ATLANTA BISHOP Writes Scathing Letter agianst Senator & Investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[StillStanding]

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.

Maybe we're not understanding the constitution.

The above passage means that congress can't establish a national religion. It doesn't mean that they shall make no law respecting a religious institution.

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

Maybe we're not understanding the constitution.

The above passage means that congress can't establish a national religion. It doesn't mean that they shall make no law respecting a religious institution.

I think that's where you're misunderstanding the Constitution.

The Constitution is pretty plain. It doesn't say, Congress shall establish no religion.

It says Congress shall make no law respecting (or in today's verbage, concerning or regarding) an establishment of religion. That means they cannot establish one themselves by law...nor can they make a law regarding ones that were already established. And since past Presidents, including Jefferson and Madison, took that to mean that they couldn't interfere with religious establishments already in existence, I don't see why it should be any different now. Religion is supposed to be an area where the federal government stays clear. According to your definition of the Constitution, Congress could pass just about any law regarding religious establishments, and as long as they weren't prohibiting someone from their freedom of worship or establishing a national religion, anything is fair game. If Congress passed a law saying all of Christ Church's members must appear yearly before a Congressional subcommittee to talk about the beliefs of the church, that's neither establishing a church nor prohibiting it's freedom of practice. Under your definition of the Constitution, that would be perfectly legal. Under mine, it would be unconstitutional.

And yes, I know it's an absurd hypothetical. But my point is just that under your definition, which doesn't fit the language of the Constitution, Congress could run all sorts of intereference in churches, and as long as it didn't prohibit their religious practices, it would be perfectly fine. For people who are so adamant in opposition against extra-Biblical interpetation, why treat interpetation of the Constitution any differently?

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

I think that's where you're misunderstanding the Constitution.

The Constitution is pretty plain. It doesn't say, Congress shall establish no religion.

It says Congress shall make no law respecting (or in today's verbage, concerning or regarding) an establishment of religion. That means they cannot establish one themselves by law...nor can they make a law regarding ones that were already established. And since past Presidents, including Jefferson and Madison, took that to mean that they couldn't interfere with religious establishments already in existence, I don't see why it should be any different now. Religion is supposed to be an area where the federal government stays clear. According to your definition of the Constitution, Congress could pass just about any law regarding religious establishments, and as long as they weren't prohibiting someone from their freedom of worship or establishing a national religion, anything is fair game. If Congress passed a law saying all of Christ Church's members must appear yearly before a Congressional subcommittee to talk about the beliefs of the church, that's neither establishing a church nor prohibiting it's freedom of practice. Under your definition of the Constitution, that would be perfectly legal. Under mine, it would be unconstitutional.

And yes, I know it's an absurd hypothetical. But my point is just that under your definition, which doesn't fit the language of the Constitution, Congress could run all sorts of intereference in churches, and as long as it didn't prohibit their religious practices, it would be perfectly fine. For people who are so adamant in opposition against extra-Biblical interpetation, why treat interpetation of the Constitution any differently?

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.

The highlighted in blue part of the constitution controls the parts of your response that I highlighted! Our country has freedom of religion. Congress can't pressure or cause a religion to not exist.

[Thad]

Altanta Bishop Told me to tell Yall that he is SO HURT at many of you for the way you have attacked him and his efforts to protect the church from the onslought of the Government coming against the church .

some of you may owe him an aoplogy otherwise it may be long long time til he darkens the Door of this forum ! !

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Thad

Altanta Bishop Told me to tell Yall that he is SO HURT at many of you for the way you have attacked him and his efforts to protect the church from the onslought of the Government coming against the church .

some of you may owe him an aoplogy otherwise it may be long long time til he darkens the Door of this forum ! !

Tell him to quit being a big baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bo uquet

[RevDWW]

1 Samuel 4:8 - 9 (KJV) 9 Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves like men, and fight.

Put'm up...come on and put up your dukes......

[Sam]

This is today's online editorial by J.L. Grady, editor of Charisma Magazine

In Defense of the Good Senator
Some Christians fear that the Senate’s probe of six charismatic ministries is a devilish conspiracy. Yet the man behind the investigation is a Bible-believing Christian.

