Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
07-06-2015, 05:41 PM
(07-06-2015, 03:55 PM)ssphoto Wrote: 6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
***
6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.
>>> I see your point. Free speech is important, but I still am against it being abused by "speaking for" all a groups membership. Also, I'm referring to keeping it out of political policy making. If a board member or spokeperson for a religious group wants to have free speech, let it be on individual terms. I suspect our country wasn't as much a "melting pot" over 200 years ago like it is today. As and example, it is not the churches business to make policy over same ***** marriage. They can ban it per their policy, but the State can certainly treat those folks with equal fairness. Call it civil union. Conversely, a gay couple cannot expect the church to accommodate them, and it's not up to the government to get involved with religious affairs either. They can argue with the church all they want, but the government will always treat people equally and fairly, despite religion.
I am just not seeing your point. No matter how you phrase it, it still sounds like censorship. If a religious organization permits its clergy to speak about politics from the pulpit, it is not my, yours, or the governments right or business to tell that clergyman he can't say it.
(07-06-2015, 03:55 PM)ssphoto Wrote: 6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
***
6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.
>>> I see your point. Free speech is important, but I still am against it being abused by "speaking for" all a groups membership. Also, I'm referring to keeping it out of political policy making. If a board member or spokeperson for a religious group wants to have free speech, let it be on individual terms. I suspect our country wasn't as much a "melting pot" over 200 years ago like it is today. As and example, it is not the churches business to make policy over same ***** marriage. They can ban it per their policy, but the State can certainly treat those folks with equal fairness. Call it civil union. Conversely, a gay couple cannot expect the church to accommodate them, and it's not up to the government to get involved with religious affairs either. They can argue with the church all they want, but the government will always treat people equally and fairly, despite religion.
I am just not seeing your point. No matter how you phrase it, it still sounds like censorship. If a religious organization permits its clergy to speak about politics from the pulpit, it is not my, yours, or the governments right or business to tell that clergyman he can't say it.
***
6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.
>>> I see your point. Free speech is important, but I still am against it being abused by "speaking for" all a groups membership. Also, I'm referring to keeping it out of political policy making. If a board member or spokeperson for a religious group wants to have free speech, let it be on individual terms. I suspect our country wasn't as much a "melting pot" over 200 years ago like it is today. As and example, it is not the churches business to make policy over same ***** marriage. They can ban it per their policy, but the State can certainly treat those folks with equal fairness. Call it civil union. Conversely, a gay couple cannot expect the church to accommodate them, and it's not up to the government to get involved with religious affairs either. They can argue with the church all they want, but the government will always treat people equally and fairly, despite religion.
I am just not seeing your point. No matter how you phrase it, it still sounds like censorship. If a religious organization permits its clergy to speak about politics from the pulpit, it is not my, yours, or the governments right or business to tell that clergyman he can't say it.