Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay, I know you would like to seethe tax code provision barring endorsement of candidates by non-profitsrepealed.  We have a big difference ofopinion about that.

             However, I do not see why you believe thatunder the current law the “line between issue advocacy and electioneering isnot clear cut”.  If a minister reallywants to talk about any moral issue he or she just says, for example: “I opposethe federal income tax because it is just a socialistic redistribution ofwealth” and then adds: “so do your homework and find out  what candidates for public office wantrepeal and vote for them”, that’s legal. If the pastor says the same thing but closes “and that African AmericanSenator who is running for President seems to like income redistribution” hehas an IRS problem. It is clear that the pastor wants you not to vote forBarack Obama.  That’s what BishopSerratelli’s pastoral letter was all about. What else could he possibly have meant?

             Any “chill”on just speaking out against abortion is clearly self-imposed.  If the minister is not trying to be cute orcoy, he just tells people that he thinks God doesn’t like abortion and thenurges parishioners to vote accordingly.  He adds no names, no pictures, no coded messages. 

             Of course,in New Mexico,”but for” the church deciding to put up that anti-abortion display, how wouldthe passerby you envision have any reason to think about the issue at thattime.  Of course, it was the church thattried to send its “moral” as well as “vote McCain” message to the public.

               As to RickWarren, he is entitled under the tax law, to do just what he did and proclaimhis support for Proposition 8.  You areright that many other religious leaders are speaking out strongly inopposition.  I just disagree with Warren on the merits (orin this case lack of merits).  I don’tknow any liberals who claim the Bible literally supports same sexmarriage.  What they do say is that theBible is not to be the basis for deciding what civil rights exist inTwenty-First century America.  That’s called the separation of church andstate.  I like it. 

Comments read comments(10)
post a comment

posted October 29, 2008 at 8:56 pm

But John McCain does not have the right to ask churches to pass out GOP propaganda and fliers telling them how to vote. And that is exactly what the McCain Campaign is planning to do this weekend.
Every election cycle I see the GOP PAC organizations flooding churches with their “recommendations” and find that most of the time they are loaded with false accusations about Democrats and Independents.
This practice must be put to a stop! I have seen pro-life democrats smeared and lied about because the Grand Old Party is nothing more than a gang of crooks who use God to defend their crimes.

report abuse


posted October 30, 2008 at 12:23 am

I agree with Barry. It was made apparent by the Constitution that government and religion were viewed as dealing with different spheres of influence. Beliefs are unalienable, governmental action is another matter. Every infraction of the law in this regard is an assault, one among legion for some reason, upon the wall of separation or even government itself; and it must be forcefully rebuffed. The law is no secret, and I hope it is not toothless in punishing those who exceed obvious boundaries.

report abuse


posted October 30, 2008 at 11:22 am

“What they do say is that the Bible is not to be the basis for deciding what civil rights exist in Twenty-First century America. That’s called the separation of church and state. I like it.”
– Barry, as a Christian, who do you serve first, your country or your God?

report abuse


posted October 31, 2008 at 1:52 am

Jackie wrote:
“Our founding fathers, contrary to Lynn, did not wish to keep religion out of the schools.”
I don’t think Barry Lynn wishes to keep religion out of schools, just not have it introduced there through the authority, and funding, of government. It isn’t taught there, it’s taught at home or in church. It’s voluntary. Teachers can barely deal with what’s on their plate now. Religion, an unalienable right and personal decision for all people, is something they could not possibly address satisfactorily.
Jackie wrote:
“They want to practice religious freedom…freedom OF religion, not necessary “FROM” religion. The early school books are still available…check out a McGuffy sometime and see how much teaching there is of Christian morals, etc.”
Freedom of religious belief is for all our people, it is a personal decision, and Christians do not have a monopoly on morality.
Jackie wrote:
“Lynn has flunked the class time and time again. I would not look to him for advice, and I appreciate the efforts Jay Sekulow has made through these years to protect our nation from the humanism that Lynn lets suffice for Christianity.”
Our nation does not need protection from humanism, but it does need protection from violent religious confrontation. That is what our Constitution does, it protects your unalienable right to believe as you do. Eden, if it ever was, is gone, and we are left with free will. So we live with our imperfections and work for positive change through patience, tolerance, and discussion. At least, if we can truly embrace that first memo about not killing each other, our collective demise shouldn’t be ruled a suicide.

report abuse


posted October 31, 2008 at 10:00 am

“What they do say is that the Bible is not to be the basis for deciding what civil rights exist in Twenty-First century America. That’s called the separation of church and state. I like it.”
As a Christian, who do you serve first, your country or your God?

report abuse


posted October 31, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Why would there have to be a choice? How do you know that serving the country would be any different? Your interpretation of the bible supercedes that of other people? As an elected official of the United States, what should the President’s first concern be, his country or his belief in God?

report abuse


posted November 1, 2008 at 1:58 am

I think James has a valid question. The same question was asked of the leaders of Islam in Australia who were telling their followers that Shariah Law superceded Australian law. They were told in no uncertain terms that if they could not support the Australian Constitution above the Shariah, they had no business living in Australia. Of course, the aseninity of James’ question assumes that one cannot be both a Christian and an American at the same time. The Christian Bible clearly says that a man cannot serve two masters. Paul even goes so far as to tell married Christians to act as if they are not married because they can’t serve their marriage without it detracting from their devotion to God. The Bible shows how God remains the same while the Christian evolves from primitive ignorant simpleton, to pure communist, to monastic, to evangelical fundamentalist, to today’s post-modern multi-tasking social networker. Twenty-first Century Christian life requires a man to be, not only a devoted follower, but also head of his houshold, Father, Husband, breadwinner, chauffer, maintenance man, gardener, and have any number of other masters simultaneously. How about you, James? Are you a Christian or an American first? And if you can’t answer “American”, why aren’t you living in an officially Christian country?

report abuse


posted November 2, 2008 at 9:08 pm

“And if you can’t answer “American”, why aren’t you living in an officially Christian country?”
– I’d like to hear Mr. Lynn’s answer first and then I’ll gladly answer.

report abuse


posted November 7, 2008 at 2:58 am

Barry, you are so way off base here. Have you actually read the bible? This is all not about common sense; it’s about God’s Word. If God’s people don’t stand up and speak God’s word (in love of course) and we don’t stand for what God’s word says, than we really don’t stand for anything do we? I don’t condone abortion or homosexuality, but I certainly do not condemn anyone who has done those things. But if we do not draw the line of God’s moral absolutes, they will erode even further than they already have and pretty soon it will be anything goes even more than it is. It doesn’t take common sense, it takes God and His Word, unless you think He know longer has common sense?

report abuse

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted September 27, 2009 at 8:11 pm

Prohibiting a pastor to speak out about abortion violates their First Amendment right to free speech. These free speech rights should take precedence over the separation between church and state. What does the government have to say about this violation? Since I imagine most churches are conservative in their approach to politics, the left wants to silence the right (just as they try currently with the threat of the return of the “Fairness” Doctrine). In a democratic nation, this need not be happening.

report abuse

Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.