Unless you’ve been on vacation in the South Pacific for the last two weeks, you probably know that Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa caused a commotion on Nov. 6 when he announced that the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs, is investigating the financial operations of six charismatic mega-ministries.

Judging by the reaction from some sectors of the Christian public, you’d think Grassley had donned a black hood and launched another Spanish Inquisition. Some Christian leaders have openly suggested that Grassley is about to send IRS henchmen armed with clubs, hatchets and instruments of torture to every church in America.

“We must keep the government out of the church, or everything our founding fathers fought for is lost!” wrote Paul Crouch Jr. of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, in an open rebuttal of my Nov. 9 column about the investigation. Crouch also implied that Grassley’s probe is similar to Hitler’s persecution of Christians in 1930s Germany.

“Before we demonize Grassley, it might be worth looking at his own religious background.”

Huh? Why are we so paranoid? Just because a senator has asked for some documents to prove that these ministries are in compliance with the law? Before we demonize Grassley, it might be worth looking at his own religious background—and the reasons for his investigation. In an interview with him this week I learned some interesting facts:

1. Grassley is an outspoken evangelical Christian. “My faith is based on the promise of salvation in Jesus Christ found in John 3:16,” he told me. It’s refreshing to hear those words from anyone on Capitol Hill. Grassley was saved at age 11—“in January 1945,” he said—and he and his wife have attended the same Baptist church in Cedar Falls, Iowa, since 1954. The congregation is now called Prairie Lakes Church.

2. Grassley doesn’t believe in government intrusion of religion. The 74-year-old senator told me that his inquiry is strictly about compliance with the law, not about doctrine. On Prairie Lakes’ Web site, its leaders explain their view of the role of government: “We believe that every human being has direct relations with God, and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith; that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority; that therefore Church and State must be kept separate as having different functions, each fulfilling its duties free from dictation or patronage of the other.” That doesn’t sound like the spirit of Antichrist to me.

3. Grassley has a reputation for integrity. He recently conducted an investigation of several secular nonprofit organizations including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Red Cross. Those entities were not shut down because of his inquiry, but they did make internal changes in order to correct financial abuses and to comply with IRS rules. All Grassley wants is assurance that the six ministries are following the law. Is that evil?

4. Grassley is not basing his investigation on one person’s agenda. Some of Grassley’s critics believe that self-appointed ministry watchdog Ole Anthony (who has a dubious reputation in many Christian circles) is manipulating this inquiry from behind the scenes. But Grassley assured me that the complaints against Benny Hinn; Kenneth and Gloria Copeland; Creflo and Taffi Dollar; David and Joyce Meyer; Randy and Paula White; and Eddie Long are based on numerous public complaints, media reports and, in some cases, statements from whistle-blowers who were at one time associated with the ministries.

5. Grassley has some sound advice for evangelical churches. When I asked the senator what steps churches should take to strengthen their integrity, he immediately recommended that they join the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability—a Christian organization that provides a “seal of approval” for groups that follow normal accounting procedures. Grassley believes those handling public funds should subject themselves to added scrutiny because, he says, “you are a trustee of the people’s money.”

6. Grassley has some refreshingly old-fashioned views on ministry. He made this statement to reporters last week: “Jesus came into the city on a simple donkey. To what extent do you need a Rolls-Royce to expand the ministry of Jesus Christ?”

That’s an honest question from an honest man, and it deserves an honest answer.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sam

This is today's online editorial by J.L. Grady, editor of Charisma Magazine

In Defense of the Good Senator
Some Christians fear that the Senate’s probe of six charismatic ministries is a devilish conspiracy. Yet the man behind the investigation is a Bible-believing Christian.

Unless you’ve been on vacation in the South Pacific for the last two weeks, you probably know that Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa caused a commotion on Nov. 6 when he announced that the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs, is investigating the financial operations of six charismatic mega-ministries.

Judging by the reaction from some sectors of the Christian public, you’d think Grassley had donned a black hood and launched another Spanish Inquisition. Some Christian leaders have openly suggested that Grassley is about to send IRS henchmen armed with clubs, hatchets and instruments of torture to every church in America.

