Should politics be preached from a pulpit?

If churches want to preach politics then they don't deserve the tax exempt status, period. This is not a 1st amendment issue - Tax them!

Do we really want to go back to a time when the church could tell you how to think and damed you to hell if you did not.

One result of the Persian-Hellenic blend of myths was Mithras.Mithras was a Persian deity, but other than his name used" to give itself an exotic oriental flavor,"[4] Hellenic Mithraism wasdistinctly pagan. Mithraism began and flourished at the same timeas did Christianity. The cult gained enormous popularity and bythe third century hundreds of mithraeum--underground temples where Mithras was worshipped--were spread out across Asia Minor, Africa,Italy, Greece, and the German and Scottish frontiers where Roman soldiers were stationed. Mithras is the most recognizable of the Mediterranean gods that was said to have been physically virgin-born; a flattering imitation of the Ishtar priestesses ofBabylon. Mithras was depicted as a" bull-slayer" and stone-carved reliefs display a tauroctony where Mithras plunges a knife into the neck of a great bull, while the blood spills down to the ground. The bull-slaying scene always takes place inside of a cave, symbolically represented by the mithraeum's locations in caves and underground grottos. To understand this symbolic bull- slaying, we must first look briefly at the Greco-Roman world's understanding of the universe.

The ancients believed that the sun, the moon, "wandering" stars (planets), comets, and other celestial bodies were heavenly gods who were in motion about a stationary earth. Since the sun (Sol invictus) seemed to be the most influential of the celestial gods, it was especially worshipped and regarded as annually "reborn" at its lowest point in the sky during the winter solstice of December 25th.[5] Since the plane of the ecliptic--the path that the sun travels in the sky--traces out the band of the twelve star-patterns that make up the zodiac, the sun was considered a god that gave "birth" to, or was a father of, the twelve zodiacal gods. The Greek astronomer Hipparchus made the astounding discovery in 128 BCE that the zodiac of constellations slowly drifted backward over time so that they appeared, with respect to the suns position at winter solstice, in a new location in the heavens. Every 25 thousand years these constellations slowly moved; a phenomenon we know today to be the precession of the equinoxes which is caused by the "wobble" of the earth on its axis. To the ancients, it was a frightening and astounding event:

Hipparchus, who assumed that the earth was immovable and at the center of the cosmos, could only understand the precession as a movement of the entire cosmic sphere. In other words, Hipparchus's discovery amounted to the revelation that the entire universe was moving in a way that no one had ever been aware of before. . . . [The precession] had profound religious implications. A new force had been detected capable of shifting the cosmic sphere: Was it not likely that this new force was a sign of the activity of a new god, a god so powerful that he was capable of moving the entire universe?[6]

At the time Hipparchus made his discovery, the spring equinox, which signaled the resurrection of the sun-god, appeared in the constellation of Aries the Ram. Before Aries, it was seen that the equinox fell on Taurus the Bull. This celestial movement taking place among the heavenly gods and the "death" of Taurus the Bull made a tremendous impact. Mithras became that celestial force who was strong enough to slay the bull and was able to command the very heavens to do his bidding.

In Mithraism, just as in Christianity and Zoroastrianism before them, the world was a constant battleground of good and evil; a bitter dualistic struggle between the hosts of demons and the elect who serve God. Spirituality warred against the physical, and darkness imperiled the good fortune of light. Mithras represented the divine son of the sun-god and the savior of good against darkness in the universe who battled against the minions of evil to save mankind.

Because Mithras could move the celestial sphere at will, he was seen as outside of the universe. Carvings of Mithras reflect his birth as a naked child bursting from an egg-shaped petra genetrix, or "Generative Rock." The rock caves where the mithraeum were located symbolize the "womb" from which Mithras emerged. His escape from the confines of the rock, attest to his extra-universal power to escape the celestial sphere and command the heavens:

[Mithras'] birth is said to have been brought about solo aestu libidinis, "by the sole heat of libido...." The earth has given birth--a virgin birth--to the archetypal Man.[7]

Mithras was born on December 25th, the eve of the winter solstice when the sun is at its lowest point in the sky. With the dawn of light on Mithras' birth "the priest emerged from the temple to announce triumphantly: The God is born!"[8]

When Christianity gained power in the fifth century, Mithraism was declared heretical and ruthlessly scourged. Before that time, Christianity and Mithraism coexisted and were undoubtedly influencial upon each other. This mingling and influence are apparent in the manner with which Christianity overtook Mithraism. The former had no trouble incorporating Mithraism's followers into its own ranks and many former mithraeums were converted to churches. Many Roman churches today, the Church of San Clemente in Rome most notably, still contain well-preserved mithraeums in their vaulted burial crypts. The lines that divided Mithraism from Christianity were understandably blurred due to this slow and steady absorption of Mithraism by Christianity during the centuries that the two existed side-by-side. This process led to the similarities that we now see shared between the two religions:

[Mithras] was said to have been sent by a father-god to vanquish darkness and evil in the world. Born of a virgin (a birth witnessed only by shepherds), Mithras was described variously as the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Word, the Son of God, and the Good Shepherd and was often depicted carrying a lamb upon his shoulders. Followers of Mithras celebrated December 25th (the winter solstice) by ringing bells, singing hymns, lighting candles, giving gifts, and administering a sacrament of bread and water. Between December 25th and the spring equinox (Easter, from the Latin for earth goddess) came the 40 days' search for Osiris, a god of justice and love. The cult also observed Black Friday, commemorating Mithras' sacrificial bull-slaying which fructified the earth. Worn out by the battle, Mithras is symbolically represented as a corpse and is placed in a sacred rock tomb from which he is removed after three days in a festival of rejoicing.[9]

Jesus' virgin-birth was probably attributed to him during this time. Matthew and Luke write that Jesus was born of a virgin in 1:18-25, and 1:26-35, respectively. Mark, the earliest of the synoptics, makes no such claim and the Gospel of John would never think of reducing Jesus, the divine Logos, to mere flesh and blood. The Gospel of Mark aligns itself closely with the earlier Q--the forty or so oral tradition sayings that are believed to be derived from Jesus' teachings directly--and does not think to concern itself with the biography of Jesus prior to his baptism by John. To early Christians, the childhood or place and manner of the birth of Jesus was irrelevant. The Kingdom of God was at hand and Jesus the messenger had warned them of that fact and that they should prepare for the new heaven and earth that was to come in their lifetimes. Given Jesus' apoclyptic message and instructions to repent and prepare for the Lord, a posterity-driven biography would seem absurd. If the Kingdom of God was at hand, as Jesus taught, then there would be no future generations to read anything that was codified in the present. Thus, the oral tradition preserved Jesus' teachings in short, concise pericopes (short sayings) and Jesus' followers gave little thought to writing them down at first because of the very nature of the apocalyptic movement that had sprung up around them.

