Opposition to political parties?

[Elphaba]

This hitting the nail on the head approach makes sense. Also, there is the political pluralism that exists among Church members, whether it is recognized or not.

Hi Moksha,

I wish I could take credit for the "hitting the nail on the head" approach, but I can't. A friend who watches the board once in a while sent me a message, telling me it is probably because the Church would lose its tax exempt status.

So, once again, I am not as smart as you think I am.

[christmasvalleyfarms]

To answer the tax exempt question - apparently there is a federal law that's been around for 50 years that prohibits religious organizations from engaging in "political speech" while they accept deductible contributions. So I know the Church has to step carefully here - I'm sure they could handle paying taxes if they had to, but I imagine they realize it would have a negative impact on many members who benefit from that deduction. I think it is just a matter of time before that happens though, as the culture wars heat up.

A Christian advocacy group has just challenged this by sending the IRS text of addresses given by some pastors on specific candidates. I am personally getting rather sick of everyone's "free speech" being protected but anyone associated with Christianity, so I am rooting for them. The founding fathers' intent was to keep any specific Church from being sanctioned by the government, not to keep God out of government. They were pretty specific and out there about God's sovereignty in things. Again, we know from prophecy how this will end, but much as Mormon must have known the outcome when asked to lead the army of the already morally and physically crumbling Nephite civilization, he knew he had to fight.

Edited October 2, 2008 by christmasvalleyfarms

[Wingnut]

The founding fathers' intent was to keep any specific Church from being sanctioned by the government, not to keep God out of government. They were pretty specific and out there about God's sovereignty in things. Again, we know from prophecy how this will end, but much as Mormon must have known the outcome when asked to lead the army of the already morally and physically crumbling Nephite civilization, he knew he had to fight.

I don't disagree, but I think that both sides of that are important...keep the church out of the state and keep the state out of the church. Both function at their best levels that way.

[christmasvalleyfarms]

In this world we live in today, that is true. Unfortunately, it seems more and more that the "great and abominable church" is doing its best to sweep church (i.e., God) altogether under the rug of obsolescence in the name of the First Amendment. And that is so wrong - that is what I feel we need to stand up and speak to.

[Moksha]

This non-political rule extends to all nonprofit organizations that claim a special tax exempt status.

------

Back to the political pluralism of Church members: It should be important for all to feel welcome and not pushed aside at Church.

[Elphaba]

In this world we live in today, that is true. Unfortunately, it seems more and more that the "great and abominable church" is doing its best to sweep church (i.e., God) altogether under the rug of obsolescence in the name of the First Amendment. And that is so wrong - that is what I feel we need to stand up and speak to.

Can you provide an example?

Elphaba

[Palerider]

Hi Moksha,

I wish I could take credit for the "hitting the nail on the head" approach, but I can't. A friend who watches the board once in a while sent me a message, telling me it is probably because the Church would lose its tax exempt status.

So, once again, I am not as smart as you think I am.

Now I wonder how other religous leaders get away with promoting or endorsing a candidate....and they don't use their buildings for anything political...unlike other churches...

[WANDERER]

No problems with politics in churches in Oz...doesn't make that much of a difference...those who are easily influenced will be easily influenced anyway (friends, family, media ...etc). From what I've seen of it....most people don't rock the boat publicly when churches kind of endorse certain political agendas, but vote how they want regardless ...no one is going to know theory. On the same level, most politicians that court the religious vote are just *appearances*. I think ...trying to enforce the separation of politics from religion is a tad impossible...how do you separate people from their beliefs?

Some debate about charity money making enterprises that aren't related to public welfare and charity not being tax exempt crops up every now and then....don't really know how you would regulate that.

[a-train]

Actually ministers can speak about who they want to vote for and so on, just so long as they speak for themselves and not for their religious, non-profit, organization.

Still, I think that any law that limits free speech in any way should be counted unconstitutional and stricken from the books.

-a-train

PS: Vote third party.

