Pastor Politics

Churches endorsing candidates? It could happen, if a 50-year-old tax regulation is overturned.


10/29/2004 02:04:06 PM

Democrats have a history of asking for the votes in church after services. Kerry has done it this campaign. Where is the outcry from the media about "separation of Church and State" when it's one of their Liberal Democrats breaking their interpretation of the Constitution?


10/28/2004 05:18:07 PM

I see Bush and Kerry mentioned on your site. This is free advertisement for them. Where is the equal time for the other party members? I intend to vote for Michael Badnarik, as he has the best interests of the American People at heart.


10/17/2004 01:29:24 AM

Why does it matter if leaders have military experiance? Its not like we are sending them there or anything. Why would Kerry do better because he naped some Vietkong? War is a political issue. Leave the politicing to the politicians, and the war to the generals. If Bush personally led the troops in Iraq I might care about his record but most politicians were never even officers and don't have any military LEADERSHIP experiance. Think about it for once.


10/16/2004 08:11:13 PM

Democrats and Kerry 'Funded by Pro-Mullah Groups' Author and political scientist Jerome Corsi, who plans to attend Thursday's press conference, told, "The Democratic Party and John Kerry have been funded by pro-mullah groups who have Israel as their sworn enemy. They are funding insurgents to go against our troops in Iraq, and John Kerry wants to give them nuclear fuel." read the rest of the article...


10/16/2004 05:24:03 PM

The Chickenhawks are a bunch of hypocrites. They could have joined the military, since they are so pro-defense. Here's a breakdown of the military record of Bushinites: Wolfowitz - none. Cheney - none. Lott - none. Gingrich - none. Frist - none. Hastern - none. Ashcroft - none. Bush - 9 mos. missing in action. Our appointed president is strong on lies. Strong on "mirror imagary." Head Pharasee in the United States.


10/16/2004 05:22:30 PM

windbender, wrong on social issues (i.e. safety net for the poor, voting rights for all Americans, including former felons who've paid their debt to society), wrong of defense (billions squandered on an unnecessary war as the real culprits got away), wrong on tax policies(biggest giveaway to corporate friends as middle-class is squeezed by higher energy prices, tuition, health care, you name it), wrong on terrorism at home (no guards for our borders, no contingency for bio-terrorism as evidence by the flu shot fiasco), dead-wrong on facts (i.e. no weapons of mass destruction, no welcoming mat bedded with roses for our soldiers in Iraq, over 1,060 American dead soldiers and over 10,000 Iraqis.


10/16/2004 05:11:56 PM

Keedowb, how do you know it will not be possible for paraplegics to one day walk? Obviously Mr. Reeve is doing his walking in heaven but if it were up to Bush & Co., slavery would still be the law of the land, sanctioned by the Holy Bible, of course.


10/15/2004 10:53:58 PM

Well oisin718, Perhaps you've missed the claims of the the running mate of the "Holy" Senator ...? Besides telling his priest, bishop,& Pope to shove off and deciding when life begins .... He will preform Miracles,.. Edwards states, "and when Sen.Kerry is President people like Christopher Reeves will get up and walk out of their wheelchairs." Your jibberish is fluff, and nonchalance is boreing. Shalom


10/15/2004 09:05:21 PM

I am very fortunate in that the church I attend, even though it's Southern Baptist, they believe it is up to the Holy Spirit to guide in each individual how to lead their lives, including voting. Having said that, if ever I were in a church that had a minister talk about politics and who the Christians should support, I would raise my voice and rebuke the Pharasee. Same as Jesus did with the moneyhandlers in the temple.


10/15/2004 01:07:14 PM

I always feel unwelcome, uncomfortable and betrayed when my church endorses a particular candidate. Am I to know if this is his/hers particular preference? Also, my church should encourage me and all others to vote, period. They can state what the church believes in and then let me make my own decision on what issues I believe are more important for me to vote a particular candidate. I don't want my priest/pastor/rabii to tell me which person I should decide I want to run my country. Isn't that what Iraq and other countries that don't have the separation of church and state to do their citizens? Isn't that why we went into Iraq, or so they say? Let's keep the church and state separate and let me make my own decision based on my own ideas of what direction I want my country to go.