As time went by it could be seen that the Kingdom of God was delayed. Among the Hellenized Jews and the Greek pagans who were considering conversion to Christianity, this delay posed more questions than answers. Additionally, Greek pagans, from which Christianity was to draw its converts and eventually thrive, were naturally skeptical of any new savior and the heavenly rewards they might promise. These Greeks had to pick and choose among the dozens of mystery cults and gods that had sprung up, each promising riches and eternal bliss in a heavenly afterlife. Jesus had little to offer these Greeks. He was, by all accounts, a mortal Jewish messiah, speaking only to the sons of Abraham and telling them to prepare the way of the Lord who would build a new Jerusalem especially for his chosen people. The Marcan Jesus that was known to his followers during the middle-to-late first-century (before the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John) shared none of the attributes of the time-honored moral-savior deities of Dionysus or Herakles. Jesus' later-added attribute of virgin-birth necessary if Jesus was to be made acceptable to the pagans of the Hellenized world.

Considering Barack Obama and his twenty-years mentorship by Jeremiah Wright from the Trinity church of hate, politics and religion are joined at the hips. i have no problem with churches and religions expressing their political views, and I don't attend any churches except for weddings and funerals.
They have the same rights as groups like the American communist party - dontcha think?
http://americanpoliticalblog.wordpress.com/

If you want the freedom to say whatever you want then pay your taxes like the rest of us.

I agree! Let them exercise their 1st Amendment Rights. Then do something long-overdue; remove tax exempt status and make them pay takes on land, assets and income. Pontificate all you want Gus...

I do think that this country is quite confused about what "separation of church and state" means, but I would agree that these pastors should only be talking about the issues and how they relate to Christianity, rather than endorsing candidates. If they want tax exemption, then they should refrain from campaigning... it's not censorship, but it is separation of church and state. The law is designed to keep us from a state church, just as the constitution does. I think the ADF needs to back off of this one, and go for a real issue about separation of church and state... there are plenty.

I believe yes they should be able to do so. I don't see how it is any different than "news persons" giving a slant to their reports i.e. New York Times or Sean Hannity. Many film and TV stars get to ply their political beliefs on public airwaves. PBS, a public funding recipiant, even has a socialist biased message. I don't see the logical connection between being a tax free entity and not being able to exercise free speech.

This is simply an outgrowth of rampant intermingling of Church and State that has pervaded US politicians in the last two decades. Presidents holding prayer meetings, or mayors holding interfaith rallies, candidates courting pastors in their election campaigns -- it has already been happening!

It is simply a smaller part of a concerted movement (the ID movement, the faith based initiatives, legislation allowing the teaching of the Old and New Testaments in public school curriculum in Georgia) that has been going on for a while.

Christian Fundamentalism has become more rampant, and this is just a part of it.

Having said that, I have no objections to preaching politics from the pulpit as long as the organizations are subject to IRS regulations just like any other organization.

Other non-profit groups are allowed to voice their political views, so why not Christians? It is time that the rules apply equally to all. I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation if the group in question was Muslim. The freedom of religion does not prohibit religion, just the mandating of a national religion. Read the Constitution or perhaps T. Jefferson's letter where "separation of church and state" came from.

Keep the USA a Secular Country

In a democratic country are we allowing a political party to create a country where religion dictates policy? In the United States our elected officials job is to protect everyone’s right to believing anything they choose. Political officials should refrain from presuming to speak for the whole nation on religious beliefs and principles. The religion that our politicians practice in public often smells of sanctimony, manipulation and self-adulation. There symbolic gestures make for bad religion, bad politics and evil ideology. Separation of church and state is the one thing the creators of the Constitution did agree on that it wasn't to be a religious government. People should feel free to speak their minds about religion but not dictate it or put it into law.

As Thomas Jefferson said, it does not affect me if a citizen worships 20 Gods, one God, or no God.

What the people need from political leaders are the virtues of truthfulness, justice, practical wisdom, courage and the strength to protect and prevent right wing evangelical politician from forcing you to believe what they want you to believe.

If an elected official of a specific religion voted their conscience, we could have a government that prohibits all coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and stimulants. Or prohibit blood transfusions and inoculations and used only prayer for medical treatment. Another might deny eating of all shellfish or pork and restrict all work or transportation on their Sabbath, and require all women to wear wigs. What about one that says a woman may not have an abortion under any circumstances, where divorce is illegal and birth control is a felony? What about a government where women were under the strict domination of males, had to be covered from head to toe, had limited formal education and could be put to death for minor offenses, where punishments for misdemeanors were meted out by an axe

In a country that has preachers, prophets, poets, and houses of worship does not need politicians expressing its piety collectively in public places. Individual citizens can be trusted to find their own ways of expressing religious convictions and practice it’s virtues. The right-wing evangelicals wants to see a theocacy in the US.

I believe that life is not a trial period of any sort. This is our opportunity to experience intellectual, emotional, and spiritual enlightenment and to leave our mark on a civilization that will outlast our lives. I believe that the unattainable goal in life is to die with no regrets. Life is a quest for truth, not salvation.

For you religious nuts that live in the world with the pink sky hold on to your hats: there are actually pagans, atheists and agnostics who are good, honest, hard working people whose moral compass comes from common sense, a sense of self-esteem and social conscience. I know, I know this detachment of "goodness" from 'religion" probably blows your mind but it's true. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. There is ample evidence on both sides for good people and bad people. So you'd think after 2000 years the 'mission' to spread the gospel around the world would be achieved. I'm pretty sure everyone has heard of Jesus by now. Can we please have a "Don't call us, we'll call you" deal with the political missionaries?

Faith based groups are legally allowed to discriminate. They receive federal money and practice this discrimination. I would prefer to tolerate all faiths but when the faith groups are not playing by those rules you simply must refuse them money and power. Look at the facts people. This abuse of money and power by faith based groups infiltrating our government is well documented and must stop.

Mormons have subjugated women far longer than any other church that I can think of except Muslims. It's a cult with a broader view of power. This kind of dangerous religiousness is just what we are fighting in the middle east. I for one do not want Rabbi's, Priests, Shamans, Ministers, Mullah's, Emmams, Monks, Evangelicals or anybody else of religion running my country when it is obvious they have other motives. People can choose to believe in whatever religion they want, but they need to keep it out of government.

Allowing pharmacists and health care providers to refuse service because their religious belief disagrees. That is discrimination. If religion is allowed to discriminate, there should be no laws preventing me from discriminating against religious people for their beliefs. If pharmacists and health care providers are allowed to refuse service based on religious beliefs, then why not required them to wear badges to warn customers so we can avoid them. Providing me with the same rights to discriminate as well. Pharmacy and health care facilities should be required by law to install signs declaring their establishment is controlled by religion beliefs. The customers will know to avoid this establishment so that that they will not be humiliated when trying to pick up prescriptions. Or when they seek medical attention.