[rameumptom]

It isn't unconstitutional for any Church or minister to speak out against or for a particular candidate. However, if they wish to maintain a tax-exempt status, THEN there are things they must abide by. Nothing unconstitutional about that, as no one is forced to follow any rule.

It is important to not allow just anyone or anything to be constituted as a Church or tax-exempt organization. We already have enough scams without giving con artists a tax exempt status also.

[christmasvalleyfarms]

Can you provide an example?

Elphaba

To refer first to Mokskha's comment, it is true that this rule applies also to other tax-exempt institutions, for example, schools, colleges/universities, etc. So where was the ACLU when a recent college professor required her students to write an essay denigrating one of the candidates? They never show up to "fight" unless it is against Christian churches/theology. Read an interesting book recently called "The War on Christmas". Take that one on if you want example after example of how they are trying to make Christmas irrelevant, obsolete, almost obscene. And not just vis-a-vis state. (That's part of why I am Christmas Valley! 'nother story). How about the recent flap about ever more strident efforts to remove any mention of God from Washington D.C. and any public places, monuments, etc. - they would like to make the Ten Commandments illegal. Whether or not you are a Christian, it is undeniable for any student of history that our country's Constitution and legal underpinnings are based largely on foundations of Judaeo-Christian law. Yet they would like to write that out of history and out of the history books, because those books are used in public school. Check out a video, probably on You-Tube, called The War on God. Have you heard about the newest visitor center they are proposing in Washington that includes replication/representation of certain Washington landmarks but carefully omits where even they mention God and substitutes miscellaneous organic ornamentation ? Check out your new coins, which display "In God We Trust" no longer on the face, but wrapped around the edge where they are seldom seen and will soon erode into oblivion. Or the efforts of a few to remove the word God from our public vocabulary, as in the Pledge of Allegiance. Witness the fight students have to have on high school campuses to have and participate in Christian clubs, while any other type of club is welcomed with open arms. Then of course there is the gay lobby. Their attempts to censor Christian free speech, for example a church's right to even express their belief that homosexuality is a sin (that becomes the ubiquitous "hate speech" - boy I hate that term!) without being dragged into court, their attempts to pressure and vilify churches and citizens alike that feel strongly and express those feelings that homosexual marriage is not in the best interests of our children and our society - well, I could go on. But I have to go milk the cow! Yikes.

[OtterPop]

They [the ACLU] never show up to "fight" unless it is against Christian churches/theology.

This simply isn't true. The ACLU takes on a number of cases/causes that have nothing to do with religion. Check out their website. I'm not saying you should like the ACLU, but don't misrepresent what they do.

they would like to make the Ten Commandments illegal.

I'm not positive you're still referring to the ACLU, but I'm not aware of any group that wants to make the ten commandments illegal. I'm not even sure what that means. There certainly are groups/court cases concerning government sponsorship of displays of the ten commandments. Not wanting government support is not an attempt to make the ten commandments "illegal." You can read them, you can keep them, you can write about them. I'm not sure what else you want to do.

Check out your new coins, which display "In God We Trust" no longer on the face, but wrapped around the edge where they are seldom seen and will soon erode into oblivion.

I'm unclear on why you consider this a threat to you. The motto is still there on the coins, and it's still on our bills. I truly don't understand why this matters.

Or the efforts of a few to remove the word God from our public vocabulary, as in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The pledge didn't originally have the word God in it.

Witness the fight students have to have on high school campuses to have and participate in Christian clubs, while any other type of club is welcomed with open arms.

Here in Utah a few years ago, they banned all clubs -- which had to include the Bible club, of course -- rather than permit a gay/straight alliance. (This policy has been changed since.) I know there have been some cases of Christian or Bible clubs being banned, but it's not accurate to say that any other type of club is welcomed "with open arms." And I'd bet it's still a lot easier to get a Bible club started in an American high school than a gay/straight alliance.

Then of course there is the gay lobby. Their attempts to censor Christian free speech, for example a church's right to even express their belief that homosexuality is a sin (that becomes the ubiquitous "hate speech" - boy I hate that term!) without being dragged into court, their attempts to pressure and vilify churches and citizens alike that feel strongly and express those feelings that homosexual marriage is not in the best interests of our children and our society.

