Dan Patrick and Trump want politics and religion to mix. At what cost? - EUROPE SAYS
Regarding “Dan Patrick challenges separation of church and state through federal policy proposals,” (June 26): Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is convinced that there is no constitutional evidence regarding the. . .
Regarding “Dan Patrick challenges separation of church and state through federal policy proposals,” (June 26): Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is convinced that there is no constitutional evidence regarding the principle of the separation of church and state, although it is and has been implied in settled law throughout American history. A very interesting interpretation, to say the least. Allowing churches to be politicized is very expedient for their ideological purposes; however, he’s missing an important point. As an adjunct to the church-state separation is the tenet that churches do not have to pay taxes on their income, properties or investment holdings. Megachurch pastorsdriveLamborghinis and live in multi-million-dollar properties that belong “to the church. ” If there is no separation, then why not start taxing them just like “we the people” and corporations are taxed? I suspect that the churches would be aghast at that proposition and would immediately rescind their newfound political “rights. ”The purpose of religion and its property and assets in our country is to promote God and to do good works, no matter how “God” is perceived. Political agendas do not fit in this framework. Maybe Patrick should reconsider his views, and just maybe, our legislators will wake up and see the potential damage of this double-edged sword to their own places of worship, even if it’s not a megachurch. A proposal from President Donald Trump and Lt. Gov. Patrick to toss the concept of separation of church and state should be viewed with concern and, perhaps, alarm. Many of America’s early settlers left their homeland due to religious persecution. Increasingly, states are mandating education in Judeo-Christian concepts, so it appears that our country is sliding toward the same state-sanctioned religion they escaped. However, my concern doesn’t stem only from this trend. What sort of involvement in politics are Trump and Patrick suggesting? We are called, in Proverbs 31:8-9, to be advocates for justice, to speak up, judge fairly and defend the rights of the poor and needy. We are called to be “salt and light,” to glorify God and advance his kingdom by standing for truth, loving our neighbors and seeking the common good. Every Christian in America, as well as every member of every religion, can follow these directives without legal mandates or tax-exempt funds by voting their conscience and, if called, engaging in politics at the individual level. Trump and Patrick should turn to God’s teachings to direct their activities, not turn their activities to interpreting God’s teachings. There is a clear danger that politics and politicians may become idols by allowing the state to set a moral tone and standard. While the article states that they are calling for more religious involvement in politics, I would argue that they are truly calling for more political involvement in religion, for their own glory. No good can come from that, and we should strenuously repel their interference. I was appalled by the idea that churches must be allowed to openly participate in political campaigns. I understand some of this already slips by, but to openly allow churches to do this is to steal the soul of the church. In my church, which I have attended for 37 years, there are big political differences. We deal with these differences, knowing that political discussions have no place inside the church. There may be an upside to this nefarious plan. Suddenly, churches will be a political force, no different than corporations and rich donors. Thus, they should be taxed like those entities. Certainly, the federal government needs all the dough it can get, given our free-spending regime. Beyond taxation, churches should be required to follow secular law, which forbids employment discrimination based on gender. If one wants to see what happens when the church gets into bed with political leaders, look no further than Russia. The Russian Patriarch officially called Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a “Holy War. ” Moreover, one could look at the theocracies that prevail in several countries. In my opinion, religious zealots in those countries are the stuff of more wars. Maybe the world community will replay the story of the Crusades. I would beg those who want to tear down the American wall between church and state to reconsider their position.