Approximately 130 million Americans believe Earth's age to be about 6,000 years old. And they can vote!!!

Vote for candidates that will “Keep the USA a Secular Country”
Protect Separation of Church & State

The separation of Church and State as it were does not separate faith communities from the public arena. Faith, of course, is personal, but it is not private; and neither Judaism nor Christianity – or any other faith tradition - can be fully, spiritually renewing or redemptive without being socially responsible. Our biblical faith states that God is One and God is sovereign - Sovereign of all creation, Sovereign of our personal and family lives, and the Sovereign of society and all its institutions, be they social, political, economic as well as religious. The role of communities of faith is: to call attention to the ethical dimensions of all issues; to keep alive theologically informed values as a norm for social, economic and political life; and to point out the demands of our faith for a just transformation of society. Having said this, we need to remind ourselves that as we attempt to apply spiritual values to our public life, that our faith tradition is not about imposing sectarian doctrines on others’ lives. Nor is it about becoming a religious interest group or single-issue voting block. In fact, religious communities - as communities of conscience within our pluralistic public arena - are called to offer an alternative to ideological religion (whether from right, left or center). We are called to be value-driven but not ideological, political but not narrowly partisan, civil but not soft - and involved but not used.

It's very simple. No one says a minister, pastor, priest or rabbi can't endorse a candidate or say anything else (besides "fire" in a crowded theater). They do have first amendment rights. But...if they want tax-exempt status, the legislation that provides it says they can't play politics. So, the choice is theirs. Play politics; pay taxes. What could be more fair? Next thing you know lobbying organizations will want tax-exempt status saying "if these church guys can politicize and be tax exempt, why can't we?" To make their case more compelling, they may even say a prayer before a lobbying session.

Obama came right out of Reverend Wirhts church. He may not be in the pulpit but the message is the same.

"Do we really want to go back to a time when the church could tell you how to think and damed you to hell if you did not."

That time never left.

We all know that people are sheep. Especially the ones that go to church. So when you have a priest or a minister standing up in front of a congregation (and some are so very full of sheep), telling them for whom they should cast their vote or they will go to hell, you know that sheep will listen. This way they don't have to think for themselves. This is so very un-American. This is how the Inquisition starts.

THIS APPEARS TO BE ANOTHER ARGUMENT AMONGST MANY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION FO THE FAIR TAX. JUST THINK, THE END OF FEDERAL SLAVERY.

um #7, news people don't take tax money. WAY different.

Obama came right out of Reverend Wright's church. He may not be in the pulpit but the message is the same.

And for us non-religious types, allowing churches to be tax exempt - whatever the creed - puts on all of us the burden of supporting old myths that we don't feel have validity after several thousand years.

What defines a church? Do you need to believe in a god or gods? What would prevent anyone from founding the First Church of Atheists? No matter how much that church would give back to the community, it's tax-exempt status would be beaten down by the outraged howls of those who know they belong to the ONLY valid religion.

You may not see the connection between being a tax free entity and free speech but it's still the law and, like everyone else, churches are obligated to obey it or face the consequences.

Sure, the churches can do whatever they want. Just take away their tax exempt status.

Just because a church doesn't agree with you, why should they have to keep quiet? Let preachers preach what they want.

It's ok for Barack's preacher, for Farrakan etc. but not a conservative?
Typical liberal double standards.

Where are we going in this country? One of the premises of the constitution is separation of church and state. Once we let one group of people start governing every faction of our lives then we are no longer a democracy. I believe that we are becoming facist. Is this what we want?

You know, the more I think about it the more I'm realizing that it really goes against the idea of separation of church and state to make them tax free organizations to start with. Why should they be free of taxes at all? Doesn't the fact that churches are not taxed imply some level of government sponsorship in the first place? I say tax them, and let them say what they want from the pulpit!

They certainly do have a fist amendment right to say anything they want. No one is talking about taking the Pastors to jail. It just exposes them to paying taxes like everone else. The Alliance Defence Fund's timing is perfect. Our country needs the churches to pay taxes to help reduce the deficit.

Yes !
The black churches have had their hand in shaping politics and voting habits from the pulpip for decades. Let it happen. What are you afraid of? That some conservative opinions may be expressed in a free speech society? Wouldn't that be just a shame?

By the way, evolution has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, although they teach it in our state run brain washing school system. Talk about narrow minded.
Just maybe there is a creator !

Chruch has no place in politics as politics has no place in religion.

You bet they should be taxed and FINED.

It's mostly the Evangeli-Cults. I'm so tired of pastor's and priest's either molesting children or driving Mercedes or both.

If people are stupid enough to listen to these idiots then there going to be told how to vote anyway. People who depend on Religion that much don't think for themselves. The Church tells them how to think, how else are they going to make money.

Also, when did Churches start hiring all of these lawyers? It's pretty disgusting. I believe in God, not Churches.

No one stopped Rev Wright or Father Pfleger from injecting politics into their sermons. They not only injected politics, they espoused their extremist views while damning and defaming the United States and the white race on a regular basis. No one challenges them or suggest that they shouldn't be tax exempt.

bmac ,

Non-profit groups that are not religious are subject to the same Constitution.

Providing tax breaks to a group that establishes religion *and* wants to endorse candidates *is* amounting to the government endorsing that group, and therefore that religion.

And no, if the group was Muslim, you'll have the same issue.

Churches/Christianity have become so much about big business and politics they should DEFINITELY be required to pay taxes.

Pastors should be able to say whatever they want from the pulpit. Most will not, because they run the danger of watching their congregation leave. This is no longer a time when a Baptist is always a Baptist, etc... If you don't like a church, you try the next one down the street.

I am personally offended by any religion.
This country was founded on the principal that we have the right to worship (or not) any way we want and our beliefs are our own.....Thomas Jefferson even wrote his own bible. That is why there is a separation between church and state......
Churches need to stay out of politics and if they can't, they need to have their tax exempt status removed.
We are not a religious country, we are a free country.

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

Updated: April 17, 2008

THEY CAN SAY ALL THEY WANT WHEN THEY START PAYING TAXES. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS REAP GREAT BENEFIT FROM NOT PAYING TAXES. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE MORMON CHURCH ARE TWO OF THE LARGEST LAND-HOLDERS IN THIS COUNTRY. THEY BRING IN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SPEND AS THEY LIKE WITHOUT PAYING TAXES ON ANY OF IT. SIMPLE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,
TOO BAD NONE OF OUR POLITICIANS SUBSCRIBE TO THE CONCEPT.

