Posted on Sep 8, 2017
Separation of Church and State: Kamala Harris and the Dem Exemption - Black & Blonde Media
1.53K
16
19
3
3
0
Religion
Democrats
IRS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
The left promotes the rights of everyone to worship freely, especially those who are risk of being persecuted. Politicians from all political parties regularly speak in churches... complaining because the left is just as likely to do this as the right is more than a little disingenuous. Separation of Church and state is an important issue, however that doesn't mean a Church can't invite a politician to speak. It doesn't even mean a Church can't endorse and support a candidate running for office if they don't mind risking their tax exempt status. If you are bothered by the fact that Senator Kamala Harris uses Churches for political events... this should really upset you: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/03/politics/donald-trump-black-voters-detroit/index.html
Trump brings message of unity to black church
A subdued Donald Trump on Saturday directly addressed a largely African-American audience for the first time as a presidential candidate, delivering a warmly received message of unity that focused on fixing economic hardship in the black community.
(3)
(0)
SN (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Sorry, I don't have time who wants to reinterpret what is clearly written in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
AGAIN, the only issue the First Amendment has with religion is the government creating one. With that, all of your other arguments are moot, thus a waste of time.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
AGAIN, the only issue the First Amendment has with religion is the government creating one. With that, all of your other arguments are moot, thus a waste of time.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SN (Join to see) - Your free to believe in your own interpretation of what the first amendment means, however US law is clearly aligned with my interpretation of the first Amendment. The government is not to be Protestant or Catholic, Muslim or Christian or Atheist, it is to be completely neutral with regard to religion.
(0)
(0)
SN (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Wow, instead of an SSG, you should've been the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Such genius wasted since YOUR interpretation of the First Amendment is all that should be considered.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I simply pointed out that the Supreme Court, shared my interpretation of the first Amendment. Thomas Jefferson explained it as a "wall of separation between church and state."
It's understood that there are various types of Theocrats out there who want to establish a Christian religious state, and that they have a different interpretation.
It's understood that there are various types of Theocrats out there who want to establish a Christian religious state, and that they have a different interpretation.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
Right wing BS. The left and the right both use churches to benefit their campaigns, whether on site or off. The article sounds like sour grapes to me. I would expect Bob Parks lost his race and is still crying.
Muslims are not a favorite of the Progressives any more than any other religion.
I would like to see tax exemption for religious institutions abolished. than you can speak wherever you want and are invited if you are campaigning.
Muslims are not a favorite of the Progressives any more than any other religion.
I would like to see tax exemption for religious institutions abolished. than you can speak wherever you want and are invited if you are campaigning.
(1)
(0)
SN (Join to see)
Left wing BS. It seems to my recollection that the left was all outraged about the whole moral equivalence, "both sides do it" argument, then again I understand who I'm dealing with.
Also, you speak from ignorance. I saw a need in my district, gave the voters a clear choice and they chose him. Whenever I go back, I'm told they wished I had won because the Democrat not only did nothing for his constituents, but used that term to secure his pension so he could then run for the six year term as sheriff.
I never ran for career advancement; I ran because I knew a lot of people through my job who needed help and a change of direction. I got rejected, I never ran again and again because it was all about me. So, until you know anything about what my "race" was all about, you might ask first before making a rather stupid assumption.
Also, you speak from ignorance. I saw a need in my district, gave the voters a clear choice and they chose him. Whenever I go back, I'm told they wished I had won because the Democrat not only did nothing for his constituents, but used that term to secure his pension so he could then run for the six year term as sheriff.
I never ran for career advancement; I ran because I knew a lot of people through my job who needed help and a change of direction. I got rejected, I never ran again and again because it was all about me. So, until you know anything about what my "race" was all about, you might ask first before making a rather stupid assumption.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google