can't draw a line, hence the absurdity of suggesting "churches shouldn't discuss politics". This reminds me of the monumentally stupid line that gets repeated here often - "You don't legislate morality". Blows my mind that some people can't stop and think for a moment what the govt would do if they got to decide where the boundaries were on what is "religious" vs "political" talk.


"Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from." Um...the state sticking their hands in the church. One of the most twisted lies of our national history has been allowing people to believe that "separation of church and state" was because they primarily wanted to keep the church out of the state. Truth is the complete opposite.

I remember when the Houston mayor wanted transcripts from every Houston church's sermon to review for political purposes.

Is this what we want as a way to enforce this tax rule? I think not. (My church refused of course).

I think the bigger issue of delving into politics is the risk of turning away the flock. LCMS is conservative and is having trouble with this now in some places. It's one thing to preach that homosexuality is a sin and having people turn away, but another to lose congregants due to assumptions about politics.

Josh Howerton is speaking more truth for Jesus and conservatism than anyone right now.

AlexNguyen said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Churches are more than free to preach politics from the pulpit. But they should lose their tax exemption

---

Screw that garbage!

Sincerely yours,

The First Amendment

---

The First Amendment says nothing about tax exemptions does it? I think any organization with a political slant including churches and media companies should not hold tax exemptions.

---

I whole heartedly agree with you…but we need to start with the TRILLIONS of dollars that change hands between NGO's & Democrats. Start there, oh and there's NO statute of limitations…but start there and I will endorse reversal of 501(c) status for a church espousing/promoting a specific political party.

Wait one more time, I can point to thousands of black church pastors that specifically promote the Democratic Party.

Evangelicals often promote an exegetical style of Bible teaching that defines & refines their world view. As a previous poster eloquently stated, the world view developed through the Biblical lens determines politics not the other way around.

Colonel Nonreg said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Churches are more than free to preach politics from the pulpit. But they should lose their tax exemption

---

Screw that garbage!

Sincerely yours,

The First Amendment

---

The First Amendment says nothing about tax exemptions does it? I think any organization with a political slant including churches and media companies should not hold tax exemptions.

---

I whole heartedly agree with you…but we need to start with the TRILLIONS of dollars that change hands between NGO's & Democrats. Start there, oh and there's NO statute of limitations…but start there and I will endorse reversal of 501(c) status for a church espousing/promoting a specific political party.

Wait one more time, I can point to thousands of black church pastors that specifically promote the Democratic Party.

Evangelicals often promote an exegetical style of Bible teaching that defines & refines their world view. As a previous poster eloquently stated, the world view developed through the Biblical lens determines politics not the other way around.

---

Absolutely. You're 100% right about the links between NGOs. They can be very insidious with charters and founding purposes that can be very benign on the surface. In practice too many are corrupt and are actually ways to funnel tax dollars to grifters and especially the Democratic Party as seen with the recent USAID scandals.

A time is coming when the restrainer is removed. The Left wants the Church out of everything. God will grant them this wish. It's coming.

tk111 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

I'm very far to the right but I agree with Alex. And this needs to be enforced.

We have had way too much of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

People can politic and say what they want, but they should then not be able to stand behind a tax exemption shield.

We do have separation of church and state. Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from.

---

Where do you draw the line between the religious and the political?

---

This question right here should be EOT. You can't draw a line, hence the absurdity of suggesting "churches shouldn't discuss politics". This reminds me of the monumentally stupid line that gets repeated here often - "You don't legislate morality". Blows my mind that some people can't stop and think for a moment what the govt would do if they got to decide where the boundaries were on what is "religious" vs "political" talk.


"Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from." Um...the state sticking their hands in the church. One of the most twisted lies of our national history has been allowing people to believe that "separation of church and state" was because they primarily wanted to keep the church out of the state. Truth is the complete opposite.

---

You draw a line when advocating for specific votes on specific issues. Churches shouldn't do that. It's not that hard to define where/how theology should be applied to politics w/out specifying how people should decide.

Doesn't Howerton have quite the estate? Always a red flag for me personally.

cecil77 said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

I'm very far to the right but I agree with Alex. And this needs to be enforced.

We have had way too much of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

People can politic and say what they want, but they should then not be able to stand behind a tax exemption shield.

We do have separation of church and state. Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from.

---

Where do you draw the line between the religious and the political?