This is very simple. Ministers, priests, rabbis, imams all have First Amendment rights. That's not what this is about. Tax-exempt status is given to religious groups with the understanding that they will not engage in politics. The rules are simple: play politics; pay taxes. Trying to hide an endorsement behind a screen of discussion about religious principles is like cheating on taxes. I hope the IRS does a good job of monitoring this group and its adherents, and takes away their tax-exempt status. Next thing you know some lobbying group will argue "if they can politicize and avoid taxes, why can't we? Heck, we say a prayer before our lobbying meetings."

CHURGH REPESNTS THE HOUSE OF GOD. pOLITICS DO NOT BELONG THERE! REKILLIAN

Churches are already doing it, so let 'em preach politics all they want. And lets tax all religious institutions and raise money for the poor and social programs instead of allowing churches to spend most of their tax exempt monies on brick & mortar palaces and preacher comforts like limos, vacation houses.

People who go to the type of churches that would tell you how to vote and what candidate to vote for are not free thinkers anyway. It doesn't matter whether it happens in the pulpit or at fellowship hour, the parishoners will do what they are told. The have chosen these particular churches because they do not want to struggle with the doubt and questions that can arise when one is asked to have faith. They attribute a disturbing omnipotence to their clergy and only move away from that if their pastor is exposed in all his human frailities in a very shaming and public way.

Those of us who are from a more liberal theology understanding that it is the relationship of the individual to God, and not some intermediary that matters. It is instead important to be a questioning, doubting member of a faith community, finding fellowship and support in each individual's faith journey and distinct relationship with a Higher Power

If this idea flies, watch for every political group in the country to start a church.

Personally, I would kind of like it. I don't belong to a church, but I do give politically. If I could join a church and make my political donations tax deductible I'd do it in a new york minute.

I believe the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster would be my first choice.
We could probably direct almost 100% of parishioner contributions to political purposes. The Spaghetti Monster is far less demanding on our resources than the typical church.

You may not believe there is a logical connection between free speech and tax -exemption but it is the current law and these churches must obey the law or suffer the consequences just like everyone else. And in this case that means paying taxes.

bmac: Other non-profit groups are NOT allowed to advocate for specific candidates. Only PACS (aka 527's) are allowed to do so, and they are NOT tax-exempt. If you want to play, you have to pay. Otherwise, stick to the laws as they are. Ever wonder why your donations to your favorite candidate are NOT tax-exempt? That's why!

And why just Christians? I thought you wanted the rules to apply to all?

I've read the Federalist Papers. Have you? It would seem you haven't.

Bmac-what? Other non profit groups like whom? Example? Like say a charity? Or PETA? If thats what you mean, then I'd like to point out that no where in our Constitution does it state "separation of animal rights and state"....

come on folks.

This is extremely dangerous territory. If this is the new way, please explain to me how its any different than countries ruled by religious extremists?

Nobody is saying that pastors don't have first amendment rights of free speech. They can say whatever they want.

But if they engage in politics, they don't get the special treatment of being tax exempt. It's just like a non-profit operating for profit, then complaining that they lose their tax breaks.

I'll also point out that they don't really care about the principle of free speech, but are specifically trying to promote Republicans. The same Republicans that argue for the 'free speech' of churches to promote Republicans are the first to file lawsuits whenever a liberal pastor even indirectly promotes Democrats from the pulpit.

So while they can argue that they would like to promote Republicans while retaining their tax exempt status, there's no reason for anyone to take their proposals as anything other than self-serving politicizing of churches, which is ultimately bad for all concerned.

Seriously, the second churches start preaching politics they should have their tax-exempt status taken away. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE should mean something.

No!

If a minister, cleric, priest, rector, rabbi engages in political discourse the religious building in which he/she serves should be taxed. They are free to express their views but not from the pulpit.

We left a church in whcih we had friends because the minister attempted to influence our vote.

Religion shapes our wold view, and our conscience influences are vote, but it is not the role of our rector to tell us how to vote.

If they are actually non-profit churches, then I don't really care. The televangelists and mega-churches should be paying megabucks if they even think about playing politics.

Everyone else who uses their first amendment rights and makes a profit has to pay taxes. Exempting religious groups from taxes seems to me as against the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

So really, there's no reason why a church should be treated any differently from any other community group. If it makes money, tax them. If not, don't.

Should politics be preached from a pulpit? No!
An individual’s political activism and religious activism may be a continuum of self, but a religious organization must limit itself only to religion.

Rev. Gus Booth: "I have a First Amendment right to say whatever I want to say, and I've never thought it was appropriate that as a pastor I could not share my political concerns with the congregation." As a pastor his political concerns are just politics.
Because of his religious position, anything he would share would be conceived as an extension of his religious leadership. This would be unacceptable.

Separation of Church and State only relates to the action of the government and thus it could be argued it would not be applicable to political activism of religious institutions. I greatly support our secular government; otherwise we could have been forced to abide by theocratic concepts for the government such as those in Saudi Arabian or Israel.

Having been a minister for nearly 40 years, I am always amazed at how many people think that Evangelicals should be allowed to preach their religion, but only if they keep politics out of it. Don't they realize how utterly political the Bible is? In saying that Jesus is the Messiah, we are addressing something that not only has a personal, "spiritual" dimension, but something that thoroughly political. So much of the Old Testament is directly and explicitly political. Are we not to preach it? Prophecy in the Bible almost always has political overtones. Are we to keep silent about it? And even it this were not the case, it is the core duty of ministers to help people come to God-honoring decisions in all areas of their lives. And that necessarily includes politics.

Whether or not the IRS recognizes the tax-exempt status of the churches that preach politics, that is not the churches' problem. However, if the IRS allows tax-exemption for churches that only preach about how to be nice and think happy thoughts, but denies it to churches that show people how to integrate their beliefs into ALL of life (including political life), then the IRS is guilty of content-discrimination -- something that the courts have consistently ruled is unConstitutional. To prohibit churches from preaching their faith at pain of losing their tax-exempt status is to establish (by exclusion) certain kinds of religion as sanctioned by the government and to disestablish other kinds as not sanctioned. That is a direct violation of the First Amendment, which mandates government neutrality in the areas of speech, press, religion, and assembly.

I applaud the ministers who intend to go head-on with President LBJ’s unConstitutional ban on preaching politics from the pulpit (which he got passed to protect himself from political attacks and to silence his opponents). A huge percentage of the messages I have preached throughout my life have had a significant political component. Don't like it??? Tough luck!

Political leaders like Barack Obama and John McCain receive tax free money every time they run for office. In Obama's case perhaps a billion dollars this year alone. All they talk about are moral issues. All Obama's campaign contributions should be taxed to him personally as unearned income.

Tax exempt is due to non-profit status which is independent of its preachings or endorsements. There are many other examples that the ignorant can find. Religeon is based on a set of principles and beliefs and it is the duty of the church to remind its congregation. It is not innapropriate to highlight where a candidate has stood on these.

