Jay Bookman

By Bosch

September 29, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

I’m not one to exactly “root” for the IRS in most matters, but in this case, I hope they nail them to the cross.

It’s brainwashing at it’s finest.

I wonder what the reasons were for not voting for Obama? I went to a “church service” once that was nothing but a glorified Klan meeting.

By Bosch

September 29, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

They will lose, judges are sick of these freaks.

By Carlton

September 29, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Today’s Christian Church would do itself well to actually open the Bible now and again.

By RealityKing

September 29, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

I would agree and of course, insist that the same principles be enforced within our progressively failing education system. A system that is openly supporting Obama. And if it can not control its subordinates (liberal teachers), then all tax-deductible contributions must be returned for that schools. Fiars fair, right?

And then theres the corrupt media..

By getalife

September 29, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Tax the hell out of those wingnut kooks spewing failed ideology.

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 29, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Take away their tax exemption immediately!

By getalife

September 29, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

Voting on the bailout in the house.

By demwit

September 29, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Who are you voting for Jay?

By CJ

September 29, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

More on this topic from Washington Monthly: “If a church wants to endorse a candidate, it’s the church’s business, right? If congregations don’t like it, they can go to another church. If a pastor passes the collection plate for John McCain during Sunday services, church members can contribute or not contribute. This isn’t, the argument goes, any of the government’s business. But…tax law doesn’t stifle free speech; it applies conditions to tax exemptions.”

Seems pretty clear to me. I wonder what the source of Rev. Jody Hice’s confusion is.

By hillbilly ragger

September 29, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Bosch, answer to your question “I wonder what the reasons were for not voting for Obama?” is in the linked piece.

(For those too lazy to click, of course it’s about abortion and the always-frightening prospect of gay folks becoming old married f@rts.)

By gayle

September 29, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

It is no coincidence that the blurring of the lines between church and state match the decline of this country.

We need to re-establish the separation of church and state. The Governor of this state praying for rain at the State Captiol is a perfect example of how out of hand this has become.

Bookman is right. They can stick with religion and enjoy the privledges and protection provided for them in the Constitution, or they can start playing politics and paying taxes.

You can’t have it both ways.

By BS Aplenty

September 29, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

Jay, I actually agree with you (he!! freezes over). Now let’s get about putting you Obama-Gestapo in all our churches to monitor Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.

Talk about the fox guarding the hen-house.

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

I myself am really looking forward to the Rapture. I will gladly take pustules and bugs over Evangelicals.

I have a Costco sized can of Raid and Calamine lotion and I know how to use them.

By AJC/DNC Management

September 29, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

Blah, blah, blah:

NEW YORK (BP)—Former President Bill Clinton criticized the Southern Baptist iVoteValues.com voter-awareness initiative Aug. 29, saying that the values debate should not be framed around the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.

“[P]olitics and political involvement dictated by faith is not the exclusive province of the right wing in America,” he said to applause at New York City’s Riverside Church.

Freaking libs have been doing it for decades, geez.

The only time it becomes an issue?

Gosh, I wonder why?

By GOPs got to go

September 29, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

Yeah those Gays wearing white dresses really keeps me up at night. Just worrying about them tripping in their high heals gives me a chill.

By mike hussein smith

September 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

*Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. * — Mark 12:17 These “maverick” ministers seem to be running away from Christ’s teachings. Tax-exempt status is not a right from God, but something granted by government. If the ministers wish to continue their prostelizing from the pulpit, church members need to open their wallets wider to take care of the tax man. The free ride for churches should end, period. It is ridiculous, for instance, that our city, county and state leaders grant a tax exemption on every single piece of property churches own.

By Paul

September 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Bosch

I’m okay with the column. Amazing how some will take on the IRS… these ministers ought to be able to see how it’ll turn out… if they have the gift of prophecy, right?

I’m just glad there aren’t any ministers preaching politics or social policies that are identified with Obama, let alone endorsing him. Then the situation would be two-sided and sooooo confusing!

By getalife

September 29, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

Close vote on bailout. All eyes on the board.

95 dems are voting no, 65 gop voted yes, crossing party lines.

Yes, it failed.

