Can you distinguish between a religious leader and politician today - I can't.

Americans have lost respect for our religious leaders not God. I personally would prefer religious leaders to stay out of politics and in the pulpits. I am tired of turning on the news and listening to religious leaders acting like political pundits.

Religious leaders should not try to influence how the American public votes in elections. Religious leaders should not try to use their power to influence political leaders. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, disagrees with me and claims, "There's no definition for 'religious leaders,' there's no definition for 'involved,' there's no definition for 'politics.' So people are left to their own interpretation." Perhaps the lack of definitions is the problem.

I believe religious leaders should offer help and support to the people that share their religious beliefs through spiritual and moral guidance. He or she leads public worship and other religious ceremonies not political rallies. They are involved in teaching the Word of God, charity work or social work. Jesus Christ should be the model religious leaders follow and they should take note He did not get involved in politics. Perhaps religious leaders should return to the belief that their profession is a ‘calling’ from God and not a career path to fame and fortune.

Politics is about gaining power or authority and I do not think that is what our religious leaders should be seeking. Politics is about managing public affairs in a way that benefit all people regardless of their religious beliefs.  How can a religious leader be true to his or her ‘calling’ and support legislation that may benefit the majority of citizens, but violates their religious beliefs – birth control, homosexuality, divorce, etc? It is impossible to keep your oath to both offices or serve two masters.

Religious leaders and Christians should vote on Election Day. Religious leaders should be involved in teaching their members the importance of voting and should instruct them in Biblical moral teaching so they can make informed decision when it comes to voting.  They should not become publicly involved in actually campaigning to get legislation passed, become publicly involved in foreign affairs or publicly campaign for a particular candidate.

Involvement is one issue Richard Land and I disagree on he believes that “religious leaders ought to deal with what the Bible has to say with public policy issues, and we should be looking for candidates who endorse us." He makes it an ‘us against them’ issue and that is not what a democracy should be about. That is divisive and is Obama politics which Richard Land probably does not agree with. Catholic religious leaders believe a good candidate would be one that would prevent artificial birth control. I do not believe that and I am Catholic and Richard Land who is Baptist should not believe that to be criteria for a person to be a good candidate.

Richard Land plays with words he says, religious leaders should not endorse candidates, but then he says religious leaders should endorse candidates that endorse us. Is that a way of expressing endorsement of religious leaders to get around Federal laws which govern such things. I frankly do not get the difference you endorse me and I will endorse you; I endorse you if you will endorse me.

Richard Land is against the Republican Party taking a hard right stance on immigration. He is against deporting large number of illegal aliens. He is for bringing in the refugees from Syria. These are issues that the majority of Americans are not for, but he is trying to use his religious influence to influence the Republican leadership and the Republican Party Platform.  I call that too much involvement in politics for a religious leader, obviously he does not.

The 1970s and 1980s brought about changes in the amount of involvement religious leaders had in politics with the rise of new conservative religious leaders such as Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition. "Get saved, get baptized and get registered to vote," Falwell urged his evangelical audiences. Falwell has passed on, but that mentality continues to resonate in this year's elections, especially with Republican Primary candidate Ted Cruz.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan appeared on Face the Nation and said, “…religion and politics cannot be separated.” If you want to get a good picture of mixing politics and religion just take a look at the Philippines. The Catholic Church leadership fought the people of the Philippines over birth control. The people got a Reproductive Bill passed that called for artificial birth control, but specified that it could not cause abortion. Everyone thought the issue was resolved until the 2016 Budget was approved and the people discovered the Catholic Church leadership had persuaded enough politicians not to allocate any funds for birth control thus ending the Reproduction Bill that the people fought for and got passed.

Cardinal Dolan thinks religious leaders must be involved in politics since it was politicians that executed Jesus. He claims that was a “blatant political move” a blatant political move of Jewish religious leaders and Roman politicians. I really cannot determine which were the most guilty religious leaders or Roman politicians.  

Where does faith end and political loyalty begin? Can we reasonably expect religious leaders not to bring their deepest convictions, which should always be religious in nature, to the political arena? Under no circumstances should religious leaders ever be given political power merely because they are part of a religious hierarchy. Some religious leaders have gone too far when it comes to their involvement in politics.

I support the involvement of religious leader’s in issues pertaining to family matters, morality, crime, poverty, discrimination, prejudices, racism, and charity from the PULPIT, but not in the media trying to influence politicians with block votes.  

I will not get into the details of the extravagant lavish lifestyles of many religious leaders that have caused some of us to lose respect for them.  Private jets, million dollar vacation homes and luxury cars have become the norm for religious leaders. 

If the CEO of your favorite charity was enjoying these perks, you would probably be outraged and never donate to it again. Fortunately, the IRS requires most charities to file financial statements that show they are spending the public's money for charitable purposes, not private gain. This financial disclosure is the cornerstone of wise giving. Without it, the public would have no idea how charities are spending donor money.

Churches, synagogues, and mosques, however, do not have to follow these same rules. They do not have to file annual reports with the IRS or state charity regulators, which allows them to avoid being rated by AIP. They receive the same tax benefits as other charities, including tax-exempt status and the ability to accept tax-deductible contributions with none of the reporting obligations or oversight.

The advent of televangelism has changed everything for the worse. Mega-churches run by televangelist have huge followings. Through television, radio, Internet and appearances in public arenas they can reach millions of people around the world. Because televangelists have such large followings it can be difficult for their members to hold them accountable.

One of the tax benefits bestowed on ministers is the "parsonage allowance," which allows ministers to exclude the rental value of their homes from their taxable income. This statute was adopted in 1954 out of concern for clergy, most of whom were making less than $2,500 annually, according to the Legislative Committee. Although a lot has changed since 1954, this tax provision has not, and today's millionaire and billionaire televangelists are still able to take advantage of it. 

Senator Grassley's Committee reported that some churches allegedly ordain friends, family members, and employees solely for the purpose of getting them the income tax exclusion. Currently, there is no limit on the number of residences for which a minister can receive a parsonage allowance, meaning a minister can exclude the rental value of a second home or a vacation home from his or her taxable income. One of Kenneth Copeland’s tax free homes was valued at $8 million in 2008.

Senator Chuck Grassley, who spearheaded the Committee's review of six evangelical televangelists, wrote in his final report, “"The challenge is to encourage good governance and best practices and so preserve confidence in the tax-exempt sector without imposing regulations that inhibit religious freedom or are functionally ineffective." They remain self-regulated to this day. For many politicians, the idea of taking a strong stance on reform is too risky because they do not want to be perceived as anti-religion by voters. I think expecting churches to be accountable and their leaders not to live extravagant and lavishly off of tax-exempt funds should not be perceived as anti-religion.

People have not lost respect for God they have lost respect for our religious leaders!