"Christian" Web Site Filled With Anti-Vaccine Stories

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  44 comments

"Christian" Web Site Filled With Anti-Vaccine Stories

800



I kind of stumbled onto a site called Christianity Daily, which I know nothing about and have never looked at. 

One of the news feeds I look at linked to a story that caught my eye and so I went to Christianity Daily. What immediately caught my eye was that the majority of the featured news stories were about vaccine mandates and vaccine resistance.

All these articles and more (about vaccines) appear on this web sites featured articles for today. 

Twitter Censors American Heart Association Over Research Linking mRNA Vaccines To Heart Inflammation

Israeli Immunologist Says Omicron Variant Could Be Sign The Pandemic Is Nearing Its End

Court Overturns Speech Punishment Requiring Pastor To Denounce Himself For Criticizing COVID Restrictions

New York Physician Assistant Reveals Administrative Orders To Stop Reporting COVID Vaccine Injuries

COVID Infections Surging In Highly Vaccinated Areas, But Cases Dropping In Other Places Where People Aren't Jabbed

States With Mask Mandates Report More COVID Cases Than No-Mask Florida

California’s First ‘Constitutional Republic City’ Draws Line In The Sand, Bans Tyrannical State And Federal COVID Mandates

Those stories (and none others)  are listed as "Most Read" 

The "Other Headlines" section includes stories about abortion , Kayleigh McEnany and the Jan 6 Committee.

What is "Christian" about ginning up anti-vaccine sentiment among "Christians" ? 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Every "news" story on this so called Christian web site was political in nature taking the anti-vaccine, pro Trump pro Republican position. 

US : Christianity Daily

Separation of church and state ? lol. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

The church/state separation is a limitation on the state, not the church. It only extends to the church insofar as the IRS’s requirements for maintaining non-taxable status. Beyond that, churches are free to be as political as they want.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
1.1.1  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1    2 months ago

If the churches want to play in politics with political opinions and endorsements then they should be taxed.

 It limits both to keep the actions of the state absolutely neutral and secular. We cannot all have equal religious rights to believe or not to believe if the state is enforcing religious belief over nonbelief or supporting one religion or sect over the other. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.1    2 months ago

I bet that taxing churches would be met with criticism. there is a reason we don't tax them.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
1.1.3  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    2 months ago

 Who cares if it is met with criticism?  That wouldn't stop me from taxing them.   They are playing in politics and were should draw a hard line.  Stay out of political discussions or pay the taxes. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.1    2 months ago
If the churches want to play in politics with political opinions and endorsements

That’s an impossibly vague standard, though. What constitutes a political opinion? What constitutes an endorsement? And isn’t a church political by its very nature? If a church feeds the homeless, isn’t that political? If a pastor prays for or sermonizes on behalf of the environment, isn’t that political? HEck, isn’t just praying for Peace political?

The actual IRS rule is more specific but still leaves a lot of wiggle room. A 501(c)(3) church is one . . . 

"which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

So, while the IRS does have rules about this kind of thing, they are rarely enforced against churches - in no small part because it’s kind of vague, but also because there are many ways to be political that don’t involve printing pamphlets that say “Vote for Biden!” 

And even with that standard, you will see candidates for office speaking at church services. Both Gavin Newsome and Larry Elder did so in the recent California governor recall election.

Government is also hesitant to act on this rule because only the most egregious example requiring enforcement of the standard would get around the 1st Amendment. This is because government is required to be neutral toward religion. That means not only is it not supposed to endorse a religion, but it has to be very careful about how it punishes a religious organization.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.3    2 months ago
Who cares if it is met with criticism?

Typically politicians are interested in what their constituents care about. It gets them elected. That’s sort of how the system works.

That wouldn't stop me from taxing them.

That’s fine, but you’re not the king.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @1.1.1    2 months ago
if the churches want to play in politics with political opinions and endorsements then they should be taxed.

Absolutely. There are IRS guidelines for when churches incur taxation. However, given the potential resulting firestorm of taxing them, it's unlikely the IRS would enforce said guidelines. 