10/15/2004 10:26:31 AM

Part of the problem is that once a person becomes a member of a church, he or she should come under the discipline of that church and what it teaches. What we see is the supporters of Kerry, being Catholic, being criticized for his stand on abortion, gay rights, etc. etc. which run contrary to the teachings of the church be has membership with. As to taxation, churches today are big business and should pay at least a nominal tax beyond a certain limit measured by what they contribute in return to our society.


10/15/2004 06:56:33 AM

Oisin / Blessedcelt, you're made of the right stuff - AND you've been paying attention in class! Keedowb - "Catholic Kerry...on his Quest to become G-d." Son, ease off the UHF channels, would you? A tounge-in-cheek ad I saw recently points up where this kind of thinking fits in. Judge not... Give to him that would take... Turn the other cheek... Soft on crime... Wrong on social issues... Wrong on defense... Wrong for America.


10/14/2004 11:57:21 PM

oisin, I'm not claiming anything for'we'But for why I believe and support this sovereign nation of ours, I do believe there certainly was evidence of a clear and present danger as told by our government, Tony Blair, and numerous other countries. Did we try talking to, bargin with,ask or demand Sadam to come clean?..even Dan Rather had a "friendly" chat with the maniac.. we already had agreements with him he laughed in our faces.. (during Clinton yrs.Our Pres.was busy with others to follow-up with inspecting)so chemicals and weapons Sadam had to turn over or give proof of how they were destroyed,couldn't be found.inspecters played hide and seek,the Maniac huffed and puffed, if he cared for his people he wouldn'tve tested and taunted the resolve,he clearly knew the consequences facing His Iraq,& his sons? (leaders in the black market),oh sure,ha, they were a lovely family that were only moderately high abusers of human rights. We should have helped in the Sudan way back before Bosnia & kosovo ..To be cont.


10/14/2004 11:57:00 PM

oisin, I'm not claiming anything for'we'But for why I believe and support this sovereign nation of ours, I do believe there certainly was evidence of a clear and present danger as told by our government, Tony Blair, and numerous other countries. Did we try talking to, bargin with,ask or demand Sadam to come clean?..even Dan Rather had a "friendly" chat with the maniac.. we already had agreements with him he laughed in our faces.. (during Clinton yrs.Our Pres.was busy with others to follow-up with inspecting)so chemicals and weapons Sadam had to turn over or give proof of how they were destroyed,couldn't be found.inspecters played hide and seek,the Maniac huffed and puffed, if he cared for his people he wouldn'tve tested and taunted the resolve,he clearly knew the consequences facing His Iraq,& his sons? (leaders in the black market),oh sure,ha, they were a lovely family that were only moderately high abusers of human rights. We should have helped in the Sudan way back before Bosnia & kosovo ..To be cont.


10/14/2004 11:55:05 PM

oisin, I'm not claiming anything for'we'But for why I believe and support this sovereign nation of ours, I do believe there certainly was evidence of a clear and present danger as told by our government, Tony Blair, and numerous other countries. Did we try talking to, bargin with,ask or demand Sadam to come clean?..even Dan Rather had a "friendly" chat with the maniac.. we already had agreements with him he laughed in our faces.. (during Clinton yrs.Our Pres.was busy with others to follow-up with inspecting)so chemicals and weapons Sadam had to turn over or give proof of how they were destroyed,couldn't be found.inspecters played hide and seek,the Maniac huffed and puffed, if he cared for his people he wouldn'tve tested and taunted the resolve,he clearly knew the consequences facing His Iraq,& his sons? (leaders in the black market),oh sure,ha, they were a lovely family that were only moderately high abusers of human rights. We should have helped in the Sudan way back before Bosnia & kosovo ..To be cont.