205 yea 228 Nay

By demwit

September 29, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

I know…, let’s ask Rev Jeremiah Wright what he thinks about endorsing politicians from the pulpit.

By SimplyPut

September 29, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Why so much “wondering” about what was said by the Pastor. The Church, Bethlehem First Baptist, has a website. You can get a DVD of the sermon, I dont know what they would charge for shipping but if you go in person I know they are $5. The restriction in the IRS code was implemented in 1954 (SEARCH: Johnson Amendment of 1954), before then it was common for pastors to speak out about moral issues of their time, as well they should. I just wonder what we should do in light that the IRS rules are not in line with the 1st Amendment of the Constitution “”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,….”. Too many lazy responses here, lets get the facts (DVD) and state what is known (Constitution) and then comment.

By Midori

September 29, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

getalife,

when I saw the screeching monkey on my television this morning, begging for money, I knew it wasn’t going to be a good day.

By Swami Dave

September 29, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

Should the IRS also revoke the tax-exempt status for any churches that invite / allow Democrats to speak / politic or provide specific support from their pulpits as well?

Somehow, there is multitudes of interest paid to ministers who vocalize support for conservative candidates or politics, but there never seems to be enough time to highlight / tape the same activities in churches more-friendly to liberal candidates.

I’ll wait for your series on that common practice…….

-Swami Dave

By Larry Linn

September 29, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Like George said, “Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls—t story. Holy S—t!”

By Larry Linn

September 29, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Like George said “Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls—t story. Holy S—t!”

By John Savard

September 29, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Although tax-exempt status is a privilege, it should not be withdrawn from churches that aren’t doing things which are normal for churches to do. Moral teaching is one of those things, and if speaking out forcefully against Negro slavery was a legitimate church activity, then so is speaking out forcefully against abortion, even if the latter may be, in some people’s opinion, narrow-minded and intolerant.

By Matthew

September 29, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

To Simply put, and the rest:

The intent of the First Amendment is to differentiate between political establishments and religious establishments; the entire reason that Jefferson demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, particularly No. 10, was to limit the powers and scope of the government. Madison had stated that it was unnecessary, but Jefferson was not comfortable with people living between the lines that are written in the Constitution.

To wit, Jefferson feared, as did those in his camp, that the Government would read into itself more power than it was meant to have, particularly through use of the Establishment Clause and exercise of powers enumerated as necessary and proper in the various branches outlined in the Constitution. As Jefferson saw it, it would be a very simple feat for the Government to establish itself as a Religious establishment, stating that it was necessary and proper to the governing of a people of a certain religion in a local, state, or even Federal level agency or branch. The restrictions enumerated in the Bill of Rights, particularly in the First Amendment, stand to prevent political intervention in Religion, and likewise, to prevent religious intervention into politics. The First Amendment gives you the absolute right to any religious creed, faith, belief, or lifestyle you so choose, and in doing so, frees every other person in this country from compulsory adherence thereto.

In enacting Johnson’s amendment to the US Tax Code prohibiting Non-Profit organizations, and particularly bodies of Faith, from intervening directly in elections, Johnson was merely clarifying the Tax Code to come into compliance with the principles enumerated in the First Amendment itself. It is this very amendment that protects the Government (an ironic thought, yes, but true nonetheless) from Religious intervention; by making the Tax Code recognize that a political endorsement is a purely political move, whatever the motivation, it simply puts to the people that “You are now exercising your freedom to speech, though religious, and not to your freedom of religion.” The Amendment never states anything about a Religion having the Freedom to Endorse a Politician free of charge.

If that were the case, then all PAC’s would essentially become Churches for Tax Reasons; in having the freedom to give money without Tax penalty for politics, you are in effect giving an election to the hands of the Churches. They now become the power brokers in elections, as people will no longer give to PAC’s that are not tax exempt, and will simply funnel their money through a church to elect the politician that church is supporting. In doing so, you have effectively negated the freedoms of people who choose not to participate in a Church, or a faith, or a faith agenda that they are guaranteed via the First Amendment.