---

This question right here should be EOT. You can't draw a line, hence the absurdity of suggesting "churches shouldn't discuss politics". This reminds me of the monumentally stupid line that gets repeated here often - "You don't legislate morality". Blows my mind that some people can't stop and think for a moment what the govt would do if they got to decide where the boundaries were on what is "religious" vs "political" talk.


"Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from." Um...the state sticking their hands in the church. One of the most twisted lies of our national history has been allowing people to believe that "separation of church and state" was because they primarily wanted to keep the church out of the state. Truth is the complete opposite.

---

You draw a line when advocating for specific votes on specific issues. Churches shouldn't do that. It's not that hard to define where/how theology should be applied to politics w/out specifying how people should decide.

---

It isn't saying vote for Candidate A over Candidate B. It is looking at policy and putting it up to the only measurement that Christians should be putting it up to - the Bible.

Currently, and this is based on looking at it platforms of parties, one party is for items that are directly against what the Bible says. It is just pointing out that when you vote for this party's candidates, you are voting for this platform (because they vote in a block 99.9% of the time).

All Howerton has said that as a Christian, if you are voting for a member of the Democrat party, understand that you are voting for this, which is directly against what is taught in the Bible.

The big thing from the conversation that the pastors had was that idea about pushing out people who find that hard to process. If that person is having a hard time processing that voting for the Democrats party is a vote for sin, then thy are also going to have a hard time when discussions of sex and gender is on the table as well (and what the Bible says about that).

They were convicted after hearing from people in their own churches/missionaries that they support that it is time that we need men/women to start taking politics seriously and using their God-given gifts of the Spirit to impact government for the betterment of God's people (all not just one party).

On a side note - I found it especially evil that the Obama administration made performing an abortion as a mandatory action in medical school to advance. I would love to see the papers/guidance that he saw while at the White House, but that is pretty sick.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Doesn't Howerton have quite the estate? Always a red flag for me personally.

---

So did Job before God allowed the devil to take it all away. And then God not only restored it but doubled it.

We have a lot of people on this site that are godly men that have nice homes. If you are responsible with the resources that God has given you for His kingdom, then He will bless you with more.

I understand what you are saying with people like Olsteen and I am sure your discernment is warranted, but I would look at Howerton's actions and words before judging him for what he has.

The IRS last January, in one of its very first actions after the Trump inauguration, binned the enforcement of the Johnson amendment so the horse is out of the barn on pastors endorsing political candidates.

Most evangelical leaders seemed to intuitively grasp this is dumb policy. I know a survey from the NAE showed 98% of evangelical pastors saying they should not endorse candidates. I suppose that 2% is some mix of Robert Jeffress, Paula White-Cain, Mark Burns, and Franklin Graham.

njohn87 said:

---

As a weekly Baptist churchgoer, I'd sincerely rather be slaughtered in the sanctuary along with my entire family by Sharia super soldiers than hear about border policy from the pulpit.

---

My goodness!!

Line Ate Member said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

I'm very far to the right but I agree with Alex. And this needs to be enforced.

We have had way too much of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

People can politic and say what they want, but they should then not be able to stand behind a tax exemption shield.

We do have separation of church and state. Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from.

---

Where do you draw the line between the religious and the political?

---

This question right here should be EOT. You can't draw a line, hence the absurdity of suggesting "churches shouldn't discuss politics". This reminds me of the monumentally stupid line that gets repeated here often - "You don't legislate morality". Blows my mind that some people can't stop and think for a moment what the govt would do if they got to decide where the boundaries were on what is "religious" vs "political" talk.


"Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from." Um...the state sticking their hands in the church. One of the most twisted lies of our national history has been allowing people to believe that "separation of church and state" was because they primarily wanted to keep the church out of the state. Truth is the complete opposite.

---

You draw a line when advocating for specific votes on specific issues. Churches shouldn't do that. It's not that hard to define where/how theology should be applied to politics w/out specifying how people should decide.

---

It isn't saying vote for Candidate A over Candidate B. It is looking at policy and putting it up to the only measurement that Christians should be putting it up to - the Bible.

Currently, and this is based on looking at it platforms of parties, one party is for items that are directly against what the Bible says. It is just pointing out that when you vote for this party's candidates, you are voting for this platform (because they vote in a block 99.9% of the time).

All Howerton has said that as a Christian, if you are voting for a member of the Democrat party, understand that you are voting for this, which is directly against what is taught in the Bible.

The big thing from the conversation that the pastors had was that idea about pushing out people who find that hard to process. If that person is having a hard time processing that voting for the Democrats party is a vote for sin, then thy are also going to have a hard time when discussions of sex and gender is on the table as well (and what the Bible says about that).