10/14/2004 08:26:14 PM

All who have posted before me overlooked one important question. It is: "Who, in the Church or Synnagogue decides which political position to take or candidate to endorse. Is it the hierarchy of the denomination? Is it the congregation's spiritual leader? The 'elders', board of directors or what have you? Is it decided by a vote of the membership?" Therein lies part of the problem with religious bodies taking a position on a secular matter. (Moral issues NOT being involved.)


10/14/2004 05:50:30 PM

"Catholic" Kerry lives on the fringes of Reality,on his Quest to become G-D. he knows little about the intent of and the founders of this country... enough to redefine (and change it's meaning) and use it to his Sen. advantage in a court of law. Will quote enough bible to tempt someone who doesn't, His relationships are material based,and he's an avid social climber,(always name dropping)while taking advantage of anyone or anything (the weak, poor and brokenhearted),to appear compassionate, meanwhile winking at truth and honor for his own profit. Too bad he didn't listen to his mother ... Integrity - she said it 3 times, she tried to instill it in her "boy". ( if he had any why would she have to drive it home?)


10/14/2004 03:35:04 PM

Keedowb: There exists within Christianity a long-standing theology of what makes a war "just," among which are a clear, present, and grave danger AND the exhaustion of all peaceful means of resolving the crisis. The Iraq war did not meet either of these criteria, and thus was not "just" according to traditional Christian teaching. To claim that we invaded Iraq out of "Judeo-Christian values" is false and hypocritical. The reason given for the invasion at the time was WMD's (which never existed in the first place). And there are far greater abusers of human rights out there than Saddam ever was, such as our "allies" China and Saudi Arabia. And what about the genocide in Sudan? Will you enlist to go and fight?


10/14/2004 01:48:09 PM

About Churches and persons saying this is an unjust war, to LOVE .. we are a benevolent society, stemming from Judeo/Christian beliefs we are to lay down our lives for our brother.... ever hear of this? Think Globally - IraQ??? HELLO!! Sadam's torcher chambers, mass murders,supporting suiside bombers in Isreal thur Arafat... where are you BROTHER? All these FACTS appear to be a nussance to all who have to be bothered with PRAYER for instance. So, What's your prayer? Is it to be HAPPY?


10/14/2004 01:29:02 PM

As I was re-reading some of the posts, I remembered a quote from the days right after Jim Bakker went to jail: "Jerry Falwell's 'Moral Majority' is neither"


10/14/2004 01:25:31 PM

If a "church" teaches Truth,Life and The Way we should go (a defineing of "morals"), then it seems to me guiding our brothers (who we are supost to LOVE) away from things that G-D clearly says will harm us ultimately, either here or in truely knowing and obeying HIM. I believe the commandments are for our betterment in joy in Him, not cause He wants us happy. It is for His pleasure we were created. If G-D giver of life starts life how arrogant are WE to snuff it out , I think Reeves and Fox are on the cusp of cowardly... as I think the same of Kerry for using them to promote His agenda.


10/14/2004 11:49:25 AM

I dislike anyone speaking for me. I have my own voice, which I can lend to a candidate if I wish? Religious insitutions (churches, synagogues, etc.) own tax-exempt land & buildings and receive tax-exempt donations; dessenters have no real voice in the institution's choices; and like it or not, these insitutions speak with the assumed voice of G-D. No special financial/ social rights/advantages afforded there, eh? Also, having grown up in the Deep South in the 50s and 60s, I had a ring-side seat for churches justifing overt and covert prejudicial practices such as treating Blacks as inferiors. Wanna teach morals? Fine. Do it in the church, and trust in the morals that have been taught.


10/14/2004 09:35:15 AM

"Take the Catholic Church (please!)." Cheap, cheap - funny, but cheap. oisin, you're a mench. To the subject: The reason Johnson (and others)moved to put this rule in place to begin with was because there were churches at the time whose message was "G-d separated the races for a reason." Similarly, there were others that preached that G-d made all the races and that man himself has sought to separate them to serve evil. The issue of gays is much the same. Houses of worship have a right to teach morals. Dictating morality is another matter. Mr. Delay (and others) simply don't see things that broadly.


