than it has now.

The religious right have been a highly organized, very active and frighteningly effective force.

While some religious groups have played negative roles in civil rights, voting rights, the death penalty etc., it seems there was always a strong stand on the other side that were able to counter them.

The religious community I was raised in was all about civil rights and peace.

Although I think there are some great and growing groups/coalitions working on issues we support, they seem mostly to be doing it quietly. I would love to see more groups like Moral Mondays.

With all the right wing figures taking such an antagonistic, bombastic approach - and promoting actual legislation along such narrow, bigoted lines - it calls for a pause. And a more vocal opposition, which I feel will include religious groups in the coalition.

I do think the populace wants a pause, and I do think we have the opportunity to build coalitions to fight the religious right. There is no doubt that religious groups are critical to doing that and they need to take back the mantle.

But the real power will come when religious and secular groups combine forces, like they did for the AA civil rights movement and against the VN war.

It's been happening, but doesn't get a lot of attention. Those that wish to divide down religious lines need to step aside.

DO NOT MIX. Should be kept separate, period. There's a reason for the separation of church and state... government is relative to maintaining a social order regardless of one's religion or not having a religion. Religion is a personal matter that should be left to individuals to decide for themselves and not foisted upon others no matter what interpretation of the edicts of any given religion or belief system one chooses to accept.

when we cross them.

OTOH, religious individuals and organizations have been on the forefront of some movements that are near and dear to my heart.

While I agree that religion should not be foisted on others, I do not agree that religion has no role in the social-political mile.

as a belief system which is helpful for those who need personal guidance in their lives and that is fine. I also think that individuals can find moral purpose by way of their belief system(s) BUT I think that the line should be drawn right there. If like-minded individuals choose to act as a group to promote a cause that does not include the rest of the population accepting or being forced to adhere to that particular groups belief system, I have no problem with that. But the rabid insistence that everybody has to live according to a particular group's belief system for them to feel secure or whatever it is they claim-as we are witnessing these days, we have a big problem. This is akin to the Hasid men insisting that a woman on a plane in the next seat over is an abomination and that accommodations be made for him because of his beliefs... also meaning that whatever her beliefs are don't count because he has a problem with her existing in a seat he doesn't occupy in a relative public setting. At which point I would say that this is something they should keep to themselves and not trouble others with their issue. That these people want to live and believe in some philosophical setting is their choice and does not require everyone else to march along with their parade, and that's all there is to it. If their religion requires that everyone else has to march in lock-step... they can go find some sinking island in the ocean and live that way, but I sure as hades won't be joining them... I like my individual freedom too much to worry about fulfilling somebody else's prophecy

Some ideologies that I agree with and totally support are promoted by people that are driven by their religious beliefs.

That doesn't mean that there aren't others who are equally driven by ideologies that have nothing to do with religion.

If a person or group engages in political activism based on their religious beliefs, and I share their objectives, that's just fine with me.

Many groups do this without any requirement or expectation that others will live by their beliefs at all.

Your example of the hasid men on the airplane is a good example of imposing one's beliefs on others and I agree that that is problematic.

OTOH, if there are religious people or groups that make a religious case for economic justice, I have no wish for them to hide the religious underpinnings.

I support or challenge issues regardless of whether they are based in religion or not.

"religious individuals" with "religion" and think that the latter is necessary to cause the actions of the former.

...since religious individuals and organizations being part of movements near and dear to your heart would have nothing to do with the role of religion in politics.

movements is about the role of religion in politics. Even if the religion of some of those individuals and groups does not play a role, it does play a role for others.

Sorry if I was not clear.

that "the role of religious individuals and organizations in political movements is about the role of religion in politics" then you have confused what you just claimed you had not.

No politician should advocate for one religion or another. Or no religion at all. They are called upon to not do so by the clause. And they should be held to that standard.

Conversely, no religious body should advocate for one candidate or another. One political party or another. They are called upon to not do so by the clause. And they should be held to that standard.

Yet, I feel all should rightly have a voice in the public discourse. In typical constitutional history, it's an ongoing debate.

So there are people who frame their desire for social justice in terms of religion, and then there are people who frame their equally-strong desire for social inequality in terms of religion. Frequently, the same religion.

There are a wide variety of ideologies in this world. People get them from whatever sources speak to them. There are people with political ideologies that have nothing to do with religion that I find abhorrent.

So if some people use religion to support, say, homophobia, and others to support GLBT civil rights, that should not be surprising.

The good news is that there is a group one can support in order to fight against the other.

But any group of people can organize to influence the government. It doesn't matter if I (or anyone) agrees with that group, they should be allowed to speak, assemble, and petition the government over grievances.