Gay advocates do indeed do what they can to further their own agenda -- and so do religious groups. Shaming someone for their ideas is permitted in our society, and if gay advocates want to call condemnation of their choices "hate speech," they're allowed to. Gay advocates are allowed to criticize religious organizations for their negative opinions of homosexuality, and religious organizations are allowed to continue to say that homosexuality is immortal. Just because your ideas aren't popular doesn't mean you're being censored. Free speech does not guarantee that anyone will be free of the consequences of the ideas they express.

Free speech cuts both ways. Do you really think gay rights advocates should let condemnation of homosexuality go unchallenged? And, for the record, no, I don't expect conservative Christians to keep quiet about their opinions, either.

Edited October 3, 2008 by OtterPop

[rastler000]

Witness the fight students have to have on high school campuses to have and participate in Christian clubs, while any other type of club is welcomed with open arms.

This isn't true.... what happened was the Supreme Court ruled that the Christian clubs were allowed. The unintended consequence of this was clubs, like a gay club, were also allowed under the same ruling. If you allow the Christian club, then you have to allow the gay club. Which is why - as mentioned - Utah got rid of them all for a time.

[christmasvalleyfarms]

Here's just one article if you want specific citings of school related religion incidents only, like the clubs issue. I just think it is one thing to prohibit a government sponsored entity (for example the public school curriculum? the federal government?) from telling you what to believe and forcing you to espouse that system of belief. That's what our founding fathers were fleeing and wanting to protect our citizens from. It's quite another to prevent an individual from expressing their religious views, whether they are in a school or on the street or in an office or in their living room, because "they might OFFEND someone." I think it's pretty sad that I can take the name of God in vain all day long in a school or on the airwaves, and very few people will even bat an eye - but if I attempt to speak His name in reverence, or heaven forbid, say a prayer, I'd better watch my p's and q's or I'll get hauled into court.

I'm not sure what you're attacking here , otter pop. Me personally, or "traditional Christianity", or traditional values, or conservatism - maybe all of the above. Guilty on all counts. I'm just coming from an LDS viewpoint, I'm quite politically conservative and I do believe there is a war on, it started before we came here and is only getting more heated. The BoM talks of the great and abominable church, which I think I referred to in my first post as the "they" I reference in my comments. That, in LDS theology, is accepted to mean anything/one that fights against God. Yes, I am especially "fond" of the ACLU, which is why I mention them as just one arm of that entity. I realize they get involved in issues other than religion, but what I object to is that when they do weigh in on religion they are invariably against the Christian/Christianity and not defending their rights of free speech, and whatever they do is transparently, flamingly liberal in bias and hardly representative of a full, balanced spectrum of political views. "What I want to do" is to not have history rewritten to leave God out of the equation when He was integral in the beliefs of the founding fathers of our country. This is much more than unpopularity of opinions; there is a definite campaign to censor Christian speech, theology, and expression in this country - the below article lists a very few examples. Obviously you disagree. We are obviously not plugged into the same sources of information. I am not trying to disrespect any other religion or point of view, or condone anyone's doing so. But it hurts and rankles and makes me angry to see the insanity being perpetrating today on Christianity in the name of "political correctness". Again, nothing new, a pattern of history repeated over and over again in the scriptures. I just feel sad to see this point in the cycle and be raising my kids in the midst of it. (Gee, this all started with why the Church is politically neutral! And my trying to respond to Elphaba's question.)

God in the Schools: Respected or Rejected? PDF Print

“The truth is that public schools are increasingly hostile to all things Christian.”

Stephen M Crampton, Esq.

Chief Counsel, AFA Center for Law and Policy

A recent article by Charles Haynes in the USA Today proclaimed “the truth about God in public schools.” Haynes claims that while our schools may have once been religion-free zones, they are not so any longer. In fact, Haynes says, today the public schools are more respectful of religion than ever before, with many textbooks directly addressing various religions. Haynes writes that those who say there are problems with religion in schools are simply out of touch.