It limits both to keep the actions of the state absolutely neutral and secular.

As George Carlin once said: "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.3    2 months ago
Who cares if it is met with criticism?  That wouldn't stop me from taxing them.   They are playing in politics and were should draw a hard line.  Stay out of political discussions or pay the taxes. 

The politicians who set tax laws do.

May not stop you, but we weren't talking about YOU doing it.

Do you honestly believe that Democrats would ever go along with such a plan, and risk incurring the wrath of one of their largest voting blocs?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    2 months ago

The USA is predominantly religious.   There is no way that such a change would take place today ... maybe in a generation or two.    The question is really if it makes sense to deny tax exemption status to organizations that are not strictly religious and how that determination would be made (if it could be made).

Assuming that a clear line could be drawn, I am in favor of tightening the definition of religious organization so that people do not use the privileges provided to religious organizations to engage in partisan politics and/or scams such as Kenneth Copeland, et. al.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.8    2 months ago

I don't see Republicans or Democrats ever fully supporting taxing churches, and I don't know if that would cross the line between separation of church and state.

Political parties aren't keen about alienating millions of voters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.9    2 months ago
Political parties aren't keen about alienating millions of voters.

Of course not, that it the essence of the point I just made.   Today the voters are predominantly religious and, as such, would be against acts on 'churches' (even the worst) for fear that this will ultimately affect their own churches.  

Thus, this would take generations to occur (if ever).   The people would need to evolve to a predominantly irreligious society and also the religious organizations would need to be doing things that are clearly beyond the concept of 'religious organization'.   Then it might happen.

The question is: should it?   Should organizations that abuse the 'religious' designation be allowed to do that.   For example, con-artists like the Copeland Ministries that not only lie and cheat, but blatantly engage in politics.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.10    2 months ago
The question is: should it?   Should organizations that abuse the 'religious' designation be allowed to do that.  

That is a completely different demand than taxing all churches.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    2 months ago

Yes, I am not in favor of taxing legitimate churches.   I am talking about a future move to tax organizations abusing the privilege.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.12    2 months ago
I am talking about a future move to tax organizations abusing the privilege.

Tricky slope I hope we never go down.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.13    2 months ago

Yeah, well that is what allows the Kenneth Copeland's of the world to abuse the privileges provided to legitimate religious organizations and, in so doing, harm the image of churches in general.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.14    2 months ago

Calls for taxing all churches based on abuses by a relative handful seems stupid to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    2 months ago

Do you think that is what I have been writing???

see: TiG @1.1.12Yes, I am not in favor of taxing legitimate churches.   I am talking about a future move to tax organizations abusing the privilege.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.16    2 months ago

No, nor did I say you did.

Not everything is personal, you know.

If that isn't what you stated (and it isn't, clearly), then my comment doesn't apply to YOU.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    2 months ago

When someone replies to a comment, the reply is taken to be in context of what the individual has written.

For example, if I replied to you with:

”I for one would not defend allowing the Kenneth Copelands of the world to take advantage of privileges provided to legitimate churches.”

That implies that you are defending these con-artists.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.18    2 months ago
That implies that you are defending these con-artists.

You are always free to interpret comments however you choose, even when you are wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    2 months ago

Basic English discourse, Texan.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    2 months ago

The usual condescension, noted.

SOSDD

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    2 months ago

No, Texan, that is not condescension.   It is stating a fact.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.22    2 months ago

Condescension.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

be careful, reading that thumper bullshit causes brain damage.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2  Greg Jones    2 months ago

Sounds like you're confused about what separation church and state means.

This story is true.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2    2 months ago

Why would a "Christian" web site have story after story after story about vaccine resistance? 

What the hell does that have to do with Jesus Christ  ? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Kavika   replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 months ago
What the hell does that have to do with Jesus Christ  ? 

Not a damn thing.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 months ago

Aren't Christians, along with Muslims, Jews, and all religious people, allowed to express political views?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.2    2 months ago

Every one of the websites "Most Read" stories is anti-vaccine. That doesnt strike you as strange on a "Christian" website? 

