You seem to want a neutered pastor if you're looking to restrict her speech from the pulpit. I'd feel different about that if your complaint about your pastor came during the election cycle, which is exactly what the Johnson Amendment was intended to address -- religious entities using their status as non-profits to meddle in political elections, key word being elections. Instead your post was after the inauguration, at a time when Trump was already starting to call for some pretty controversial policies, things that a collective of evangelicals, such as Tim Keller, thought worthy of addressing based on the moral merits of his stances alone. It's your pastor's job to push people to think about things in a different way and to push people to build a better world, not necessarily to sit idly back, spewing flowery messages that make you feel fuzzy and accept where your'e at. Sometimes that comes with confronting the status quo. There's also quite a wide swath of behavior that the IRS seems disinterested in addressing when it comes to the Johnson amendment anyway. Hell, look at the conservative evangelicals who were a constant and very public part of Trump's campaign and advocacy -- Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, Pat Robertson, guys like John Hagee. These guys have far more of a following and far more influence that's questionable -- and it occurred
during the election -- than a mainline, local pastor could ever have.
The fact is that you're sitting here and comparing free speech about policies to what is vile hate speech. It's impossible for white nationalism and white power speech to come from anything but a place of hatred and violence. By it's very nature, it's a call for action and violence against those it's calling to discriminate against. It cannot be anything but that. It cannot be a simple debate of policy, such as how to best deliver education standards to K-12 students, how tax policies should be handled, etc. It cannot be handled rationally. Do they deserve their right to free speech? Absolutely, that's what our country is about. But do those people deserve respect for the message they're delivering? Do they deserve to be called "good people"? Hell no, because it's inherently disrespectful and a good person doesn't advocate for putting Jews in ovens, a good person doesn't symbolically carry torches like those lit on the lawns of African Americans who struggled for civil rights in this country. And a good person doesn't defend their actions and say that some of them are good people, as our President did.
Violence is not the answer. When those who started and called for the rally are doing something that at its core incites violence -- calling for the death of people based on their race, creed, religion -- there are going to be problems. The authorities in Charlottesville should have anticipated that in our political climate, should have been ready for the few counter protestors who were ready to escalate the violence in kind. But peaceful counter protest is a core of what our country is about and should have taken place as it did; that peaceful counter protest shouldn't have been met with the violence of the bigots who started the mess. Blame should fall on the few violent counter protestors and 100% of the Nazis, skinheads, racists, etc. in the "white power" side of the event; not a single one of them is without blame, whereas only a few of the counter protestors is to blame. Conflating both sides as if they're the same is simply whitewashing the truth of the events, something our President is absolutely guilty of doing. I'm grateful for peaceful counter protest and peaceful acts of calling for us to be better toward our fellow man -- both from people such as your pastor and the peaceful protestors who were in Charlottesville. Nobody should ever lose their life for being a part of that side of the movement, and yet someone did because of one of the indefensible bigots.
patf wrote:
MidwestRoadie wrote:
Man, you're talking a lot about your supposed belief in free speech for someone who just a few months ago was complaining about their pastor exercising their right to free speech in a manner that sounded far less offensive -- and a better use of free speech -- than the bigots whose right to free speech you're defending. That's puzzling.
First if she was out on a public corner spewing her irrational thoughts, I would not care, but she is doing it from the pulpit. She is breaking the Johnson amendment law, preaching on which politics God supports, And is showing up spewing her politics at her workplace. If a Nazi shows up at your workplace preaching Nazism then I think it fair to fire them just like if they are preaching liberal/conservative values and disrupting the workplace. If my pastor wants to go protest every Saturday then I have no problem with that, but bringing it into work is wrong.
Some of you claim to be libertarians, but your true colors show up on this topic and you are really communitarians. What other topics are you willing to throw people under the bus for? Anymore there are plenty of topics that are too controversial to have a non-popular opinion on. Nazi beliefs may be the most universally hated, but people are trashed for a whole range of political views. Freedom is eroded in the world when you support retaliatory actions against those of differing opinion. Far more damage is done by the millions who think squashing unpopular views is honorable and appropriate, then 200 nuts could ever cause.