They were convicted after hearing from people in their own churches/missionaries that they support that it is time that we need men/women to start taking politics seriously and using their God-given gifts of the Spirit to impact government for the betterment of God's people (all not just one party).

On a side note - I found it especially evil that the Obama administration made performing an abortion as a mandatory action in medical school to advance. I would love to see the papers/guidance that he saw while at the White House, but that is pretty sick.

---

Disagree with some of that. Preacher says "abortion is evil" that's fine. Precher then provides his evaluation of the Democratic party ( or any party) - "so don't vote for them". That's inappropriate for a preacher.

cecil77 said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

I'm very far to the right but I agree with Alex. And this needs to be enforced.

We have had way too much of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

People can politic and say what they want, but they should then not be able to stand behind a tax exemption shield.

We do have separation of church and state. Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from.

---

Where do you draw the line between the religious and the political?

---

This question right here should be EOT. You can't draw a line, hence the absurdity of suggesting "churches shouldn't discuss politics". This reminds me of the monumentally stupid line that gets repeated here often - "You don't legislate morality". Blows my mind that some people can't stop and think for a moment what the govt would do if they got to decide where the boundaries were on what is "religious" vs "political" talk.


"Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from." Um...the state sticking their hands in the church. One of the most twisted lies of our national history has been allowing people to believe that "separation of church and state" was because they primarily wanted to keep the church out of the state. Truth is the complete opposite.

---

You draw a line when advocating for specific votes on specific issues. Churches shouldn't do that. It's not that hard to define where/how theology should be applied to politics w/out specifying how people should decide.

---

It isn't saying vote for Candidate A over Candidate B. It is looking at policy and putting it up to the only measurement that Christians should be putting it up to - the Bible.

Currently, and this is based on looking at it platforms of parties, one party is for items that are directly against what the Bible says. It is just pointing out that when you vote for this party's candidates, you are voting for this platform (because they vote in a block 99.9% of the time).

All Howerton has said that as a Christian, if you are voting for a member of the Democrat party, understand that you are voting for this, which is directly against what is taught in the Bible.

The big thing from the conversation that the pastors had was that idea about pushing out people who find that hard to process. If that person is having a hard time processing that voting for the Democrats party is a vote for sin, then thy are also going to have a hard time when discussions of sex and gender is on the table as well (and what the Bible says about that).

They were convicted after hearing from people in their own churches/missionaries that they support that it is time that we need men/women to start taking politics seriously and using their God-given gifts of the Spirit to impact government for the betterment of God's people (all not just one party).

On a side note - I found it especially evil that the Obama administration made performing an abortion as a mandatory action in medical school to advance. I would love to see the papers/guidance that he saw while at the White House, but that is pretty sick.

---

Disagree with some of that. Preacher says "abortion is evil" that's fine. Precher then provides his evaluation of the Democratic party ( or any party) - "so don't vote for them". That's inappropriate for a preacher.

---

What's the difference?

Line Ate Member said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Doesn't Howerton have quite the estate? Always a red flag for me personally.

---

So did Job before God allowed the devil to take it all away. And then God not only restored it but doubled it.

We have a lot of people on this site that are godly men that have nice homes. If you are responsible with the resources that God has given you for His kingdom, then He will bless you with more.

I understand what you are saying with people like Olsteen and I am sure your discernment is warranted, but I would look at Howerton's actions and words before judging him for what he has.

---

I don't know his words or actions well, but I typically am highly skeptical of any mega / multi campus church where you have the guy at the top doing quite well financially. It seems like it never ends well.

In general I have not been a big fan of the social media stuff I have seen of his.

I don't see where the Job example fits in.

cecil77 said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

I'm very far to the right but I agree with Alex. And this needs to be enforced.

We have had way too much of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

People can politic and say what they want, but they should then not be able to stand behind a tax exemption shield.

We do have separation of church and state. Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from.

---

Where do you draw the line between the religious and the political?

---

This question right here should be EOT. You can't draw a line, hence the absurdity of suggesting "churches shouldn't discuss politics". This reminds me of the monumentally stupid line that gets repeated here often - "You don't legislate morality". Blows my mind that some people can't stop and think for a moment what the govt would do if they got to decide where the boundaries were on what is "religious" vs "political" talk.


"Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from." Um...the state sticking their hands in the church. One of the most twisted lies of our national history has been allowing people to believe that "separation of church and state" was because they primarily wanted to keep the church out of the state. Truth is the complete opposite.