10/14/2004 08:59:33 AM

I don't think houses of worship should officially endorse candidates. It seems a too-unseemly mix of the sacred with the profane. When I go to shul, I want to connect with a reality higher and more holy than Bush or Kerry, and having the rabbi preach about divisive political issues from the bimah distracts from that. Houses of worship should instill their members with values and ideals that allow them to make their own choices: no church or synagogue should dictate to its members you MUST vote for So-and-So or otherwise it would be sinful. Take the Catholic Church (please!). Several Catholic bishops have said that it would be a sin to vote for Kerry because he's pro-choice. But does not the Church also teach against capital punishment and unjust war? The Pope himself opposed the war in Iraq, so would it not therefore be sinful for a Catholic to vote for Bush? Politics is ALWAYS frought with evil and immorality, and it is a disgrace to religion for religion to interfere with it.


10/14/2004 03:41:43 AM

Funny about that Claudiam, California was able to figure out how to use the voting machines... Anyways, why can't churches endorse candidates? Can't they do whatever they want? Aren't they private and autonomous organizations? If you don't like it get whatever church or other house of worship or lab if your atheist to endorse the other guy. It probanly only bothers people when the person they don't like gets the endorsement. Also, if you don't trust your pastor or you are unable to disagree with him, go to another church. Just because he endorses someone doesn't mean that its God's choice or that you have to vote for them. Peace y'all. Kalifornia Uber Alles!


10/13/2004 11:40:10 PM

I agree that Pastors should not get involed with endorising candidates. I myself have felt that I was "outside of God's will because I did not feel" that George Bush was the right candidate. Living in Florida I believe that the last election was crooked and I was appalled to be in church as people cheered that "God" would help Bush triumph over George Bush. If George Bush is the true candidate and my church endorses him then apparently I am out of God's will. I had quit going to church, I started recently and then I heard the pastor attack Kerry. I think religious leaders should help you make decisions and talk to you personally outside of the pulpit but they have too much power in the pulpit to endorse candidates


10/13/2004 08:02:11 PM

that sentance should read: that all people in the usa must not be forced to worship the same way, in the same religion or not worship should they so desire-


10/13/2004 07:59:49 PM

where does a fundemental christian get the nerve to say they face persecution for accepting that all people in the usa- utter nonsense. this administration under bush has secretly attempted to overturn portions of the constitution, and roy moore trying inforce the 10commands- your logic is utterly backwards. persecution: The act or practice of persecuting; especially, the infliction of loss, pain, or death for adherence to a particular creed or mode of worship.


10/13/2004 07:51:57 PM

but asking that there be no respect of religion, to make all people pray alike, government displaying religious idols in public-that is persecution, that is having no respect for someone who doesn't believe like you. that is why your type of christianity is false, lies and not of christ. and christ actually spoke outloud against your type of belief-


10/13/2004 07:51:46 PM

"Do Christians realize that the gay-marriage problem is due to the world showing more love to gays than the Church does? And our God is supposed to be a God of Love" the word problem is a problem, please state it is an issue. an issue of equality. and there is no persecution of christians today. if asking you, in a society developed on the principles of equality, that all humans are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to acknowledge the constitution was written to empower all humans, you are the persecutor, not vice versa. being fed to lions, being denied a vote, being asked to not believe in your religion of choice- those are persecutions.


10/13/2004 10:03:51 AM

and I cant understand how some Christians feel that they are under attack and "persecuted." What has the Church done to rectify the problems it has itself? What about the Catholic priest scandals? What about all of the televangelists who scam people for money? Where is the loud voice of true Christians condemning these people? Yes, Christians can condemn their actions (maybe not the people..but their actions). Do Christians realize that the gay-marriage problem is due to the world showing more love to gays than the Church does? And our God is supposed to be a God of Love - and the greatest of all things is love, as Jesus taught. What love does the Church show to deserve less "persecution"? I guarantee that if pastors become more politically active, there will be more "persecutions" of Christianity.


