TexasCHLforum.com

BIDEN WANTS PASTORS, RABBIS AND NUNS TO TELL THEIR FLOCKS: ENACTING MORE GUN CONTROL IS THE MORAL THING TO DO
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... ing-to-do/

I can't stand it when churches try to influence who the people are to vote for, and I can't stand it when the government tries to tell churches/religious leaders how they should preach. Disgusting.

Rrash wrote:BIDEN WANTS PASTORS, RABBIS AND NUNS TO TELL THEIR FLOCKS: ENACTING MORE GUN CONTROL IS THE MORAL THING TO DO
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... ing-to-do/

I can't stand it when churches try to influence who the people are to vote for, and I can't stand it when the government tries to tell churches/religious leaders how they should preach. Disgusting.

I thunk there was a separation of church and state.

Coulda swore there was.

Of course, anyone who listens to this fool and follows his lead is worshippping someone/something besides God.

Anygunanywhere

This is what Jefferson ment by Separation of Church & State.
Not prayer at a football game.

One can only wonder if any religious organization would listen to the same administration that requires them to fund abortions???

anygunanywhere wrote:

Rrash wrote:BIDEN WANTS PASTORS, RABBIS AND NUNS TO TELL THEIR FLOCKS: ENACTING MORE GUN CONTROL IS THE MORAL THING TO DO
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... ing-to-do/

I can't stand it when churches try to influence who the people are to vote for, and I can't stand it when the government tries to tell churches/religious leaders how they should preach. Disgusting.

I thunk there was a separation of church and state.

Coulda swore there was.

Of course, anyone who listens to this fool and follows his lead is worshippping someone/something besides God.

Anygunanywhere

longtooth wrote:This is what Jefferson ment by Separation of Church & State.
Not prayer at a football game.

longtooth wrote:This is what Jefferson ment by Separation of Church & State.
Not prayer at a football game.

Bingo.

and

SF18C wrote:One can only wonder if any religious organization would listen to the same administration that requires them to fund abortions???

Bingo.

I seem to also recall the administration trying to leverage religious institutions when wanting to cram more taxes down the throats of the people. These political hussies have no shame.

SF18C wrote:One can only wonder if any religious organization would listen to the same administration that requires them to fund abortions???

Shouldn't the ACLU be screaming about this blatant violation of the First Amendment?

bdickens wrote:Shouldn't the ACLU be screaming about this blatant violation of the First Amendment?

The silence is deafening.

bdickens wrote:Shouldn't the ACLU be screaming about this blatant violation of the First Amendment?

Actually the concept of separation of church and state is not based on the 1st amendment. It was Jefferson's belief and was quoted from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The 1st amendment forbids the federal government from establishing a religion and forbids interfering with citizen's right to exercise their religion. A point to consider is that there were actually religions formed and sanctioned by state governments at the time of the Revolution and establishment of our country.

Anygunanywhere

I am aware of that, thank you. You are missing the point.

anygunanywhere wrote:

bdickens wrote:Shouldn't the ACLU be screaming about this blatant violation of the First Amendment?

Actually the concept of separation of church and state is not based on the 1st amendment. It was Jefferson's belief and was quoted from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The 1st amendment forbids the federal government from establishing a religion and forbids interfering with citizen's right to exercise their religion. A point to consider is that there were actually religions formed and sanctioned by state governments at the time of the Revolution and establishment of our country.

Anygunanywhere

Jefferson's letter.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bdickens wrote:I am aware of that, thank you. You are missing the point.

Please explain. If your point was sarcasm my meter broke.

I really want to understand your point.

Anygunanywhere

Personally, I would argue that a government official trying to feed a line to the church is if not actually in violation of the First Amendment (since there's no actual compulsion) at least bordering on uncomfortable territory. How long until the churches that parrot the official line start finding it easier to get what they need from the government (building permits, whatever) than the ones that don't? Or if not specific churches, how long before certain sects/denominations/groups start being favored? Maybe the ones who don't cooperate start getting labeled as activist and have trouble with tax-exempt status, or being looked at as extremists and potential terrorists?

It's a route that leads to interference with free exercise, and if suddenly some churches/religions have government approval and others don't we essentially have an establishment of religion.

So no, separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, but I do believe this is a potential First Amendment issue.