What people on the Right need to understand is that they are not the only Americans in this country with rights; our clever Founding Fathers wrote our civil liberties in such a way that no one person’s exercise thereof has trump power over another’s. And in doing so, we have freedom from each other, from each other’s beliefs, from each other’s churches, and from a land where money is centralized in a Church, recreating the Holy Roman Empire, or some other Theocracy therein where the government is merely acting as a shell for Religious Mandates.

By cjdl

September 29, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

What’s with these monkies. Either keep your tax status and stop endorsing a party’s choice or lose your status and endorse whom you wish.

By Steve Real

September 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

The IRS has a moral obligation to make these politikal preachers pay the price of politiks. They want to preach politiks but they don’t want to pay the price of admission. The IRS has a duty to do and that means putting the screws to these so-called preachers of politiks.

I can’t stand politiks in my pulpit. They aren’t preaching for Christ they’re preaching for their politiks. So make them pay for it… just like the rest of US..

By Steve Real

September 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

The IRS has a moral obligation to make these politikal preachers pay the price of politiks. They want to preach politiks but they don’t want to pay the price of admission. The IRS has a duty to do and that means putting the screws to these so-called preachers of politiks.

I can’t stand politiks in my pulpit. They aren’t preaching for Christ they’re preaching for their politiks. So make them pay for it… just like the rest of US..

By Terry Mahoney

September 29, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

By John Savard

September 29, 2008 2:30 PM |

“Moral teaching is one of those things, and if speaking out forcefully against Negro slavery was a legitimate church activity, then so is speaking out forcefully against abortion, even if the latter may be, in some people’s opinion, narrow-minded and intolerant.”

I am a catholic, and every week in church, our priest leads us in a prayer that our lawmakers will respect life, etc.

He does not name names, however, and that is the difference.

If the Catholic Church decided to name names, our budget would be balanced, what with all the new taxes!

What I like about my priests is that they also ask that our lawmakers work to end war, and fight poverty, end in vitro fertilization, the death penalty etc. They are honest in their respect for life, not just on the popular issues.

Semper Fi, Terry

By Frank Small

September 29, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it amazing the all the Churches that decided to endorse a candidate endorsed McCain(except for one pastor who endorsed himself.) The under lying reason is that they are supporting the gravy train and this is a form of idolitry.

By Kirsten

September 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

I’ve worked with a number of non-religious educational organizations (tax status 501c(3)) and we would have been strung up by the IRS if we’d ever endorsed a candidate. These pastors deserve nothing less. They’re free to talk about what the Bible says. They just can’t name names about who to vote for.

By SousathePatriot

September 29, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this

Hey all you Fox guarding the Henhouse crap. Get the darn Henhouses out of Washington politics! What Constitution are you following anyway? Those henhouses deserve to have a Fox in them. One’s religion is suppose to be personal to each as they see fit, not public, telling me what to do, you moron! You have all seen Ireland, where I come from 5 generations ago, and this country will not go through a religious war, that Republicans so want.

By GodHatesTrash

September 29, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

Good comment at the top of this thread, Bosch.

The Klan and many white fundamnentalist congregations are indistinguishable.

By chris

September 29, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this

The constitution trumps the IRS code everytime.freedom is our most valuable gift,we have to stand up and fight for it, for us and for our children.it’s not that complicated take away freedom from one group of people eventually they will take it away from you.the bottom line is freedom to speak without fear of retribution.research the tax code,why it was put into law,the goverment needed a way to control the church,they found it with the IRS.do your research then blog away.

By chris

September 29, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

The constitution trumps the IRS code everytime.freedom is our most valuable gift,we have to stand up and fight for it, for us and for our children.it’s not that complicated take away freedom from one group of people eventually they will take it away from you.the bottom line is freedom to speak without fear of retribution.research the tax code,why it was put into law,the goverment needed a way to control the church,they found it with the IRS.do your research then blog away.

By chris

September 29, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

The constitution trumps the IRS code everytime.freedom is our most valuable gift,we have to stand up and fight for it, for us and for our children.it’s not that complicated take away freedom from one group of people eventually they will take it away from you.the bottom line is freedom to speak without fear of retribution.research the tax code,why it was put into law,the goverment needed a way to control the church,they found it with the IRS.do your research then blog away.