10/13/2004 09:56:53 AM

There is absolutely no way a pastor should be guiding the flock in ANY political views whatsoever. The pastor's purpose is clear in 1 Timothy 3 - and it all relates to the growth of a Christian in FAITH - not in politics. I am against this on the basis that it is unbiblical for a pastor's role to guide any congregation in political matters. We trust our pastors with our souls and spiritual life - but NOT politics - again, 1 Tim 3 spells it out clearly. Also - what advantage does it do for a politically active church? What happens next? Will one church voting Democrat be condemned as unsaved by another church voting Republican? There is no discernment anymore! We are all under the same Spirit. What good does it do a church trying to evangelize but have a politically active pastor who might chase other unsaved people away because of his political views? doesnt make any sense!


10/12/2004 07:58:41 PM

I agree with this. As far as I am concerned, Church is a place that should be devoid of political biases. I would hate to be a liberal or conservative member of a predominantly opposite-party church. I mean, a church is supposed to be your family, and I would be really uncomfortable discussing my ideas in church if I knew that everyone would be supporting the opposite ideology.


10/12/2004 09:58:15 AM

Bush needs to find a 12-step program. Quick. That's why he can't control his temper. And he has grandiose, diluted visions of himself. He exhibits EVERY character defect of a dry drunk. Of course, he will never admit it. Thus no cure in sight. But the good news is that in less than a month he'll be the dry village drunk in the parched, dessicated land of Crawford.


10/12/2004 09:07:24 AM

imdancin, So??? I don't believe Mr. Kerry is trying to wear his religion on his sleeve. Perhaps he is one of those Christians who quietly practices his religion, not shout it to the rooftops. There's room for quiet, contemplative religion too, you know...


10/12/2004 01:20:29 AM

Kerry go to church? Before this campaign for the presidency, Kerry saw the inside of a Church as many times as he had Christmas' in Cambodia. ha ha


10/12/2004 12:50:12 AM

If that was to me, I am humbled, Kymus... I try very hard to practice what I preach...but it is a hard road. As to the topic at hand...pastors have no business meddling in politics...particularly not in this country as it stands for everything that the theocracy they would have does not! We should all be allowed our conscious and our beliefs. Because in the end, it's not between us and them, it's between us and our God. Peace <


10/11/2004 10:59:25 PM

truly: it's interesting that people like TheFish and my parrents that practice A Course In Miracles - which is based on Jesus's original teachings - don't act nearly as selfish as most "christians", nor do they have any sort of problem with homosexuality


10/11/2004 08:58:07 PM

trulyalarmed, we should all be. No more tax giveaways to Pharasees who use the Bible in whatever way they please. As regards to Sen. Kerry, he has the inside of church seventy times seventy (a little tongue in cheek from Jesus to Peter) more times than the heathen,lying, village idiot who needs to go back to Crawford, if they'll have after their weekly paper came out in support of Kerry.


10/11/2004 08:17:13 PM

in all sincerity, i must say that conservative christians are not true christians and they practice exactly the opposite of what christ taught. and if they use their pulpit as a political soapbox, they deserve to be taxed.


10/11/2004 08:09:13 PM

Rosie: Actually, all but one of the founding fathers were Deist, and that was Jefferson, who was a Universalist. Not one of the founding fathers was a follower of Christianity in any way that I have seen historically. Athiesm is no threat to anyone. How many athiest have you met and known? I've known quite a few, and they are much more moral than a majority of the Religious I see in my day to day life. I had a moral code established for myself long before I found any sort of religion. It's called the law of Nature, something our founding fathers mentioned also.