Other Non-profit groups are NOT allowed to be political advocates. Those activities are specifically excluded by the law. The NRA and Sierra club are not non-profit specifically because of this. I think this is by and large correct.

If churches want to become politically active organizations, then they can give up their tax exempt status like any other organization.

Screw the tax exempt status... It is corrupt to use the house of god to encourage a certain choice in man's petty conflicts.

The pulpit has been the internet, the television, the radio, and the newspaper of this country since before there was a country. The founding fathers may have been Southern Planters, New England Silversmiths, and Philadelphia Almanac Publishers, but the 'mothers' of this country were preachers telling their 'children' to wake up and get their heads out of their back pockets. Regardless of what preachers, rabiis, priests, monks, mullahs, imans, medicine men, witchdoctors, or whatnots say on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (remember that "Freedom of Speech" thing?), they should have every right to say it, to whoever will listen. It's really pathetic that we've become such a timid little country of sheep; led around by the @#%$^# IRS (and others of equally worthless character). No wonder we're falling apart like a house of cards in a hurricane. Given all the rights the porno crowd has, why not let these holy rollers have their say; can't hurt, who goes to religious services these days anyway?

Aren't churches considered non-profits? Non-profits cannot endorse political candidates. Christian organizations, including churches, already voice their political views, so its not like they are being persecuted as the political right try to scare their constituents into believing. Just look at Focus on the Family and Westboro Baptist Church. They've been feeling expressing their 1st amendment right for decades.

I think there's a problem when we have the state forcing religious doctrine (of any brand) on everyone, primarily due to the hypocrisy, control, loss of freedom, and corruption that inevitably follows. Do we really need to go through the Dark Age again? Seriously?

I'm all for them exercising their First Amendment rights and endorsing a candidate - provided that the IRS is on top of it and yanks away their tax-exempt status as quickly as possible. The partisanship of this country is already scary enough without us having to return to the 17th Century and having sanctimonious preachers telling us how to vote. The pilgrims left England to get away from this kind of idiocy almost four centuries ago.

I have a problem with these people actually being considered 'christian fundamentalists.' Their concerns are so far from christian, that it is digusting. Christ was never a politician. In that, he is being confused with Mohammed, who himself was a highly dignified statesman. Christ says no where in the bible which way one ought to lean on abortion. This has been inferred and cannonized over the centuries, yet it is not found anywhere in The Scriptures. I refuse to believe that Jesus Christ would vote this way or that way, and would never pretend to know His personal politics. I do suspect, having had a knack for helping those less fortunate, he would not really fall on the conservative/give-more-to-those-with-the-most side of the spectrum. Then again, I think the most Christian thing to do is to trust that one's parishoners have the insight to be able to chose for themselves perfectly which candidate would best represent them in the White House.

Unfortunately, most people go to church to recieve a sense of what their duty is, not to appreciate the miracles of God. This sort of thing could very well have a deep impact. I'll pray that it doesn't.

They can say whatever they want, even exorcise witches for all I care. I believe people should be free to say whatever they want, no matter how inane it is. However, I have long thought the tax exemption should be lifted on them, too, about time they too render unto Caesar...

Spare me the left wing rhetoric about church and state. Spare me the watered down theology of the worldly view of Christianity. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits religious organizations for taking part in the political process. There is a lot in the constitution about your 1st amendment rights and freedom of speech.

Funny how the left can not stand to loose or admit how wrong their brand of politics are. What makes you think tax exempt status is a leverage point for making churches cow down to mammon. If you are voting you pocket book or giving for the tax break you are voting and giving for the wrong reasons. Preach the word sisters and brothers – tax exempt status or not.

Dana Pintago

The purpose that the founders of America had was to keep government out of the church, not to keep the church (God) out of government. The First Amendment allows EVERYONE freedom of speech. The former :"Free Press" is now a left wing liberal propaganda machine; the TV networks are probably the most powerful left wing propaganda machines; Hollywood and TV producers interject their left wing views into movies, television shows and sitcoms, and every award program; I'm sure muslim omams give their political views from their pulpits.
But all of the above are telling Evangelical pastors to keep their mouths shut about their religious convictions regarding the way government leaders and legislators are leading our country. Even the perverted pornographers have more freedom of speech than Godly Pastors. I agree, we need to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court to remove the gag from America's ministers and stop the extortion threat of the IRS.

I think if churches want to get involved in politics they need to loose their tax except status. If they want to tell people what political party they can join and who to vote for than why should denied their tax except status.

The problem here is that "seperation of church and state" does not exist to REAL Christians, a real Christian understands that they cannot seperate God from any part of their lives. We love God and his word and his word guides our lives and our votes. We cannot be in line with Gods word and vote for someone who supports immorality, even if we think they would otherwise be a good public servant.

Typically, churches do not receive government funding to operate, rather, they receive their funding voluntarily from the people, their congregation. The money given by the people to the church has already been taxed. Why should Uncle Sam be allowed to tax it twice?

BTW, schools are tax exempt entities and they continually fill our children's heads with politically biased information. If schools, who receive government funding and tax exemption, are allowed to politically influence our children why should a church that doesn't receive government funding be taxed for providing political influence to supporters? I would also point out that children filled with political bias in our schools are typically a captive audience, meaning they do not have the ability to go elsewhere. At least those attending a religious meeting have the option to attend elsewhere if they disagree with the political views expressed from the pulpit.

It is not actually true that other non-profits are allowed to endorse political candidates. The rule is non-profits lose their tax exempt status if they do so. There's no reason churches should be treated any differently. No one says they can't take positions on issues in general, only that they can't speak for or recommend specific candidates. It's a small thing, but very important to the separation of church and state.

To have someone tell a congregation that they will go to hell or can't be Christian if they vote one way or another is straightforward vote extortion. Talk about threats and intimidation!!!

Divus Humana, what the heck does your post have to do with anything? Congratulations, you copied and pasted some paragraphs into a field and pressed submit. Yay you!

Maybe in the future you should post a comment related to the subject at hand, hmm?

Of course church speakers can "voice their political views" in terms of the issues of the day, if they so choose. What is not, and ought not be, permitted is the express recommendation of a particular candidate for public office. One of the valid reasons for tax-exemptions for churches is the use of space for community purposes and response to community needs - but the most important reason is constitutional - the state neither encouraging nor making it difficult to express one's religious views.

"The freedom of religion does not prohibit religion, just the mandating of a national religion."
This isn't about religion this is about politics. When you are having a gathering, the purpose of which is to gain support for a political candidate and ask for donations, you have just created a Political Action Committee.
I'm tired of this. There is nothing in the constitution that says we cannot tax donations of any kind. It's income. The taxes recirculate the money so the government runs, and you can elect a president through your P.A.C. church to bomb all the infidels.

You CAN say whatever you want. Just not funded with my tax dollars.
Give up your tax deductions and speak freely.