By GodHatesTrash

September 29, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

The terrible truth about fundamnentalists is, if you are stupid enough to believe in speaking in tongues, playing with snakes, and tithing to conmen that call themselves preachers, then you are stupid enough to believe Hensley-McCain’s nonsense and BS.

By chris

September 29, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

I do believe in God.do you?

By chris

September 29, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

I do believe in God.do you?

By chris

September 29, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this

think about it what is really at stake here.it’s not about having to pay taxes .it’s about freedom to say what you want,just like we are doing now.people aren’t forced to go to church

By chris

September 29, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this

think about it what is really at stake here.it’s not about having to pay taxes .it’s about freedom to say what you want,just like we are doing now.people aren’t forced to go to church

By Jonathan

September 29, 2008 9:41 PM | Link to this

Speaking as a citizen of Barrow County, Jody Hice is showing himself once again to be a publicity w*******. Why don’t you repay the Barrow County taxpayers the six-figure sum still owed for the failed Ten Commandments court battle before taking on yet another fruitless fight? Even better, why don’t you spend your time, effort and money pursuing some more noble and Christian causes such as helping the poor, needy, and unsaved. But no, that doesn’t get headlines, does it?

By SimplyPut

September 29, 2008 10:57 PM | Link to this

Nice response Matthew, although not entirely historically correct

Let’s start in order, from the top. I will agree with you that the 1st amendment stands to prevent political intervention in Religion but I find NO historical evidence for your “likewise” statement, in fact I find the very opposite to be true. It is very well known that the founding fathers were definitely “Religious” in every sense of the meaning, Massachusetts before 1691 for instance cited church membership as a pre-requisite to vote. In fact the Declaration of Independence is based upon John Locke’s theory of government where government derives its power from the consent of the people and that the laws of nature and the laws of God determine our rights. How you can say that their intent was to “prevent religious intervention into politics” is imagination stretched to its thinnest. The very framework of our government is based on religion. Most of the colonies, I could say all but I haven’t researched that completely, were founded by religious sects, each one establishing government in the framework of their beliefs, that being the case how in the world can you say these men meant to likewise prevent religious intervention into politics?

Your opinion of Johnson’s amendment to the tax code is another stretch. In my research into this the amendment it is almost always mentioned under not so noble of circumstances. The common theme being that Johnson in running for re-election of the senate was opposed by (non-church) non-profit groups and in retaliation inserted this amendment into the IRS tax code. The unintended effect was on the church also, hardly the noble purpose of merely trying to clarify the tax code. And since, in plain English, the 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” The Johnson Amendment stands in contrast to not in “compliance with” the 1st Amendment. Your thoughts as to the Government being protected by the 1st Amendment is at best speculation without evidence. The Johnson amendment was put in place without deliberation or vote, for it to be so hotly defended now is absolutely ludicrous.

Clergy have every right to address the moral issues in society without the Government prohibition thereof. What Pastor Jody Hice and other pastors across the country did this past Sunday was to state their opinion, in light of scripture, as to which man running for president lines up closer to the Christian World View. It was very well stated and I saw no violation of any kind. The people in the congregation were not brainwashed, coerced, duped, threatened or any other silly misconceived adjective the Atheistic Secular Worldview spews out. Church attendance and membership is and always has been voluntary. To have the Government place a restriction on a pastor for having the right to state his opinion is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. A pastor does not lose his 1st Amendment rights because he steps behind a pulpit, the Johnson amendment should be removed so that pastors once again can have their voice heard without fear of government retaliating with removal of tax exemption status of the church. That is the point simply put.

By Mark Adams

September 29, 2008 11:53 PM | Link to this

The author writes, “That status is a special benefit conferred by government, and government has every right to set conditions on receipt of that benefit.” Does that mean the government can impose these regulations arbitrarily? Is it merely the government’s prerogative? Somehow that argument seems thin. There must be a good reason to impose these restrictions beyond its the governments right to do whatever it wants.