---

You draw a line when advocating for specific votes on specific issues. Churches shouldn't do that. It's not that hard to define where/how theology should be applied to politics w/out specifying how people should decide.

---

It isn't saying vote for Candidate A over Candidate B. It is looking at policy and putting it up to the only measurement that Christians should be putting it up to - the Bible.

Currently, and this is based on looking at it platforms of parties, one party is for items that are directly against what the Bible says. It is just pointing out that when you vote for this party's candidates, you are voting for this platform (because they vote in a block 99.9% of the time).

All Howerton has said that as a Christian, if you are voting for a member of the Democrat party, understand that you are voting for this, which is directly against what is taught in the Bible.

The big thing from the conversation that the pastors had was that idea about pushing out people who find that hard to process. If that person is having a hard time processing that voting for the Democrats party is a vote for sin, then thy are also going to have a hard time when discussions of sex and gender is on the table as well (and what the Bible says about that).

They were convicted after hearing from people in their own churches/missionaries that they support that it is time that we need men/women to start taking politics seriously and using their God-given gifts of the Spirit to impact government for the betterment of God's people (all not just one party).

On a side note - I found it especially evil that the Obama administration made performing an abortion as a mandatory action in medical school to advance. I would love to see the papers/guidance that he saw while at the White House, but that is pretty sick.

---

Disagree with some of that. Preacher says "abortion is evil" that's fine. Precher then provides his evaluation of the Democratic party ( or any party) - "so don't vote for them". That's inappropriate for a preacher.

---

Just curious as to why?

If you consider that pastor as a wise counselor in other aspects of your life, why are you saying that the spiritual leader of you church has no say/sway in how you should view politics?

Why is his counseling on marriage or children raising be good but his views on politics as bad (if he is basing those views on the Bible and pointing out why this is bad)?

All three of those pastors have also said that there are bad apples within the Republican Party also. They didn't say one side was better because of the people (since we as humans all fall short). They just emphasized that one side essentially has a creed dedicated to sin and one doesn't currently.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Got a Natty! said:

---

I'm very far to the right but I agree with Alex. And this needs to be enforced.

We have had way too much of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

People can politic and say what they want, but they should then not be able to stand behind a tax exemption shield.

We do have separation of church and state. Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from.

---

Where do you draw the line between the religious and the political?

---

This question right here should be EOT. You can't draw a line, hence the absurdity of suggesting "churches shouldn't discuss politics". This reminds me of the monumentally stupid line that gets repeated here often - "You don't legislate morality". Blows my mind that some people can't stop and think for a moment what the govt would do if they got to decide where the boundaries were on what is "religious" vs "political" talk.


"Remember our history and what our founding fathers were fleeing from." Um...the state sticking their hands in the church. One of the most twisted lies of our national history has been allowing people to believe that "separation of church and state" was because they primarily wanted to keep the church out of the state. Truth is the complete opposite.

---

You draw a line when advocating for specific votes on specific issues. Churches shouldn't do that. It's not that hard to define where/how theology should be applied to politics w/out specifying how people should decide.

---

It isn't saying vote for Candidate A over Candidate B. It is looking at policy and putting it up to the only measurement that Christians should be putting it up to - the Bible.

Currently, and this is based on looking at it platforms of parties, one party is for items that are directly against what the Bible says. It is just pointing out that when you vote for this party's candidates, you are voting for this platform (because they vote in a block 99.9% of the time).

All Howerton has said that as a Christian, if you are voting for a member of the Democrat party, understand that you are voting for this, which is directly against what is taught in the Bible.

The big thing from the conversation that the pastors had was that idea about pushing out people who find that hard to process. If that person is having a hard time processing that voting for the Democrats party is a vote for sin, then thy are also going to have a hard time when discussions of sex and gender is on the table as well (and what the Bible says about that).

They were convicted after hearing from people in their own churches/missionaries that they support that it is time that we need men/women to start taking politics seriously and using their God-given gifts of the Spirit to impact government for the betterment of God's people (all not just one party).

On a side note - I found it especially evil that the Obama administration made performing an abortion as a mandatory action in medical school to advance. I would love to see the papers/guidance that he saw while at the White House, but that is pretty sick.

---

Disagree with some of that. Preacher says "abortion is evil" that's fine. Precher then provides his evaluation of the Democratic party ( or any party) - "so don't vote for them". That's inappropriate for a preacher.

