doubtful hahaha! slimey bastid he is stirring up the masses

(albeit a progressive, liberal, social-justice-social-gospel-oriented one), I am SICK. TO. DEATH. of hearing the whining of too many Christians in this country about alleged "persecution" and "lack of freedom to worship" and "no religious liberty" and "religious liberty for others but not us" and "this was founded as a Christian nation", etc., etc., blahblahblah, yadayada. The very opposite is the case. You want to see Christians that are truly persecuted with little religious liberty? Try living in Iran or Saudi Arabia or China. And the fact that "Christians" in Tennessee, the Twin Cities, and several other parts of the country have denied or are attempting to deny the building of mosques, and are freaking out over the non-issue of alleged "Sharia Law" usage in this country, among many, many other things, never seems to register with them.

As long as THEY get to worship the way THEY want, that's all that counts. What they REALLY mean by the lack of "religious liberty" is that THEY aren't able to impose their own version of religion on everyone else. It's like white privilege or fish swimming in water, they don't realize just how religiously privileged they really are in this country. And that separation of church and state is not only absolutely constitutional, it is vital for a working, successful democracy. Attempts to maintain it are NOT religious "persecution" or some such horseshit.

to that rant

I agree 100%

Like I've said before, I would rather spend time with Social Justice Christians ANY DAY over Ayn Rand Atheists

where is the violation? Religious people have freedom of speech too, and there is nothing in the videos that I saw that comes even remotely close to violating tax exempt status.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that people of religious faith should just STFU when it comes to politics? If I'm misunderstanding, then I stand corrected, and perhaps you can clarify for me what you meant.

no

There is some strong implications about what they want people to do, but as long as they don't endorse any candidates, they are within the laws that protect their tax exempt status. They are very careful to stay within those lines, imo.

Not to mention the fact that individual clergy, acting outside of their official church roles (not the case here, obviously) are also free to make partisan declarations without endangering their church's tax exempt status.

status sly devils they are

it's that 'strong implication' where i see the fuzzy line

I mean, it's clear what they are doing - mobilizing against the muslimhumanistsecularistsdirtyatheistliberals

But unless they say outright to oppose the Democratic party or Obama, they're in the clear.

they choose their words carefully

similar things. Well not the fasting, praying thing, but they do promote specific political ideologies. Some have been very important in causes for social justice and civil rights. Some have been active in the occupy movement. Do we want to shut them down?

I'm for separation of church and state no matter the players



Here's an interesting list, including at least one reported alleged violation of a church advocating for Dems:

http://projectfairplay.org/legal/reports/

regressive churches need to be very careful.

But this is not a separation issue as it is presented.

Thanks for the link.

but the implication is clear, especially if you go through their materials list and see things like "Obama Administration Actions Affecting U.S. Religious Freedom," the upcoming America is in crisis telephone conferences with Bachmann and Santorum ( http://40daystosaveamerica.com/register.html ), and the "Urgent Call to Defend Our Religious Liberty" with Chuck Colson that reads :

No harm, no foul in either case.

As I understand, churches are not allowed to endorse or oppose a particular candidate or contribute to or use church resources advocating for one candidate over another, including free use of their church lists.

But pastors, clergy and nuns in the case of your example can speak about specific issues, and individually, they can endorse and/or support a member’s campaign but not with church resources or not as representatives of a particular church.

In this case of "40 Days to Save America" and other religious voter mobilizing efforts, including the "Pulpit Free Sunday" coming up in October, imho, they are walking a very thin line when they invite political discussion into the church and talk negatively about the candidate they don't like.

Here's more on Pulpit Free Sunday: http://projectfairplay.org/facts/debunking/

"As I understand, churches are not allowed to endorse or oppose a particular candidate or contribute to or use church resources advocating for one candidate over another, including free use of their church lists. "

Nothing in the video does that and nothing indicates that the "40 Days to Save America" will do that. Churches are free to advocate for or against issues all day long, with no repercussions regarding their tax exempt status.

They are free to say "We disagree with President Obama on abortion rights and contraception". They aren't allowed to say "Vote against Obama" or "vote for Romney".

You seem to think it's a fine line, when really, it isn't. Unless they are outright and openly advocating, by name, for a particular party or candidate, they are not violating the law.

and does not violate the law.

But there's more there than the video I posted in the OP. Some of the content at their links in their Action section imply opposition toward Obama and the current administration. Yes, its implied, too - Save America from Obama! Regardless, they are careful in their ads not to cross the line. What happens in their churches, I don't know. Project Fair Play seems to feel similarly as I do about these sorts of things:

http://projectfairplay.org/facts/intro/


They may not be violating the law, but it's a fine line, imho. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for playing, though, bye.

But yes, we'll agree to disagree. I see no problem with it at all.

There is options to choose to register with Democrats and/or Republicans. It's actually non-partisan no?

"a violation of {the separation of} church and state"?

A video on Youtube is not forced prayer in public schools, or crucifixes on public land.

"make a difference" "difference" is not the status quo therefore notwithstanding naming a candidates name, the subtle technique to influence for whom to vote is present.

Without an explicit call to vote for or against a party or a candidate, there is no violation.

Why do people get so worked up over religious people talking about politics or advocating for issues, when they're clearly within the bounds of the tax laws?

Churches are free to advocate for or against policies, laws, etc. Churches can say they oppose or support a candidates stand on a issue, they can say the oppose or support a candidate's policy, etc.

What they can't do is specifically, in their official roles, tell parishioners to vote for or against a candidate or party. Outside of their official role, in either private or public, they are permitted to say that they will vote for/against a candidate or party, and they can campaign for or against candidates or parties, again, outside of their official roles.

when they are investigating.

the content of action materials as well as the content at the various links sure look to be in clear violation. Here is their current newsletter directly linked from their main page: http://www.40daystosaveamerica.com/

In order to help these "gentle christians" stick to their fast, closing their doors for 40 days would really show their commitment to this "righteous" cause.