By Matthew

September 29, 2008 11:56 PM | Link to this

Simply —

You’re quite correct that they were religious; I should know, because I am the same faith as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom worshiped in Congregational Churches that would become (in Jefferson’s lifetime) the Unitarian faith. You seem to construct an idea that all religion is the same religion, or that for that matter, the Founding Fathers would have all been packed into a revival tent with Jerry Falwell and James Dobson leading them in prayer. The assumption of “Religion” in that sense is inappropriate, and stands in sharp contrast to the theological perspectives that the Congregationalist Churches that became the Unitarian Faith (Joseph Priestly was Franklin’s Minister, and a Father of the Unitarian faith). In your historical review, please take note that Dr. Bork in his statements to the Family Research Council that the Founding Fathers all signed the Declaration of Independence, then went to church, is only half true; the assumption is that they went to a church like those gathered at the Family Research Council, and also assumes that they did not support the separation of Church and State that they made self-evident in their works, actions, and writings simply because they were in “church attendance.”

Secondly, you also assume that the Founding Fathers were all of the same religion, that even if they were of different religions, that they agreed with each other, and further, that they intended their religiousness to be imparted in a document to which there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. I take as my source my education in the Political Science department from leading scholars in the Johns Hopkins University, primary document research of the minutes of the debates in the Constitutional Congress, and writings left by the individual Founding Fathers in question. Please enumerate to me these sources of yours that qualify your position that the Founding Fathers were not trying to protect the government from religious intervention. As preventing religion from Government intervention is apparent, it simply will not work if religion is involved in government; as the old adage goes, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too… The logic does not add up, nor would it hold up upon statutory review.

Johnson’s Amendment, for whatever background political reasons (and lo and behold, there has been political motivation from day one), still satisfies Constitutional review. You are asserting a power granted to religion that is not given. Freedom to speak, and even to exercise religiousness does not mean a thing about how money is regulated. It means that the government can’t keep you from being religious, or speaking your religious views. It never said anything about giving you a financial break. That is something that we have, as a culture, decided is a fiscally appropriate thing to do; likewise, as we already outline explicitly in tax law what constitutes non-exempt political activity, then I see no reason why a church’s minister being prevented from using the Church’s name, pulpit, and credibility as a location to push his own interpretation of why he’s going to vote for John McCain is unfair at all. Can he not simply walk out the Church and do it there?

I’m unclear why this is a big deal; the underlying agenda that the ADF is trying to push here is blatantly evident, and to assert otherwise is absurd.

In allowing Church’s to become defacto political action committees, when normal political action committees cannot offer a tax exemption for donations received — please, explain to me why anyone with half a brain would even bother using PAC’s anymore? Churches would become the central power brokers in politics. In becoming such, money, power, and voting would be funneled, unconstitutionally, through them.

By Frederick Douglass

September 30, 2008 12:38 AM | Link to this

Benjamin Franklin shamelessly slept around, ditto for Jefferson (Sally Hemmings). Check out the 1st governor of New Jersey, Franklin’s illegitimate son William. Gives new meaning to the term “Founding Fathers”. I know, they were subject to the customs, and mores of their times right?

By GMan

September 30, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

How does being taxed violate the first amendment? Will the big bad government send black helicopters and armed men to kill the pastors of these churches? I doubt it. They can talk all day long about Obama and McCain but now they’ll have to pay taxes. Freedom from taxes is not a right its a privilege.

By Copyleft

September 30, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Tax the churches.

There’s not one good reason to grant churches a special tax-evasion benefit that’s unavailable to other groups, organizations, companies, and private residences. Not one.

Disagree? Tell me why.

By chris

October 2, 2008 8:51 PM | Link to this

I’m a member at jodys church and we do help the poor,needy and unsaved.my wife and I were led to the Lord by members of the church.we volunteer many hours of our time helping people .I invite you to come sometime it just might change your view on Jody Hice.I’m glad there is someone brave enough to stand up for God.I know Jody personally and he is a man lead by God .one day there will come a day when God will askyou what did you do for me?what will you say?

By Joseph

November 2, 2008 9:36 PM | Link to this

The christian church today is far from its ‘book of acts’ days where the various scattered disciples and

their followers absolutely had to have money to survive.

What’s more, those in that time frame repeatedly disobeyed the government when they believed the words of

their diety were in danger; however, in all points they would completely and totally relent, if caught,

to their ‘physical’ punishment.