---

What's the difference?

---

If you can't tell, then explaining it to you again isn't going to help.

I am not trying to derail this thread. But people should be aware that the CIA and other orgs have run programs that used different denominations and related orgs for a long time now.

This is not the CIA cutting a check and telling a preacher what to say. They are more sophisticated than that. But the influencing of opinion has gone on for a while now. In the 1960s for example certain churches were infiltrated so their missionary activity could be used for cover getting people into countries of interest.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Doesn't Howerton have quite the estate? Always a red flag for me personally.

---

So did Job before God allowed the devil to take it all away. And then God not only restored it but doubled it.

We have a lot of people on this site that are godly men that have nice homes. If you are responsible with the resources that God has given you for His kingdom, then He will bless you with more.

I understand what you are saying with people like Olsteen and I am sure your discernment is warranted, but I would look at Howerton's actions and words before judging him for what he has.

---

I don't know his words or actions well, but I typically am highly skeptical of any mega / multi campus church where you have the guy at the top doing quite well financially. It seems like it never ends well.

In general I have not been a big fan of the social media stuff I have seen of his.

I don't see where the Job example fits in.

---

You said you were wary about Howerton because he has a nice estate.

Job found favor with God and was blessed with earthly "things". Devil stripped it all away and he was left with nothing but Job even in his anger spoke to God. My guess, and this is just from listening to his sermons and him discussing the trials in life that he has overcome and endured, if his nice house went away and his earthly things were gone, he would still praise Him.

That is the only parallel that I was drawing.

Quote:

---

You said you were wary about Howerton because he has a nice estate.

Job found favor with God and was blessed with earthly "things". Devil stripped it all away and he was left with nothing but Job even in his anger spoke to God. My guess, and this is just from listening to his sermons and him discussing the trials in life that he has overcome and endured, if his nice house went away and his earthly things were gone, he would still praise Him.

That is the only parallel that I was drawing.

---

I have read a lot of interpretations of Job, but saying it explains wealth accumulation by pastors is a new one to me.

Im Gipper said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Churches are more than free to preach politics from the pulpit. But they should lose their tax exemption

---

Screw that garbage!

Sincerely yours,

The First Amendment

---

LOL. Nobody is saying they can't do what they want.

He is saying that they don't get special treatment.

Im sure you see the different and are not actually a moron.

Tex117 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Churches are more than free to preach politics from the pulpit. But they should lose their tax exemption

---

Screw that garbage!

Sincerely yours,

The First Amendment

---

LOL. Nobody is saying they can't do what they want.

He is saying that they don't get special treatment.

Im sure you see the different and are not actually a moron.

---

You're not understanding. They want their special treatment and to have it both ways.

Tex117 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Churches are more than free to preach politics from the pulpit. But they should lose their tax exemption

---

Screw that garbage!

Sincerely yours,

The First Amendment

---

LOL. Nobody is saying they can't do what they want.

He is saying that they don't get special treatment.

Im sure you see the different and are not actually a moron.

---

Perhaps you should work on reading or understanding the law.

The First Amendment protects one from government punishing your free speech. When you have a tax benefit taken away, that is punishment. No one is getting "special treatment."

Sorry conservative principles hurt your feelings.









How many churches do you think have lost tax exempt status for preaching politics from the pulpit? And once your figure out the answer, why do you think its "Zero"?

Answer: The First Amendment

I see it repeated from time to time but why on earth would anyone think that tax exempt status requires an organization to be apolitical? PACs are tax exempt for crying out loud.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

You said you were wary about Howerton because he has a nice estate.

Job found favor with God and was blessed with earthly "things". Devil stripped it all away and he was left with nothing but Job even in his anger spoke to God. My guess, and this is just from listening to his sermons and him discussing the trials in life that he has overcome and endured, if his nice house went away and his earthly things were gone, he would still praise Him.

That is the only parallel that I was drawing.

---

I have read a lot of interpretations of Job, but saying it explains wealth accumulation by pastors is a new one to me.

---

my parallel was only that if his nice stuff went away, he would be the same person you see now. I don't care how much money he has. I don't know a thing about his finances or how much he gives because that is between him and God.

We have been poisoned by bad actors in the faith when dealing with wealth and the pulpit. Some have used it to get rich. A pastor at a church I used to attend promoted his wife's cook book, which didn't sit right with my wife and I.

I don't think it is wrong for a good pastor to make money. Just like I don't think it is wrong for a gifted businessman to make a lot of money.