It's up to our representatives (and reps of all groups) to work out how we can all best live together.

When a legislative action is done in the name of a specific religious dogma, how can one argue that it adheres to the first amendment religious test?

In the three prong Lemon Test, one is that the legislation have a secular purpose.

Here, from Wiki:

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[2] which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

1. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)

2. The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)

3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)

If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/04/this-is-why-church-tax-exemptions-should-be-ended-watch-this-preacher-politico/

Completely false. Church's and other religious groups enjoy a status of tax protections shared by every other nonprofit in the country. There are some differences in filing requirements and in the parsonage exemption, both of which I agree should be changed.

.
False. They pay taxes to the same extent as any other 501.c.3


The laws permit non-profits to be involved in politicking, but they are prohibited from endorsing specific candidates. Would we want planned parenthood to be prohibited from politicking?


They law does require them to play by the same rules, however the IRS enforcement is extremely lax and they overtly ignore the breaches exhibited in your linked video.


Again, preaching politics in general is permitted. Promoting candidates is not, and this preacher is clearly breaching the rules.

If we were to exclude churches from the status enjoyed by other non-profits, that would be a serious problem in terms of the 1st amendment and a very, very slippery slope.

But not advocate for candidates.

I concur with your corrections.

The knee-jerk "tax the churches" position is a feel good approach, but so wrong and show a deep misunderstanding of the issue.

When that happens, it makes it harder to pursue the issues attached to this that need addressing:

- the blatant violations of the non-profit status by some groups
- the blatant violations of promoting candidates from the pulpit
- the issues around lenient annual filing requirements
- the parsonage exception

I wish we could focus on those and get away from this completely unsupportable goal of removing their tax status completely.

I remember during Bush's reign a church was investigated and threatened with the loss of its tax exempt status by advocating for peace from the pulpit.

Seems hypocritical one is targeted and one is allowed to tell parishioners exactly how to vote.

I'm always afraid of Theocracy specifically because of the, Conservative War on Women, specifically eroding our hard won access to safe abortion and birth control in general.

They have been very, very politically active, including being a major base for OWS Los Angeles.

It is highly hypocritical and I support all of them being monitored by the IRS and closely examined if necessary.

We share a fear of theocracy, but I also fear throwing the baby out the bathwater and strongly support religious groups that pursue causes I hold dear.

I know its impossible to ask for, but damn near every time religion tries to influence politics, either directly or indirectly, it is at the expense of someone else's rights.

rights issues in the 60s. Good. But that wasn't all - the church helped to get things like the food stamps and other hunger programs passed. And there were other safety net programs. I know that in the Great Depression the churches were very glad for the help given to their poor. In the 80s churches (esp. Catholic) helped the immigrants. Some of the churches were against the Vietnam War.

I think much of this was not done as a part of the churches so called God given calling to be the ruler of the nation but more as a effort to show the love that was called for by Jesus. They asked their followers to support programs that would help others - they did not run candidates and present bills in congress. They were the church and the state was separate from that. You would never have seen anyone presenting a bill in congress to make going to church mandatory. They would have been laughed off the planet.

On the other hand today much of the church (not all) are conservative and they want their beliefs enacted as the law of the land. They are now vying for the role of the rulers instead of preachers. And they have taken any love that Jesus ever talked about out of their belief system. It is not love that brings them into the equality and rights issues - not even into the immigration issues. It is not love that makes them want the safety net destroyed. It is hate.

Yesterday I think their position was what the church should be. Today I do not want them anywhere near the government with their hate preaching.

I don't believe that much of the church is conservative, I just think the part that is is louder, more organized and more activist. The liberal/progressive religiously based movements are still out there, but they have been far too quiet for far too long, imo.

some good things in the past - we need them now to stop this hate movement.

They are two factions that carry the same label, but little else.

The religious groups that you describe were all present and active during our younger years. When they start to make news, I feel strongly that we should support them.

the 60-80s.

I remember the so called Pentecostal and white Baptist churches moving into many of our churches (using young people mostly) in the 70s to infiltrate the mainstream and turn them from their traditional stance to what the rw is today. I do not remember a single traditional church that did not have this happen. Some of the churches totally lost their own ways to this group. Others fought back - mine did but they are still feeling the effects.

If the traditional churches can get rid of that movement and go back to their original stances it would be good.

However I am sorry to say that so far I have not seen many churches who think this way about LGBT rights. I know of several denominations that do and that is a start.

In my neighborhood the churches were at the forefront of the civil rights movement and then the anti-war movement. The invasion/infiltration of the neocon driven rise of the religious right was not known to me until it was quite late.

