Thanks for the info. But I don't see what the Johnson Amendment has to do the statement I questioned.
Very true. But then even if they were, you can have the Unions supporting the next dude who will negotiate their next contract. Not a workable system.
Outside of a few overzealous exceptions, churches do not exclude attendees or even members who do not tithe. Giving is voluntary, as is membership itself, which differentiates from unions.
Separation of church and state is why we don't tax churches. The tax system isn't even handed, so some churches would have tax burdens different from others, and that would be favoring one religion over another. I'm no fan of religion in any form, but it isn't for me to order anyone else what to believe.
just your basic political maneuvering. "god fearin' folk vote republican, so lets make them more relevant politically." when dems are in control it will get squashed again, and so on.
In addition to that.... they also didn't want another Church of England. The amendment prevents Congress from creating a government endorsed religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" How people took that to mean that there should be ZERO religion in schools or government is beyond me. I really think "Separation of Church and State" has to be the most misunderstood part of the Constitution. Probably more than "freedom of speech," which interestingly enough is part of the same damn amendment.
Thing is, the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't even come from the constitution itself, but from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1801, specifically telling them that their church should be safe from government interference.
Of course this is why we have a constitution, to level out the ridiculous. Dems do like to ignore it though.
Thank you for info, it does need to be restated from time to time. In my understanding of the establishment clause and trying to ascertain the original intent, the term religion actually should be denomination. At the time, a Christian religion did not exist as an actual organization and had not for many hundreds of years. Variations of the Christianity were represented by several different denominations of churches organized in different parts of the world but no unified Christian religion. I think the establishment clause is intended to prohibit the establishment of any specific domination, while the nation would follow the tenets of the Judeo Christian philosophy. Hence we see, the 10 commandment many places, and the references to the Judeo Christian God in everyones pocket. The clause is intended to prevent the establishment of any denomination to have a status like the Church of England where the sovereign is the head of the Church and so on. Jefferson said, not a quote but from my memory, the specifics of any religion should not be apparent in the government so that even a Mohammedan could live here. While we reference the same god and some of the same tenets, it is still another religion and I don't know that they would agree Jefferson's hope has been met. Had he known enough about Islam, he might not have been quite so bold. He did learn more later in dealing with the Barbary Pirates. I see nothing in the establishment clause that justifies the call for separation of Church and State in the extremes taken today. A Cross is not establishing any denomination nor do the 10 commandment establish preference to a denomination or even a specific religion.
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