Mr. Haynes is an academic. He hobnobs with other academics and glad-hands school officials for a living. By contrast, I am a constitutional litigator. I spend my days in the courtrooms fighting these issues on the front lines. In this capacity, I see a different side of the schools than Mr. Haynes. Perhaps it is understandable, then, that I reach an entirely different conclusion as to the state of religion in the schools.

In my view, it is Mr. Haynes who is out of touch.

The truth is that public schools are increasingly hostile to all things Christian. As the current war on Christmas amply demonstrates, schools are anything but friendly toward Christianity. From the changing of the name of Christmas break to the “Winter Holiday,” to the decoration of “holiday trees,” to prohibiting songs that mention “Christmas” or Christ, our public schools are competing to see who can erase all vestiges of Christianity first.

While Mr. Haynes may be correct that the general topic of religion is addressed more frequently in schools today, the specifics of Christianity tend to be addressed only in a disrespectful way.

Rather than debate the issue in the abstract, though, allow me to set forth concrete examples of the bias I contend pervades our public schools.

• In Medford, New Jersey, kindergartner Zachary Hood was told to draw a picture of something he was thankful for at Thanksgiving, and that the posters would be displayed for all parents to see at an upcoming open house. But when the school saw that Zachary had drawn a picture of Jesus, they removed it. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the school in a subsequent lawsuit brought by Zachary’s parents.

• In Boulder, Colorado, students were instructed to select their favorite book for an oral book report. When eleven year old Elizabeth Johnson chose the book of Exodus from the Bible, she was forbidden because it may be “offensive” to some.

• In Westfield, Massachusetts, students organized a high school Bible club. When they distributed candy canes with a message attached saying “Merry Christmas” on one side and containing a Bible verse on the other, they were suspended from school, despite the school’s policy of allowing other clubs to freely distribute non-religious messages.

• In Kettering, Ohio, a kindergartener was prohibited from giving out bags of jelly beans to her classmates at Easter because they contained a religious poem.

• In Denver, Colorado, a teacher was ordered to remove his personal Bible from his desk and two Christian books from his bookshelf where students could retrieve them.

• In Santa Fe, Texas, student-led prayers before high school football games were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In an earlier lower court order in the same case, a federal judge ordered students and even ministers not parties to the lawsuit not to pray in Jesus’ name at graduation ceremonies, and instructed that federal marshals would be on hand to take violators to jail. The judge warned, “Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it.”

• In Prince George's County, Maryland, school administrators renamed “Christmas trees” and the “Christmas pageant,” calling them “holiday trees” and the “holiday pageant,” respectively.

• In South Orange, New Jersey, a school district banned the playing of instrumental Christmas carols, apparently concluding that even the melodies of such songs were offensive.

On the other hand, as Mr. Haynes rightly points out, schools have increasingly allowed certain religious practices of late. These practices, however, tend routinely to involve non-Christian religions. Here are some examples:

• In Contra Costa County, California, seventh grade students were forced to role-play Muslim adherents, recite prayers to Allah, and simulate fasting for Ramadan. According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, these activities were “not overt religious exercises that raise Establishment Clause concerns.” It was merely educational exercise.

• In Woodland Hills, California, students as young as eight years old were required to cast spells, invent their own charms, and pretend they were witches. Objecting parents were not permitted to opt their children out of the exercises. Nevertheless, the federal courts ruled in favor of the school, finding the religious content minimal and any harm outweighed by the educational gain.

• In State College, Pennsylvania, an elementary school held a “winter holiday” program that included a Menorah and a Kwanzaa display, books about Chanukah and Kwanzaa, but no Christmas symbols or books. Students sang songs about Chanukah and Kwanzaa, too, but the only marginally Christmas song was called “Christmas at the Mall,” and adapted a traditional Christmas melody to secularized lyrics. Instead of a Christmas tree, the school displayed a “giving tree” adorned with hats, gloves and doves. A federal court found the holiday display constitutional, notwithstanding its derogatory treatment of Christmas.