Repulican or Democrat is like paper or plastic who cares. I go to a black Church and if the Pastor says vote for Obama I'm leaving his Church. Pastors would be stupid to endorse a person. What if the Church had endorsed Bush? That Church would probably be closed by now.

"Churches and pastors have a constitutional right to speak freely and truthfully from the pulpit – even on candidates and voting – "

I agree...just have your church pay your taxes like the rest of us and then say whatever is on your mind on the pulpit.

Or you can still say whatever you want off the church property.

They defied IRS rules so let them pay the consequences like the rest of us. The religious play a game of mythical brainwashing based on control of the masses, fear, guilt, and shame. It's amazing that this dogma is even still believed by some in the 21st century. It has no historical attestation whatsoever and is pure myth. So if people want to allow mythology to influence politics and the selection of our leaders...I say they should not be allowed. This country was founded on a clear separation of church and state. Religion leads to childish black and white thinking, finger pointing, bigotry and cultural exclusion. It is a scourge to the human race and the sooner it is phased out...the better the human race will be. Grow up and abandon your childish myths. Myths are for kids siwwy Wabbitts.

It's a simple message that's become very unclear to several religious leaders ...

You must obey the separation between Church & State or your church will face a future where the State interferes with them as well.

Not that it would bother me to see a few Televangelists pay their share of taxes.

Simpleton is from Mars as the United States since it's inception has had prayers with politicians and all the rest that Simpleton mentions. It's just recently this has become politically incorrect as non Christians and anti Christians have moved into positions of power and have brought all the corruption or at least no shame for doing whatever feels good and they don't want no conscience around or anybody to tell them what their doing is wrong. They don't want to hear about sin. Example we told King George that there is a higher power than his and that he was immoral and unjust giving us the right to self determination. Sheesh where did all the Martians come from.

These people are told that everything in this ridiculous book is true. Their pastors apparently have divine connections to transcendental deities. If you believed in hell and ghosts and demons, would you go against what your pastor said? Can we please let religion die and use their epic funds for something useful? Imagine if we sold off all the preachers' Mercedes Benzes, how many mouths we could feed, without punching pin holes in condoms or converting the starving.

If they want to be religious then stay out of politics; tax them

In reply to comment 9: other tax-exempt organizations and charities are also restricted from endorsing or opposing candidates, and several of them have got into trouble for doing so. This isn't just about churches, nor is this a restriction that is being placed only on them. As many other posters say, this is a tax status issue: you can say whatever you want, but charities are properly restricted to non-partisan activities.

Enact a sales tax on everything for everyone and people, places, and groups can say what they want when they want. Its the latest fad to say church leaders should not talk political issues, but then time goes by as it has since Hitler's Germany and now the preachers and priests that did not speak out against the leader are now rebuked by history for not doing so loud and clear.

I know it's been said before but I am becoming so frustrated at the number of people who don't 'get it' that I feel compelled to state it here - yet again. No one in this argument ( as far as I know) is suggesting that pastors, rabbis, priests or other religious leaders should not be permitted to express their views on any particular political policy or candidate. What is being explained (time and again, as far as I can see) is that they may not do so from a pulpit or whatever the equivalent in their house of religion may be. That is a condition attaching to their tax-exempt status. It is NOT a First Amendment issue. Be as political as you wish. Just don't expect to do it and retain the privilege of not having to pay the taxes that everyone else propounding their political beliefs is required to.. What is so difficult to understand about that? *head-desk head-desk head-desk*

Many of our forefathers fled to the United States because of political or religious persecution and one of our most precious freedoms is free speech. In the old country they could have been jailed or financially punished for speaking against the Monarch, or head religious person in their home country (read up on the inquisition for example).

What you are proposing is that a religious leader who exercises free speech will be financially punished, but those who allow the state to muzzle them won’t be.

Just be warned that after you successfully destroy free speech in churches that yours will be next.

Question for Rev. Gus Booth. I agree that abortion is a horrible thing. I'm sure it is a sin, if done for the purpose of birth control only. What I don't understand is how you can reason that we should not vote for Obama based on this one sin. Is John McCain without sin? It seems to me the Republicans have chanted, "No to Abortion!" all these years to keep the religious right on the hook, yet they have cheated, lied, stole, and fornicated in the background. If God asks me why I voted for Obama I'm going to say, "There was sin in both camps. I thought Obama's camp practiced the, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." commandment better."

The fat pigs in the Republican party care only for themselves. They do not care about the poor or the downtrodden. Their day in and day out actions and decisions on Wall Street disgust me.

Funny how this regulation concerns only Judeo-Christian belief. Go to any Islamic Mosque in America and you will hear the Imam preaching on subjects that Christian pastors are strictly forbidden to speak about.
They preach on subjects which include the total genocide of the Jewish people and the total subjugation of America to Islamic rule.
Where is the ACLU? Strangely quiet.
Remember this. When Osama bin Laden and Muslim Imams in America urged Muslim Americans to vote for John Kerry in the last election, the ACLU remained quiet.
Can a Christian in America enjoy the same freedom of speech afforded to Muslims?
The answer is a resounding 'NO!' as is evidenced by this article.

Religion is a business. It should be taxed.

Take every penny those bastards have. Then let them spit their venom.

bmac, it is not true that "other non-profit groups are allowed to voice their political views". I run a non-profit entirely unrelated to religion, and one of the conditions of my non-profit status is that my organization refrain from any political activity.

Please do not spread falsehoods in an effort to argue for your position.

This issue is raised at every election, and during every election Deomocratic politicians appear at black churches and speak to the congregation or directly from the pulpit. And when they are not there personally, the "preacher" is often vilifying their opponent like the Father Phlager and Reverend Wright during the primaries. So is this not politics becasue the congregations are black, or because the candidates are Democrats?
... This is an observation, not a racist question. Has Al Gore, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc every spoke about politics in a church or present in the congregation when someone else was speaking on their behalf? When Phlager was trashing Hillary Clinton from his pulpit during the primary did that church have its tax staus questioned? Why not? What is different about that?

One of the basic tennants of God and Churches is suppose to be love. I hear so little of it many of the comments here. So many churches operate from a place that is oppressive to anyone who is different or thinks different from they do and the poor, poor masses that attend these institutions weekly just fall in line. I don't get why churches havent figured out that if you outreached to people in a way that is loving and accepting, it would better server your positions, missions and phylosophies, better because you'd be able to get more people to listen and get your message. It astounds me hateful and discriminatory these institutions can be and they do it name of God. If there is anything at all to what I've read and been exposed to, I would stand a far better chance of getting into heaven being kind and loving to everyone and reaching out to those who are different and disagree with acceptance. If everyone operated in this way, there wouldn't be the question of 'Can we support a politician?'. There wouldn't be a need to support one. Currently the only reason the question is on the table is because many churches are seeking only to expand they system of oppression to as much of the population as they can. And use the political system to do it. I would challenge everyone who posts a response to this article to sit down and a have a simple conversation with those your church would have you cast out, someone of a different religion, race, political party, orientation....etc. You might find yourself in touch with your own humanity in such a way that makes it pointless to seek supporting a politician. You wouldn't need one to speak for you or to represent you. You'd be able to do that yourself.

