Tag Archives: Karl Marx

Policing the Pulpit & The Johnson Amendment 0 (0)

Policing the Pulpit & The Johnson Amendment- “People of faith do not want partisan political fights infiltrating their houses of worship.”

by Bill Lockwood

In a letter sent to members of Congress earlier this month, 99 signatory churches, including Baptist and Muslim churches, appealed to lawmakers not to repeal the 1954 Johnson Amendment. The Johnson Amendment, a revision to the tax code sponsored by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson and agreed upon by a compliant Congress, “updated” the language of the IRS code to prohibit non-profit organizations, especially churches, from actively participating in political elections. It was effectively a gag order on the pulpits.

Why was the future president so intent on policing the pulpit via the tax code—threatening churches with removal of tax-exempt status if they logged in on “political issues?” Because conservative churches in the state of Texas, Baptist churches and churches of Christ, for example, had been a thorn in Johnson’s side during the election processes that put him in Congress. Preachers in that era had been regularly involved in Anti-Communist efforts and many of them connected Johnson with philosophies of socialism. Johnson had his revenge.

Now, more than 50 years later, President Trump has promised during the presidential campaign to rid America of the “very unfair” Johnson Amendment so that “great pastors and ministers, rabbis and priests and everybody can go and …participate in the election process.”

Just for the record, preachers worth their salt do not need government approval; IRS code or no tax code; or President Trump’s assistance– to speak forthrightly on the issues of the day—whether it be abortion, homosexuality, evolution, slavery, or the ungodly forcible transfer of wealth flying under the false flag of “social justice,” or even to object to women in the pulpit. But we appreciate his desire to erase unconstitutional restrictions.

The problem, however, is that many pulpiteers are fearful and timid. They like the government control because, as Chuck Baldwin correctly puts it, it gives them cover for their cowardice. The letter from the 99 in part reads, “Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system. People of faith do not want partisan political fights infiltrating their houses of worship.”

No, what these preachers really want is a big excuse to give to their members as to why they steadfastly refuse to address the burning issues of the day. Wringing their hands when accosted by furious pew-sitters, the pulpiteers squeak out that the “government disallows” them from addressing these issues “lest we lose our tax exempt status.” Cannot these denominational overlords manage their own flocks without grasping for government aid?

What is Happening?

First, the Johnson Amendment is flagrantly anti-Constitutional. The First Amendment clearly settles the issue. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—meaning there would be no state-sponsored religious institutions. “Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …” – government is in a “hands-off” mode as far as monitoring, suggesting or regulating the speech in any church-related or religious institution. The freedom is God-given and the First Amendment promises that government intrusion will never occur, period.

IRS Commissioner in 2006, Mark W. Everson, showed that he understood perfectly well the issue. Speaking at the City Club of Cleveland, Ohio, he opined, “Freedom of speech and religious liberty are essential elements of our democracy. But the Supreme Court has in essence held that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right, stating, ‘Congress has not violated [an organization’s] First Amendment activities by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.”

In other words, the tax code extends “privileges” not “rights” by means of exemption and the punishing of churches for “political” speech or activity via taxation does not violate their free speech! That is the government position.

This is the problem with big government to begin with. It takes in hand to decide what it will and will not allow as far as “free speech” is concerned. Politicians apparently refuse to confess that free speech is a God-bestowed right by Natural Law, and prefer to suppose that it is a grant from themselves.

Second, the heart of the issue is to define what is “political” speech and what is “not?” Who decides? As long as we allow the government to set the parameters of discussion here, it will stuff a sock in the mouth of preachers. Is social justice (aka socialism) solely a “political” issue? It is in essence the theft of money from one person or one group and a re-distribution to another. This includes education, health care, environmental regulations, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules, and scores of other schemes. Social Justice is, in reality, an immoral concept.

What about slavery, homosexuality, abortion, or cloning? Slavery was once a part of the law of the land. A “political issue.” Should pulpits have remained silent on this moral atrocity? At least the Founding generation were not devious as have been the Democrats and Republicans of the current generation for they would have included government control over the pulpits of that era which united to condemn it.

Third, the 99 churches are outright hypocritical. The National Council of Churches (NCC), representing thousands of churches, has a website that reads like a laundry list created by Karl Marx himself. Under “A 21st Century Social Creed” the NCC’s “vision of society” includes “civil, political, and economic rights” for all people; “employment for all at a family sustaining living wage”; a “system of criminal rehabilitation”; “enactment of policies” to abate “hunger and poverty”; “universal public education” and “healthcare”; “sustainable use of earth’s resources”; “tax and budget policies to reduce disparity between rich and poor”; “sustainable communities”; and the list goes on.

Each of these issues includes proposals of political policies to be enacted to achieve them. But now the 99 churches want to be free from politics and wishes the government to serve as the “valuable safeguard” to ensure it? Absolutely unbelievable.