Yes, Charles, there is a Santa Claus . . . just don’t mention the baby Jesus.

Mr. Haynes cites the prevalence of student religious clubs as proof that the schools are no longer hostile to religion. While there are indeed many Bible clubs and the like on public school campuses, the reality is that they have often had to fight tooth and nail to just to obtain official recognition. To cite just one example,

• In Howell, Michigan Christian students formed a group called the Traditional Values Club. School officials, however, have steadfastly opposed the group and refused to grant them official recognition, despite having actively assisted in forming and recognizing a “Diversity Club.” In fact, a teacher even donated a rainbow flag -- symbol of the homosexual rights movement -- which to this day is prominently displayed in the school as the diversity flag.

When the Traditional Values Club donated a Christian flag and asked that it be displayed alongside the diversity flag, though, they were flatly refused. In fact, school officials have gone so far as to call the Traditional Values Club a “hate group.”

(Watch and see - branding anything "hate speech" is the latest highroad to legal censorship - you want to effectively legally and politically shut someone up cause you don't like what they say, you brand it "hate speech", get it written into case law, and they become a burned book. That's way different from disagreement, or simply calling a course of behavior or belief wrong - and a pretty serious threat to first amendment rights, in my opinion. No better than hysterical book burners. And considerably more far reaching. )

[OtterPop]

christmasvalleyfarms,

I didn't attack you or Christianity or conservatism. I challenged some of your assumptions and assertions.

What on earth makes you think that if you speak of god with reverence, you will get hauled into court? When has that ever happened?

I get that you don't like the ACLU, but if you think they wouldn't stand up for your right to practice your own religion, you really know nothing about the organization. Christianity doesn't need the ACLU, because Christianity is the powerful majority and assumed standard in this country. I'm surprised you can suggest otherwise.

Hate speech is legal in this country, and I honestly hope that it always will be, because I truly believe in the principles of the first amendment. The only time I'm aware of that hate speech will get you in trouble legally is if it is paired with violence or destruction of property, or if it incites others to violence. Everyone is allowed to try to persuade others to their point of view. While I'm not a big fan of tossing around the words hate or hater (and to be clear, I do NOT think you've done that in this discussion), it is a legitimate tactic for gay advocates to try to paint their critics as intolerant -- just as it is a legitimate tactic for traditionalists to paint homosexuals as a threat to the sanctity of marriage.

My point is that your "side" does exactly the same kind of stuff the other "side" does.

Edited October 3, 2008 by OtterPop

[MarginOfError]

Here's just one article if you want specific citings of school related religion incidents only...

God in the Schools: Respected or Rejected?

“The truth is that public schools are increasingly hostile to all things Christian.”

Stephen M Crampton, Esq.

Chief Counsel, AFA Center for Law and Policy

You picked a pretty extreme organization to represent your case. I will not deny that some of the things in that article occurred, and it's extremely unfortunate that some of them did. Some of them, however, were done rightly. However, the AFA is about as biased a source as you can get. Could you provide a link to the article? I would like to see how many references they provide to these incidents. In my experience the AFA has only given you the information they want you to have, but don't provide much because you might find out there's more to the story that doesn't support their goal.

Furthermore, the AFA (American Family Association) only cares about families so much as they espouse Christian ideas of family and religion. They distributed an e-mail in the past couple of years protesting that the Senate was going to have a Muslim open the Senate session with prayer. You'd think these people would be happy to have a prayer at all. But they complained because clearly, no one but a Christian could possibly implore God to be with our nation's leaders.

Please, please, don't complain about the ACLU if you're going to use the AFA to back you up. They're both just as extreme, just on opposite sides of the aisle.

[Fiannan]

Perhaps the reason the Church takes a neutral stand on politics is due to the fact that we are based in the USA but there are members throughout the world. Makes it difficult to then study each piece of legislation everywhere -- however, I think any member with half a brain would know how the Church stands on issues like abortion or gay marriage and then take actions whenever possible.