Do you think Jesus would have opposed covid vaccinations? 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
2.1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    2 months ago

I would hope not.  I hope that Dad sends every anti vaxer that caused the death(s) of innocent people right where they belong in an express elevator that only goes down.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 months ago
What the hell does that have to do with Jesus Christ  ? 

Not much, really. If anything, I would argue that Jesus’s commandment that we love one another would tend to encourage people to get vaccinated so as to limit the spread of the disease. I see Jesus as pro-vax.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.6  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 months ago

COVID Infections Surging In Highly Vaccinated Areas, But Cases Dropping In Other Places Where People Aren't Jabbed

administering-a-vaccine.jpg?w=600

The most vaccinated states in America are seeing a surge of new COVID infections and hospitalizations, while the least vaccinated states are observing a downward trend in new cases. This is despite the Biden administration's continuous push for more people to get vaccinated against COVID and get booster shots for those who are at higher risk.
 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
2.1.7  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    2 months ago

  Do you have a source for this claim or is it  a matter of your faith? I'm sensing about half of the  truth being told and a case of correlation not being causation.   The vaccine does not cause Covid19 infections.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.8  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @2.1.7    2 months ago

John provided the source in his article and even linked to it above.  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.2    2 months ago

Anybody who believes in mythological beings shouldn't dabble in politics.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
2.1.10  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.8    2 months ago

 Those states are also highly populated, so COVID19 is more easily spread, plus Thanksgiving superspreader events.  It has nothing to do with the vaccine's effectiveness. 

According to The Blaze , the seven most vaccinated states in America, which are Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, have seen a dramatic rise in new COVID infections and hospitalizations in the past two weeks. Five of the seven states have observed a double-digit rise in both new COVID infections and hospitalizations. Except for Vermont and Maine, the rest of those states have seen a spike in cases and hospitalizations. Vermont's hospitalizations rose by 24%, while Maine's rose by 19% as of November 29.

 This is exacrly what I expected and an example or correction does not prove causation. Religious idiots who read and trust The Blaze. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.11  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    2 months ago

Bullshit!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.12  Greg Jones  replied to  cjcold @2.1.9    2 months ago

Does that include Muslims and Native Americans?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
2.1.13  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  epistte @2.1.7    2 months ago

His faith centers on his orange god.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    2 months ago

BECAUSE OF THE UNVACCINATED GENIUS!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    2 months ago

Do you interpret this to mean that it is better to not be vaccinated??

Are these surges of infections predominantly among the unvaccinated or the vaccinated?    See if you found data that shows that it is the vaccinated who are surging then that would be interesting (and shocking).   If it is the unvaccinated who are surging with infections then this does not really mean anything other than point out the need to get vaccinated.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3  Dismayed Patriot    2 months ago

Protestants used to embrace the Johnson amendment that they essentially wrote and passed because they feared the Catholic Church using its influence over a massive voting block to effectively seize power and run the country from the Vatican. They did not want the leaders of the Church, the priests and bishops and Pope telling their members who to vote for or what political laws or bills to support. At the time it was passed it was uncontroversial.

It had nothing to do with individual people of faith expressing their political opinions, of course they are free to do so, it only would punish Churches/Religions that use their elevated platform to be a political operative pushing their members to support specific political parties, laws and bills. When they do this they are violating the law and should lose their tax exempt status and register as a political lobby group which is what they become when they bastardize their religion and start getting involved in politics.

Now of course, many protestant groups demand their right to use their religious platform to "inform" aka manipulate their members into supporting one political party over another and push their political views on their followers effectively telling them that they're not good Christians if they don't lean a certain way politically. That is of course because they are massive monumental hypocrites.

If you're religious and you don't want other faiths like Islam, Judaism, Catholicism or Hindu religions telling their followers to vote against your preferred candidates, laws or political party and believe a separation between those religions and the State should exist, but don't see any problem with your own Church leaders preaching politics from the podium, then you're a disgusting vile piece of hypocritical filth and should be ashamed of yourself.

 
 

Who is online



28 visitors