I dare say it’s safe to assume that today’s government won’t be performing any snap physical judgements

on christians. As a result, we see that the direction of today’s church organizations, by clear and

concise proof of both their canon and today’s laws, are well above and beyond the realm of financial

need.

I would also like to point out I once heard a pastor say, “..familiarity breeds contempt..”. He was

speaking of peacetime society and how people can become collectively belligerent when the ‘need’ for

unity seems to all but disappear. He goes on to point out that this unity reappears in time of war.

And religious institutions are making bold and rather belligerent claims to cross the bounds of politics

and religion in response to the upcoming elections of 2008.

Has christianity gone so far past the idealism of their ‘book of acts’ that they, as an organization

collecting huge sums of money on a weekly basis, could breach the very boundary of the territory given

them to demand yet more territory?

“More soup, please?” gives added sentiment now.

Have we become so narrow-minded as a society that we cannot step back and view life within the context of

several years at a time? Why must the extreme intent be on these current-year elections? Weren’t

previous elections just as politically devisive and rife with mud-slinging, fierce battles that didn’t

cease until the very end, and sometimes beyond?

Why then should christian organizations do the same, when the very words on which they must rely and

relate to today are as old as 8,000 years? Could it be an ‘end-time’ mentality?

As a person well-versed in the bible and contemporary christian thought, I see how christians fight

innovation with their end-time theology. Looking back on it with a moral perspective not unlike that of

a christian, this is just like that of a helpless blind person, expending ALL their sincerity reaching

out in their need to feel their way around. It contradicts the very faith in their diety that they

preach; that they must preach to continue proselytizing their ‘faith’. You might hear one say something

about a watchtower. How can the proven blind stand guard in a watchtower?

Christians preach, “..I was blind, but now I see..” Yet it is ‘justice’ of today that is blind, ladies

and gentlemen.

If you are a columnist and are searching for content, you may contact me for subsequent usage using the

information below.

Sincerely, Joseph article.requests@sbcglobal.net

By Joseph

November 2, 2008 9:38 PM | Link to this

The christian church today is far from its ‘book of acts’ days where the various scattered disciples and their followers absolutely had to have money to survive.

What’s more, those in that time frame repeatedly disobeyed the government when they believed the words of their diety were in danger; however, in all points they would completely and totally relent, if caught, to their ‘physical’ punishment.

I dare say it’s safe to assume that today’s government won’t be performing any snap physical judgements on christians. As a result, we see that the direction of today’s church organizations, by clear and concise proof of both their canon and today’s laws, are well above and beyond the realm of financial need.

I would also like to point out I once heard a pastor say, “..familiarity breeds contempt..”. He was speaking of peacetime society and how people can become collectively belligerent when the ‘need’ for unity seems to all but disappear. He goes on to point out that this unity reappears in time of war.

And religious institutions are making bold and rather belligerent claims to cross the bounds of politics and religion in response to the upcoming elections of 2008.

Has christianity gone so far past the idealism of their ‘book of acts’ that they, as an organization collecting huge sums of money on a weekly basis, could breach the very boundary of the territory given them to demand yet more territory?

“More soup, please?” gives added sentiment now.

Have we become so narrow-minded as a society that we cannot step back and view life within the context of several years at a time? Why must the extreme intent be on these current-year elections? Weren’t previous elections just as politically devisive and rife with mud-slinging, fierce battles that didn’t cease until the very end, and sometimes beyond?

Why then should christian organizations do the same, when the very words on which they must rely and relate to today are as old as 8,000 years? Could it be an ‘end-time’ mentality?

As a person well-versed in the bible and contemporary christian thought, I see how christians fight innovation with their end-time theology. Looking back on it with a moral perspective not unlike that of a christian, this is just like that of a helpless blind person, expending ALL their sincerity reaching out in their need to feel their way around. It contradicts the very faith in their diety that they preach; that they must preach to continue proselytizing their ‘faith’. You might hear one say something about a watchtower. How can the proven blind stand guard in a watchtower?

Christians preach, “..I was blind, but now I see..” Yet it is ‘justice’ of today that is blind, ladies and gentlemen.

If you are a columnist and are searching for content, you may contact me for subsequent usage using the information below.

Sincerely, Joseph article.requests@sbcglobal.net