Then there are issues like gambling -- a real moral issue but one the Church ignores. You can even be a politician and LDS and strongly work for the benefit of the gambling industry and have high callings in your ward or stake. Then again, you can have a business that makes a lot of money off porn and still be in good standing (which I do not really understand). Maybe it's the old political capital thing -- take a stand on everything and eventually your stands mean nothing in the public arena. And if you punish everyone who has a business that offers things that are inconsistent with LDS teachings then that would then mean LDS grocers would have to stop selling beer or close their doors on Sunday. Yet, then again, perhaps those businesses would gain from foollowing good principles. Complicated to say the least.

[a-train]

It is important to not allow just anyone or anything to be constituted as a Church or tax-exempt organization. We already have enough scams without giving con artists a tax exempt status also.

The number of people using non-profits such as "churches" to hide from the IRS is probably huge. I've run into many who do so. On my mission I met person after person who owned their own church. This will be a problem until we do away with the income tax altogether.

-a-train

[Brenton]

This will be a problem until we do away with the income tax altogether.

And the central banks.

[FunkyTown]

This will be a problem until we do away with the income tax altogether.

-a-train

And the central banks.

And the greed inherent in the human condition. When socialized medicine is bad-mouthed horribly, but using public funds to bail out private investors is seen as a valid choice, you know our priorities are messed up.

[a-train]

When socialized medicine is bad-mouthed horribly, but using public funds to bail out private investors is seen as a valid choice, you know our priorities are messed up.

No kidding. We are propping up a dying stock market and bad business with socialization while killing good businesses. Soon they will praise and honor the bailouts as great ideas and point to them as evidence of socialist policies working. With that, we will get socialized medicine too. Wake up America, lady liberty is dying.

-a-train

[Palerider]

The tax man is coming......:)

[JohnBirchSociety]

We have to remember that the Church is now a global church. Its mission is to spread the fullness of the gospel of Christ to all the earth. To become political and make a huge stance against communism will only close doors to the Church. It is akin to polygamy in 1890: does one continue with the commandment, and let the rest of the Church fall apart (temples, missionary work, etc), or push forth the important elements.

Pres Benson spoke little on these things as President of the Church. His actions as prophet were very different than as an apostle. He worked closely with many communist nations to open them up to the missionary work. He sent Elder Nelson (IIRC) to East Germany to talk with communist leaders there to allow husbands and wives to go to the Switzerland temple for their sealings (only one could leave the country at a time). The East Germans asked why they just didn't build a temple in their country, and so it happened. A year and a half after the dedication, the Berlin Wall fell.

Elder Nelson once discussed political belief systems with his East German official. The official explained how he knew communism was very similar to the United Order. Elder Nelson smiled and told him that the East Germans were not living communism though. The official replied that the Church wasn't living the United Order, either.

So, while we do not believe communism to be the optimal government, our relationship with them has changed in order to move forth the gospel.

President Benson did not change one iota in his teachings on liberty as Prophet. In fact he used the "bully-pulpit" of General Conference to give at least 2 distinct addresses speaking on the issue of liberty as he had always done.

The man had courage to do that. So many members cry foul when anyone brings up liberty.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Calm down a bit there John. I'm pretty sure that the Church's view on how to change society follows something like what Boyd K. Packer said in 1997: "I have long believed that the study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than talking about behavior will improve behavior." Washed Clean [Note: taken a little out of context, but the principle still applies]

Essentially, the Church is not a political entity and does not interfere with the governments set up by man. It changes the world by changing individuals. That attitude is even reflected in the very government of the Church, where families are the fundamental unit, with the second most important unit being the wards and branches. It would not matter in the least bit if the Church stood against a government, because change does not work from the top down, it works from the bottom up.

Two observations:

1) The Church wouldn't have had a chance at existence without the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers certainly DID NOT agree with the position of the Church today. They were right on the money!

2) It DOES matter that the Church stands against tyranny, directly. Here's why:

When the Church remains silent, many members may not even realize that they are supporting evil in their political affiliations. After all, if the Church isn't against it, what's the harm?

[JohnBirchSociety]

-a-train

I gotta go with Joseph Smith on that...well done!!