10/11/2004 08:08:58 PM

The difference between us and the countries that you mentioned, is that we have provisions in place to keep the government and the church seperate so that one can not affect the other. The government can't tell the Church what laws to follow and likewise the Church shouldn't press for religious laws. When one gets into the other, it becomes corrupt. I am a strong supporter of seperation of church and state, but I have no problem at all with religion or religious organisations. Sources: Religious Beliefs of the Founding Fathers Religion and the Founding Fathers Words of our American Founding Fathers


10/11/2004 07:26:31 PM

Part 2 Let me also remind those reading that religion is not the only thing that can make the rivers run red with blood. Atheism can do just as well. It did so in Nazi Germany. It did so in the Soviet Union, in Red China, in Cambodia and Vietnam. In much the same way modern ‘historians’ believe religion is the cause of all wars, ancient historians felt WOMEN were the cause of all wars. Should women be denied a witness? As Christians we are commanded to condemn the world and not to flee from it. Christians are also required to vote according to morality, as morality informed by the Word of God. As it is, pastors have been denied the right of telling their flocks what the Word of God is when applied to society. Peace.


10/11/2004 07:25:41 PM

Part 1 To deny Churches that fundamental right is to deny our own history and to deny a significant part of the population its First Amendment Rights. There were one or two Deists among the Founding Fathers, but the grand majority were indeed Christians, or at least, informed by the Christian worldview. Furthermore, irrespective of the Founding Fathers’ faith and practice, we have the unnamed pastors. There was a saying-the Revolution was preached from the pulpit. If it hadn’t, well, England would not have lost her colonies until significantly later.


10/11/2004 07:02:32 PM

The founders of the United States for the most part were Diests. Most were not Christian. Rational philosophy was the intellectual foder of the day. The right wing "Christian" churches have a habit of distorting history and ignoring facts. The United States will not stay "united" if we turn church against church. In Europe the rivers ran red with the blood of sectarian violence. There can be no rational discourse or compromise when God reveals conflicting absolute truths to everyone. The religious will spend most of their energy coming up with reasons that those of differing opinions are devils. Are the right wing clergy growing jelous of the power of the Muslim Clergy in Islamic states?


10/11/2004 06:47:06 PM

Turning Churches into tax free political prapaganda machines will destroy Churches. Having our political dicourse turn into the battle of the Churches will do nothing but encourage sectarian hate. Casting political opinions in Gods name is going to lead us down the road to sectarian violence.


10/11/2004 05:25:36 PM

Churches definately should not. It is emotional blackmail. It makes people feel like they have to vote a particular way or it is a sin. We all have to follow our consciences. It is a church's responsibility to form our consciences, but not to tell us who to vote for.


10/11/2004 04:13:49 PM

My goodness, why worry about it? Since when have folks practiced what's preached? LOL! Seriously, churches/temples have rarely been sources of morality. That quality comes from within and by the Grace of Goddess. Let the clergy defile their own spiritual houses with mundane things if they so choose. And those weak enough to be led astray deserve the consequences. It's a private failure and none of the government's business. The real threat to freedom and democracy are politicians and candidates who endorse their pet religions. That's the line that should never have been crossed and which must be restored and reinforced this November if we are to save our great nation and insure her prosperity.


10/11/2004 03:03:24 PM

Give unto Caesar, what is Caesar's. Even Jesus knew the difference. When preachers politicize they break the law. Caesar's law. Period. Want to change the law? Vote. Having an abortion is not against the law. Caesar's law. Period. Want to change that? Vote. In fact, vote for who you want to appoint Supreme Court Justices, the president is temporary, small potatoes compared to them.


10/11/2004 01:26:58 PM

blessedcelt: 43 years ago this country was concerned that John F Kennedy would use his faith to replace the law - and our country would be run by the Vatican. How things have changed! Second, your pastor didn't speak about a lot of other "pro-life" issues -- euthanasia, the death penalty, abject poverty, lack of health care for the very poor and the for very sick, peace, proper stewardship of the earth, to name a few. Well Said Blessed Celt :)


10/11/2004 01:23:13 PM

Multiculturalism has attacked the very back bone of America You really never paid attention in history class, did you? First you think that America was founded on religion, and now you think that Mulitculturism is a threat to America? What history book do you study from? The Christian Coalation?? America is called a melting pot for a reason yanno...


