How much influence should religious groups have in politics?

0

If they do, they should be required to give up tax-free status.

None, other than for themselves to obey the law of the land as long as it does not conflict with Gods laws.

John 18:36 Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source

Romans 13:1–2 Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves.

Acts 5:29 In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.

@Rude_Bear… is the “religious group” a religion, per se? If not, they have every right to mix it up in the political arena. If they are, then they should lose their tax-exempt status.

To me religious groups should have no influence at all- its all right for individuals to have their own religious leanings, but the minute it becomes a group effort it can turn too easily in to a form of bullying.
I have “Christian” beliefs myself but definitely dont like Reverands etc trying to tell me what to think – its good for individuals to make their opinions known,but I find right wing religious pressure groups to be repulsive – its funny how these people are always bashing gays etc, but never stand up for the poor in our midst. Thats my thoughts anyway

@Sandydog… there ARE some of us who don’t think that it’s the job of government to give handouts to “the poor” ( except in the case of emergency assistance necessary for people’s survival ). I personally contribute on a regular basis to charities which operate food banks, soup kitchens, etc., but I consider it a violation of the charter of government to forcably tax those who have money and use it to contribute to the poor. Assitance of that sort should come from a caring heart, not some government lackey.

How many people actually have caring hearts?

@CaptainHarley http://action.afa.net/

Civilized countries separated church and state quite a long while ago, and for good reasons too.

The government should take care of the poor, that is part of why we pay taxes. That does not mean that Christians should not, as obviously the governments are not perfect and people still need to eat. While Jesus took care of his own and many times provided food for the hungry, that was not the reason for coming nor the theme of his preaching. The scriptures show that we should help all that we are able to that are in need.

(Mark 14:7) For YOU always have the poor with YOU, and whenever YOU want to YOU can always do them good, but me YOU do not have always.
(Romans 13:5–7) There is therefore compelling reason for YOU people to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of [YOUR] conscience. 6 For that is why YOU are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues, to him who [calls for] the tax, the tax; to him who [calls for] the tribute, the tribute; to him who [calls for] fear, such fear; to him who [calls for] honor, such honor.
(Galatians 6:10) Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to [us] in the faith.
(James 2:16–17) yet a certain one of YOU says to them: “Go in peace, keep warm and well fed,” but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it? 17 Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.
(2 Corinthians 8:12–15) For if the readiness is there first, it is especially acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what a person does not have. 13 For I do not mean for it to be easy for others, but hard on YOU; 14 but that by means of an equalizing YOUR surplus just now might offset their deficiency, in order that their surplus might also come to offset YOUR deficiency, that an equalizing might take place. 15 Just as it is written: “The person with much did not have too much, and the person with little did not have too little.”

@Rude_Bear WTF??

@CaptainHarley You asked if it was a religion/religious group. I gave you the link to their web site. see fer yerself. :-P

Oh! Ok. Thanks! : ))

@Rude_Bear… I wouldn’t consider that a church, denomination, or a religious organization of a similar nature. If they’re supported primarily by one of those types of groups, they should lose their tax-exempt status ( provided they have one ). Other than that, it just seems like an organization of like-minded indivuduals focused on issues.

@CaptainHarley Yeah, I’m not so concerned about the tax exemption as I am, one political group with a religious over tone, pushing out another because they disagree on a social issue. FYI: AFR is the political wing of AFA. AFA is total religious group and AFR is their sock puppet. They have great lawyers to cover their polyester covered asses.

@Rude_Bear .. LMAO! So what mechanism do you suggest to allow those with religious backgrounds to actively participate in the political process?

None!, the Church and Government should never be mixed

Religious groups should not be involved or have influence in politics, but it is probably hard to seperate a group of people who hold the same religious groups speaking out against a policy from the religious group itself speaking out. Still, the idea of it pisses me off.

zero

I made a typo. My post above should say…but it is probably hard to seperate a group of people who hold the same religious VIEWS speaking out against a policy, from the religious group itself speaking out.

No more or less than a non-religious group. The government should be there to serve all of it’s citizens equally.

At least those who fund the government with taxes. Religions don’t pay taxes. Why should the government serve those who do not support it?

Exactly. The separation between church and state works in both directions. The freedom to exercise one’s religion ( or no religion if that’s your preference ) prohibits the state from taxing religious organizations, the power to tax being the power to destroy. On the other hand, religious organizations may not use their tax-exempt status to support a particular political party or candidate. Where the problem comes in is when you try to definie “religious organization.”

A religious group like any group is a coalition of like minded individuals entitled to whatever power their numbers can bring to bear. The more like minded people the more powerful the coalition.
To limit the power of any group, religious or not, would be to disenfranchise each of the individuals that in any group. The first amendment inhibits one group from suppressing any other.

None. The secular model is the best we got. Of course religious groups can voice an opinion. But laws are made by elected representatives.

@texasescimo yawn.