The "religious" are welcome to become political action centres if - and only if - they being paying tax on their buildings, land, and other holdings that they have heretofore enjoyed free thanks to the hardworking taxpayers.

All the prior taxes that they've shirked responsibility for should be due, retroactively, as well.

And no more special untouchable political status. Enter the bull ring and look out for the horns.

No more free and easy ride.

The age where a secular society basically funds the "religious" should come to a screeching halt.

You taketh in? You payeth out. You want to play? Get your shields up. No more hiding behind your imaginary man in the sky, or the imaginary special dispensation by virtue of your government-funded status.

I am a secretary of a protestant church. I do not believe that Pastors should endorse one candidate over another. Both of our Pastors sort of keep the congregation guessing where they stand.
I am privy to their beliefs and I must say I believe they maintain a great deal of neutrality with the congregation.
All this can do is leave a number of members of the congregation feeling unwelcome or feeling as if they are wrong if their political beliefs differ from the Pastors. I hope they reconsider this action - I do believe they should lose tax exempt status if they do this.

I was born and raised a devout Catholic, then I realized what was really going on in the world and that is that religion is the cause of all evil. These people don't care about their neighbors or brothers. The cause of all wars and conflicts are usually religion. Look back in history, along with the talking snakes and the total disbelief at life on other planets theses christian zelots have done more harm than good. Religion is for the masses who in turn are so moronic that they would follow in line for a buckett of crap. Keep these idiots views to themselves, it's bad enough we have these idiots to pick from as the masses need no help .

If a preacher/pastor/bishop/clergyperson/etc is known to 'deliver the word of God', then endorsing a political candidate is as good as telling their congregation that God endorses the candidate. As citizens these People of God may voice their opinions, just so long as they are sure to continually, repeatedly, and clearly separate their OPINION from THE WORD OF GOD and they should not use church funds to promote a candidate.

Religious organizations are non-profit businesses and should enjoy tax exemtion for their good works. But the leaders and workers within these organizations are citizens and should pay their fair share as such. McCain is no more God's choice than Obama, Palin, Biden, Bush, Cheney, or any other lying millionaire.

Wars are fought over land and who will rule over the realm. Jews and muslins got along fine until Israel was created in 1948 by the UN. Irish catholics get along just fine with Irish protestants in the USA and other parts of the world except in Northern Ireland were the struggle for years upon years is who will rule, Ireland or england. One side being catholic, the other protestants. Our own revolutionary war was fought over who would rule the land. The civil war was fought because the south wanted to rule itself and Lincoln said thats a no no. Almost all wars can be reduced to a fight over land and in most conflicts the oposing sides usually are of different religions, but not always.

It is very bad when churches politicize and puch for candidates and push against candidates. They then become part of the state political system and the state will then take them over.
It is bad for the churches themselves as they will no longer be free churches but a state department. Much like welfare, board of health, department of revenue. And when the state sets up licensing boards for these same preachers, it will be the end of them.

The complete fact of the matter is this. A 501 c3 religious tax exemption is not a right. It is something applied for and possibly granted. When a church applies for a 501 c3 status they go into it knowing what the rules are. Therefore, either accept the rules of that for which you are applying or do not have it. If you cannot agree to the rules of a 501c3 then you shall not have the exemption.

IRS, please do your duty, uphold the law, and if these churches preach politics from the pulpit, PLEASE revoke their tax exempt status immediately!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (1st Amendment)

" The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. (16th Amendment)

Folks, we have a problem! Ol' Number 1 says "no law', Middle Aged Number 16 says "from whatever source derived". Seems this needs to be resolved by The Supremes. Let's give the Ol' Foggies something to test their metal, let's have a Law Suit. Let's wake up the Ancients and challange the IRS and Congress on this one before (or after) we have to count all them Florida chads and dimples and dents and votes again, and again, and again.

FOR FAMURAL
This sunday the irs and then the courts will get their chance to rule on the right or not the right of a preacher to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit. Thirty preachers across the usa are going to endorse a candidate from the pulpit. Lets see what happens/

This is in response to Bud Cherry's comments - I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, but I wanted to express my thoughts on one thing that you mentioned. You said, "If an elected official of a specific religion voted their conscience, we could have a government that prohibits all coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and stimulants. Or prohibit blood transfusions and inoculations and used only prayer for medical treatment." By mentioning blood transfusions, I can only assume you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses. Let me set your mind at ease - at least about that religion. JW's don't vote, they don't salute the flag, they don't run for political office, they have absolutely nothing to do with politics. They are staunch supporters of a theocracy, of God's kingdom, which they consider to be a government (I'm an ex-JW and now becoming very politically active; I have a lot of lost time to make up for) . So believe me, you will never, ever have to worry about a JW being on your child's elementary school's library renovation committee, let alone POTUS.

Render unto Caesar. That is the extent of political discussion from Jesus Christ. Go thou and do likewise.

I do not want any pastor implying to any of my brethren that they are not Christian because they are of the left or of the right. If they do, they should be stripped of their tax-exempt status without delay.

My priest refuses to allow politics to be discussed in the pulpit, and I couldn't agree more. All that does is polarize a congregation which, if it's a healthy community, includes people who hold differing political views. (A congregation where everybody agrees on everything might as well be a bunch of robots.) Keep politics in the secular square and out of churches.

The first amendment gives citizens the right to speak as they choose about the government, and to worship as they choose if they choose. So citizens of the US who are also members of the church may have an opinion about the government. However, the first amendment also delineates church and state as separate entities. Because of the first amendment, government cannot govern the church. Yet, if church and state are the remain separate, the church, officially as an organization, should not be able to have a publicly declared opinion about the government either. If the church decides to publicize an opinion about the government, then it should have to be part of the government regulation process - including paying taxes - just like the rest of us citizens.

Does it make sense that in election time, for the religious, the devout, and the uniformed who follow them, that abortion be the only issue for electing or not electing a political candidate? I find it interesting that it is typically the democratic party that wants to most help people in poorer and rural communities. The Democratic party also platforms more encompassing viewpoints and overall inclusiveness actually making them more Christ-like in practice than the Republican platform, but in this type of community, people tend to follow what the church endorses instead of deciphering the issues themselves... and those people tend to vote conservative due to the abortion issue instead of for the candidate who will try to elevate their living situations from paupers to middle class.

