I am surprised by this position, for this is not what the First Amendment states. Here is the wording of the amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." . (go here good article on the First Amendment)
The First Amendment addressed the concerns of our founding fathers in protecting against a Church/State being set up in the United States as they had seen in Europe where Church leaders also had control over the government. State churches had great power to control the lives of the people even to the point of requiring the populace to only be members of that faith. They also had the power to inflict punishments on those who did not obey their church law. The framers of the Constitution sought to protect our freedoms by adding this First Amendment to our Bill of Rights.
The other main reason for this part of The First Amendment is given in this section: "Congress shall make no law [concerning religion]. . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The purpose of this section of the First Amendment was to protect the many religious minorities which had sought refuge in this land. It was a guarantee from our national government of religious freedom for all.
The First Amendment protects us from being controlled by a State Religion and guarantees all of us the freedom to live our religious beliefs. The rest of the First Amendment also guarantees us freedom of speech, of the press, to peaceful assembly, and to petition our Government for redress of grievances. It is all about freedom and was never intended to silence the voice of religious leaders in speaking out about moral issues. The First Amendment does not say that everyone is guaranteed freedom of speech -- except for religious leaders.
Regardless, some still feel that churches should restrict themselves to "saving souls" and to just caring for the spirits of their flock. But where would we be without all the religious leaders who led our founding fathers and mothers to the Americas in search of freedom? Where would we be without all the great abolitionist preachers of the 1800's? Where would be today without all the great men of faith who peacefully advocated justice and freedom such as: Nelson Mandela (a strong Christian), Mahatma Gandhi (a committed Hindu), and Martin Luther King Jr. (a Baptist pastor)?
Of course churches should not instruct their members to vote for specific candidates, or use their buildings for political meetings. Each person must make his own decision about which person she or he thinks will do the best job. With our citizenship comes the obligation to serve in political offices to ensure a just government which serves the needs of the people.
Yes, we all have the responsibility to stand up for what we believe is right. In doing so, can we risk allowing the voices of our religious spokesmen to be silenced? Wouldn't this allow the political leaders greater power to run our lives unchallenged? Can we afford the greed and injustice of a government where "moral issues" are not considered "relevant"? Who will speak up for the rights of the unborn, of the refugees, and of the minorities? Will the magnates of business or politics find it to their advantage to defend the weak, or will they view them as merely "a drain on society"? Would you want to live in a country where monetary gain and acquisition of power are the basis of decisions? Can we survive long as a free society without our people of faith, our religious leaders, our churches? I doubt it.
for a statement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Politics see:
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality
No comments:
Post a Comment