No. What the 99 signatories wish is that the liberal politicians like a Barack Obama continue trampling the Word of God with hob-nail boots and the pew-packers continue to swallow it. Preachers have not only a Constitutional right to address the issues of the day in their churches, but an obligation to do so. This includes speaking out against ungodly practices of politicians as well as exposing their wicked stratagems that they place into law. We need no more government policing of the pulpit. What mankind needs is not only a Free Market economy but a free marketplace of religious ideas.

Why the Socialism of the Democratic Party is Evil 0 (0)

Why the Socialism of the Democratic Party is Evil

by Bill Lockwood

Socialism is a competing view of human nature than that offered by the Bible. At the heart of a socialistic worldview is the basic premise that the nature of man is shaped by the economic system. It is only because of this particular view of human nature that socialism includes a theory of the nature and function of government which redistributes wealth. In other words, the only way to change human behavior is through forcible redistribution of resources. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, asserted in the Saturday night Democratic debate when he said that Climate Change is the biggest “security threat” to the United States.

On Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson followed up the Saturday debate with Sanders on “Face the Nation,” which Dickerson hosts. Dickerson asked whether or not Sanders had changed his mind on the assessment that Climate Change was the biggest “security threat” in light of the Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris. Socialist Sanders responded, “If we are going to see an increase in drought, flood and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that people all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources.” “If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrations of people fighting over land that will sustain them, and that will lead to international conflicts.”

Dickerson interjected, “But how does drought connect with attacks by [the Islamic State] in the middle of Paris?” Sanders continued, “When you have drought, when people can’t grow their crops, they’re going to migrate into cities, and when people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al-Qaeda and ISIS are using right now. So where you have discontent, where you have instability, that’s where problems arise, and certainly, without a doubt, climate change will lead to that.”

Overtly Anti-Christian

The bloody Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris are aided and abetted by this false and ignorant view of human nature espoused by socialism and voiced by Bernie Sanders. It refuses common sense and insists, even before the smoke in Paris has dissipated, that people are not as much shaped by what they believe—the Koran or any other set of beliefs—but by economics. Sanders would have us to believe that the poverty of the attackers, not the teaching of the Koran, is the cause. This is mass BRAINWASHING on a Hitlerian scale that has emanated from the academy and has engulfed the entire Democratic Party. Sadly, it will continue to wreak a horrific vengeance upon society as long as liberalism fails to grasp the basics of human nature.

Vergilius Ferm, in his Encyclopedia of Religion, explains this gross error of socialism. “American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue of the given natural faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia, a self-contained world of man, individualistic here, collectivist there, and redeemed from evil, once and for all, by the economic process, much as this requires men conscious of their opportunity. This is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine.”

Oscar Jaszi, the famed Hungarian social scientist and politician, noted that socialists insist that the “immorality of the established order is traceable NOT to the …nature of man, but to ‘corrupt institutions.’”  Therefore, socialism always seeks to transform the institutions of society because they are somehow “unjust.” Since socialism teaches that the nature of man is shaped by the economic system, if one changes the economic system from private ownership to the collective state ownership, the nature of man will be changed—for the better per the Democratic Party.

The Reality of Human Nature

The founders of America, with one voice, repudiated the socialistic fantasy regarding human nature. Man is a free moral agent which is independent of his economic status. Man is sinful by practice (Rom. 3:23) which is why unbridled power, not poverty, was considered the greatest enemy to freedom. Human experience shows that poverty does not necessarily breed bad behavior nor does an equality of goods among citizens foster a better society. Moral sensitivity is imbedded in the heart of poor and rich alike and has nothing whatsoever to do with our wealth or lack thereof. Men are still moved by ideals, good or bad.

One man who had discarded this truth only to find it again was American editor and journalist Max Eastman. After experimenting with socialistic theories, even traveling to the Soviet Union to learn from the masters at the Kremlin, he repudiated it. In his Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, he tells us why socialism is always a failure. “It seemed perfectly clear, once the question was boldly put, that if the socialist hypothesis were valid in general, some tiny shred of the benefits promised by it would have appeared when the Russian capitalists were expropriated and production taken over by the state, no matter how untoward the circumstances. By that time everything in Russia was worse from the standpoint of socialist ideals that it had been under the regime of the Tsar.  I did not need any additional experiments such as that of Nazi Germany, or in England, to the obvious drift in other countries, to convince me.  I was sure than the whole idea of extending freedom, or justice, or equality, or any other civilized value, to the lower classes through common ownership of the means of production was a delusive dream, a bubble that had taken over a century to burst.”

As Eastman would say, how many more failed experiments do we need of socialistic control before we will repudiate it? Apparently, even blood in the streets of Paris does not faze the socialists. They must preach their foolish theory. The Barack Obama’s and Bernie Sanders of the world will keep on messing around with their academic ivory-tower falsehoods to the erosion of our safety and loss of our freedom.

Back to Homepage

 

Recent Entries »