People are deserting these churches in droves, and it looks like that might be in large part due to their disagreeing with the political/social positions of the churches. That may, indeed, lead to exactly what you hope for.

There has been a pretty strong movement towards embruing GLBT rights, though, I agree, it's not as rapid or pervasive as I would like to see.

"The church" did not do any those things.


People did the things you speak of. And they did not actually require the church to do them. Although people appear to have a boundless capacity to ignore this, and shift all credit away from the people and to the church.


It is one of religions truly great skills, taking credit for anything good its adherents do while avoiding blame for anything bad they do (that's all the people's fault, bunch of sinners...)

If your local planned parenthood organization arranges, supports or participates in a right to choice rally, would you say that PP actually didn't do any of those things?

If your local or state environmental groups developed, promoted and spearheaded a campaign to reduce water consumption, would you say that the environmental groups didn't actually do those things?

Of course there are individuals who are involved in PP or EarthShare California, but it is the organized groups that get things done. It's not an effort to shift all the credit away, but an effort to give credit to all and any who participate, including organizations.

Religious detractors have great "skills" in not giving credit to organizations if they are religiously based and to hold a huge double standard when it comes to religious vs. secular orgznzations. Some balance would be refreshing from certain quarters, but not expected.

Was "the church" doing those things? Or the people in the chrch?

(hint, trick question! Only people can do those things...)

Can you name some aspect of their being in the church specifically that was a demonstrable prerequisite for any of the activities they did?

"If your local or state environmental groups developed, promoted and spearheaded a campaign to reduce water consumption, would you say that the environmental groups didn't actually do those things? "

If people were both in the habit of claiming that those groups were necessary to do those things and constantly confusing cause and effect and declaring "environmentalism" caused those things to happen (as opposed to people causing things to happen because they think those things needed doing and then labeling their actions "environmentalism" because those things happened to be related to the environment)... Yes.

Fortunately people generally don't do that with environmental issues, so there's no need on that subject. Whereas they appear not to be able to stop doing it with regards to religion, so there is a need on that subject.

Did the ACTUP do those things? Did the NAACP do those things? Did the SDS do those things?

Or just the individuals involved?

(hint, trick question - it's both).

Nice talking to you.

Turning it around and rephrasing it might seem like a clever response to you, but it accomplishes nothing. The answer doesn't change, and my point doesn't alter.


No matter if you use the church, or planned parenthood, or the ACLU, or whatever, the same principles are involved.


Just to use Planned Parenthood, since you seem to have a mental block when it comes to using the church as the illustration...


"Planned Parenthood" didn't cause anything to happen.


People saw a need. People took action to fill that need. Those people decided to cause the organization they formed to perform the actions they had decided to take "Planned Parenthood".


Now, you can then proceed to say "Planned Parenthood did X" ******IF****** you understand that that is simply verbal shorthand for "those people over there, who we're going to refer to collectively as "Planned Parenthood", did X" while recognizing that it was *the people* that are responsible for everything that was done and "Planned Parenthood" is nothing more than a convenient categorization of said people.


If tomorrow Planned Parenthood shut down, the people who make up Planned Parenthood would still exist. And they could still go out and do all the things they were doing before. They could organize under some other label. Because they were the driving force behind those things happening, not some nebulous concept called "Planned Parenthood".



The problem is when people say "religion does X" or "the Church does X" they far too often mean the exact opposite of the reality. They're not using a shorthand. They actually mean religion, or the church, is making the people do things and not the other way around. Like religion or the church are some kind of autonomous force all it's own. They in fact do this so often that it becomes necessary to point out the reality when people say those things on that particular subject just to make sure it's clear.

national newsletters, Bible studies and other ways of calling its people to action. I being one of the people in need was often asked to speak at group meetings and Bible studies to explain what I thought needed to be done. The one thing my church has never done and never will do is preach from the pulpit on political issues. The preacher cannot TELL us what to do. But behind the scenes there is no barrier to talking issues as a tool of learning.

In the civil rights and voting issues the black churches LED the movement. Many of the leaders of the movement were ministers. They did it. And the Catholic Church was very supportive of the immigration movement back then. Also there was a movement in Protestant churches called the Sanctuary Movement.

As for taking credit - if I were a church today I would not want to take credit for what the haters are doing. Would you?

...without the opening lines:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218191739#post41

The republican party became a religion.

It just became a bigger one.

religious organizations were much more likely to be fighting for causes that we, as liberals, support.

Not too late to take it back, imo.

How about the VN anti-war movement?

And that's just in my lifetime.