“We must keep the government out of the church, or everything our founding fathers fought for is lost!” wrote Paul Crouch Jr. of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, in an open rebuttal of my Nov. 9 column about the investigation. Crouch also implied that Grassley’s probe is similar to Hitler’s persecution of Christians in 1930s Germany.

“Before we demonize Grassley, it might be worth looking at his own religious background.”

Huh? Why are we so paranoid? Just because a senator has asked for some documents to prove that these ministries are in compliance with the law? Before we demonize Grassley, it might be worth looking at his own religious background—and the reasons for his investigation. In an interview with him this week I learned some interesting facts:

1. Grassley is an outspoken evangelical Christian. “My faith is based on the promise of salvation in Jesus Christ found in John 3:16,” he told me. It’s refreshing to hear those words from anyone on Capitol Hill. Grassley was saved at age 11—“in January 1945,” he said—and he and his wife have attended the same Baptist church in Cedar Falls, Iowa, since 1954. The congregation is now called Prairie Lakes Church.

2. Grassley doesn’t believe in government intrusion of religion. The 74-year-old senator told me that his inquiry is strictly about compliance with the law, not about doctrine. On Prairie Lakes’ Web site, its leaders explain their view of the role of government: “We believe that every human being has direct relations with God, and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith; that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority; that therefore Church and State must be kept separate as having different functions, each fulfilling its duties free from dictation or patronage of the other.” That doesn’t sound like the spirit of Antichrist to me.

3. Grassley has a reputation for integrity. He recently conducted an investigation of several secular nonprofit organizations including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Red Cross. Those entities were not shut down because of his inquiry, but they did make internal changes in order to correct financial abuses and to comply with IRS rules. All Grassley wants is assurance that the six ministries are following the law. Is that evil?

4. Grassley is not basing his investigation on one person’s agenda. Some of Grassley’s critics believe that self-appointed ministry watchdog Ole Anthony (who has a dubious reputation in many Christian circles) is manipulating this inquiry from behind the scenes. But Grassley assured me that the complaints against Benny Hinn; Kenneth and Gloria Copeland; Creflo and Taffi Dollar; David and Joyce Meyer; Randy and Paula White; and Eddie Long are based on numerous public complaints, media reports and, in some cases, statements from whistle-blowers who were at one time associated with the ministries.

5. Grassley has some sound advice for evangelical churches. When I asked the senator what steps churches should take to strengthen their integrity, he immediately recommended that they join the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability—a Christian organization that provides a “seal of approval” for groups that follow normal accounting procedures. Grassley believes those handling public funds should subject themselves to added scrutiny because, he says, “you are a trustee of the people’s money.”

6. Grassley has some refreshingly old-fashioned views on ministry. He made this statement to reporters last week: “Jesus came into the city on a simple donkey. To what extent do you need a Rolls-Royce to expand the ministry of Jesus Christ?”

That’s an honest question from an honest man, and it deserves an honest answer.

Grassley MAY moderate his inquiry but once the door is open it will never be shut. And the next Senator might be Barney Frank and his inquiry would be on the mistreatment of homosexuals in certain churches. The goverment always gets BIGGER never smaller.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Grassley MAY moderate his inquiry but once the door is open it will never be shut. And the next Senator might be Barney Frank and his inquiry would be on the mistreatment of homosexuals in certain churches. The goverment always gets BIGGER never smaller.

Isn't there a difference in investigating misconduct and maybe outright fraud and questioning church doctrine?

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by Thad

Altanta Bishop Told me to tell Yall that he is SO HURT at many of you for the way you have attacked him and his efforts to protect the church from the onslought of the Government coming against the church .

some of you may owe him an aoplogy otherwise it may be long long time til he darkens the Door of this forum ! !

Thad - who's "attacked" AB? LoL Nobody here has attacked anyone but the thieves and Fidy-cent fakers posing as ministers.

There's no "onslaught of the government coming against the church" from this investigation. Sure, I imagine years down the road the government may indeed crack down on religion, but it's not coming from this investigation.

I hope AB comes to look what's being said on his own and isn't just relying on the info you're giving him . . .