Evangelical = evil angel = anti-christ

People are being deceived exactly as the Messiah prophesized. The Evangelical neither respects God, his Word, nor the U.S. Constitution.

The desperate, misguided, and self-seeking are led astray by money seeking harlots like Joel Ostein, Pat Roberson, Jim Baker et al = evangelicals, = evil angels = anti-christ.

ALAMO
Evangelist and convicted tax evader Tony Alamo says the age of consent is puberty and there's a mandate in the Bible for girls marrying young.

"In the Bible it happened. But girls today, I don't marry 'em if they want to at 14-15 years old," Alamo said Saturday after federal agents raided his southwestern Arkansas compound and placed six girls into state custody. "We won't do it, even though I believe it's OK."

But authorities don't believe it's OK _ and now Alamo faces charges he transported children across state lines for sexual activities, in violation of the Mann Act.

HAGGARD
Saying that he was a “deceiver and liar” who had given in to his dark side, the Rev. Ted Haggard confessed to sexual immorality in a letter read from the pulpit of the megachurch he founded.

The president of the National Evangelical Association, which represents 30 million evangelical Christians, apologized and said “The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. I am a deceiver and a liar.”

Haggard, 50, held sway in Washington and condemned homosexuality, after a man claimed to have had drug-fueled homosexual trysts with him.

BAKKERS
Jim Bakker, the slight, shy son of a factory worker, went on to use his microphone to preach rather than to sing. He moved south and, with his wife, Tammy Faye, parlayed their natural telegenic innocence into a Christian broadcasting empire that eventually reached 13 million viewers a day, brought in $129 million in revenues and helped build Heritage USA, a 2,500-acre Christian resort near Fort Mill, S.C.

But in the last two months, much that the Bakkers created has come crashing about them, the result of financial and sexual scandals that forced them to flee their ministry and take refuge behind the walls of their $600,000 mansion in Palm Springs, Calif.

In the latest chapter, officials of Mr. Bakker's former ministry, PTL, disclosed today that a total of $92 million in revenues could not be accounted for and that the ministry's operations were near financial collapse.

ROBERTSON
Pat Robertson is a wealthy man. An extremely wealthy man-some estimates put his net worth at 140 million.

He lives on the top of a Virginia mountain, in a huge mansion with a private airstrip.

He owns the Ice Capades, a small hotel, diamond mines, and until recently, International Family Entertainment, parent company of the Family Channel.

How does a televangelist, who is supposedly involved in non-profit work, manage to create such a fortune for himself? Apparently, between dealing with murderous dictators and ripping off senior citizens, it’s not that hard.

With his ill-gained fortune now in place, Pat experimented with a number of new businesses, the most interesting among them being American Benefits Plus/Kalo Vita. This was a multi-level marketing scheme along the lines of Amway and Avon.

Here, Robertson recruited people across the country (starting in '91-'92), as many as 20,000 people (many of them retirees) to sell coupon books. He told them in training seminars that his program was backed by the Bible, and that they could earn $15,000-$20,000 a month. Things didn't go that well with the coupon books, though, and Pat suddenly decide to change the company into Kalo Vita, and sell vitamins. Problem was, this left people with coupon books unsold, and when they tried to send the books back to AFB/Kalo Vita, they found out that they would not be refunded their money. One 76 year-old woman in in Indianapolis was stuck with $7,000 worth of unsold coupon books, and had to refinance her home. During the subsequent investigation, it was found that CBN had "loaned" money to AFB during its founding, almost 3 million dollars.

YES, these men sound like followers of a religious leader who said to sell all you own and give it to the poor, love your neighbor as yourself.

You have been told in the New Testament what would happen. Paul spoke of it as did the Messiah.

"They come in my name, but I do not know them."

THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR TAX FREE STATUS DENIED. THEIR TRUE INTERESTS ARE IN AMASSING FORTUNES FOR THEMSELVES BY EXPLOITING THE WEAK HEADED OR SELF-SEEKING. THAT IS THE REASON THEY FEAR DEMOCRATS WHO MAY RAISE TAXES ON THEIR WEALTH HORDING WAYS. THESE PEOPLE DON’T RAISE MONEY TO HELP THE POOR.

In their created religions, they offer a cheap interpretation of scripture promising salvations for godlessness as if the door was wide open, rather than a narrow gate. Just one simple example of their blasphemy. Their lives are enough to convince you that they are anything but Christian. Their followers simply prefer blindness to truth in a self-seeking, self-glorifying pretence of worshiping God rather than honoring God in all truth. They live in all godlessness deceived and believing their own wants and ideas are sanctioned by God, the they know him not.

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.' (Matt 7: 22-23)

But don't expect these cowards you elect to office to do anything about this.

It is really hard for me to make a decision like that, especially if both candidates are Christians. Then we must trust that they are both washed in Blood of the Lamb.

My worry is not that I will offend the candidate, but rather I will offend Christ Himself because of the robes of Christ that each Christian wears.

I guess in regards to some issues, there may be a time and place. However, once the office is officially decided, we must respect that ruler despite our personal feelings. Exodus 22:8

It should be well noted that JUDAS ISCARIOT tried to use Jesus' ministry as a platform for political and military uprise.
He was in extreme error to say the least.

Jesus rebuked Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane for trying to use force on Jesus' captors putting to rest any misconceived notions that this was some uprising.

There are many other examples where Jesus went to great lengths to distance himself and his ministry from being considered political or military.
I am sickened by many things in the pulpit and find this "vain revolution for political freedom of speech" particularly irreprehensible and contrary to the teachings and overall impetus of Jesus' ministry.

As a sideline note I would also like to point out that none of the candidates are running for office of priest or pastor.
To criticize one politician for being "pro choice" or in favor of stem cell research while giving full support to a candidate who advocates fully the use of war, torture, and nuclear armament not only for defense but also as a " first strike" option, is garbage and contradicts all that Jesus came to establish as his message and legacy.

I would like to add another thought that sacrificing a church's tax exempt status is extremely irresponsible when considering that the minister is being entrusted with money that did not come from him nor belongs to him.
(see all the biblical listings for stewardship).

I would like to charge and challenge all elders and/ or board members to challenge and rebuke your pastor if you feel he is abusing his post of shepherd for the sake of spewing politically in a place that should bring respite from all of this rather than becoming a platform for it.

Remember...America is a democratic republic with the first amendment to the constitution protecting in large part our freedom of speech...

God's Kingdom is NOT a democracy but an absolute monarchy with one true king and emperor.
Jesus NEVER used His authority or exclusive privileges as God's Son to advocate or support any political or military entity.
We need to remember which kingdom we are in and which King we serve.

I do not go to church to have politics shoved down my throat. I am there to learn the teachings of GOD. Your politics can be shaped by your faith but my preacher is not the political analyst I would choose. If they want to be a political forum then pay taxes like everyone else and then you can hold politcal rallies all you want.