10/11/2004 01:11:56 PM

Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, the late archbisop of Chicago spoke of the pro-life "seamless garment" that valued life at all stages, even when it wasn't easy, pretty or politically correct. Bush and Kerry both fail this this test (albeit in different areas) so it is not that cut and dried who would qualify as "God's candidate". George W. Bush is the only candidate for Christians only if you ignore about 50% of what Jesus said.


10/11/2004 01:09:13 PM

gman992, Reverand Jackson is not receiving a tax break when he engages in political activities.


10/11/2004 01:07:59 PM

imdancin I think your church should lose its tax exempt status. As soon as your preacher started putting his morality into the context of an election then, as you so candidly pointed out, he is IN EFFECT telling his flock how to vote. Thus, my tax dollars are paying for your preacher to use his moral authority to sway an election in a way I don't agree with.


10/11/2004 01:07:36 PM

imdancin, Your comments are exactly why I think pastors should stay out of politicing. They show that you don't actually listen to the candidates -- you let your pastor tell you who to choose. Kerry did not say he would forget his faith for four years -- he said that he would maintain the separation of church and state by following the law, rather than his personal faith in issues of law. 43 years ago this country was concerned that John F Kennedy would use his faith to replace the law - and our country would be run by the Vatican. How things have changed! Now we want our leaders to use a particular religion as a replacement for law. Second, your pastor didn't speak about a lot of other "pro-life" issues -- euthanasia, the death penalty, abject poverty, lack of health care for the very poor and the for very sick, peace, proper stewardship of the earth, to name a few.


10/11/2004 01:04:05 PM

If you are a Christian, and you want to vote for values and do NOT VOTE FOR KERRY. this is NOT a theocracy


10/11/2004 12:30:54 PM

It depends...if pastors single out Republican candidates, then they should be dragged out and shot in the street, if the Revvvvernd Jacccksssonn can do it, then by all means. I mean I don't want to be playing favorites here....


10/11/2004 12:20:53 PM

I never said my pastor stood up and told us WHO to vote for. He said it in a way that, if you could not figure it out then, you missed the boat. He disected both mens platforms, especially how the Bible looks at both views. He talked about living as a Christian, not putting it aside for 4 years like Kerry says he will do. He brought up stem cell, abortion, the rights of the parents in knowing if their underage child was getting abortion (Kerry believes parents have no right to know).......He talked about their views....any nimwit could tell whose platform aligns better with Gods. In the end he said I will not tell you how to vote. He has a responsibility as a pastor to do this. Votes will affect us all. If you are a Christian, and you want to vote for values and do NOT VOTE FOR KERRY.


10/11/2004 11:36:22 AM

cont.. Immgrant cultures are one of the things that make our country so strong -- each influx brings something new and adds to the wonderful quilt that is America. To me, the important part is respecting those difference while embracing our similarities -- for examples, my Korean friends, who do eat dog AND chicken feet, would no more serve that to me than I would serve steak to our Hindu friends. Everyone who touches our lives has something to give us, if we can just remain open to the experience. But this is WAY off topic -- the issue is whether churchs should lose tax-free status if the leaders of the church start acting like all the other special interest groups. And the answer to that is an unqualitifed YES -- they should lose their status. The people in the pews deserve spiritual guidance that is focus on GOD and on our souls -- not on who wins an election in the United States. Whatever happened to being "in the world but not of the world"?


10/11/2004 11:13:51 AM

imdancin continued: As for other people assimilating into our culture: Why should they? What makes ours the best? Let me explain something to you, my fellow "Christian", we are ALL God's children, and we, especially Christians, should welcome and envelope everyone in our fold. Everyone refers to whether they are citizens or non-citizens and whether they are here legally or illegally. There is something wonderful and beautiful to be learned from all cultures. I hope that one day, human beings will realize that we truly are ALL equal. Love thy neighbor as thyself.


10/11/2004 11:09:04 AM

cont And that is the real question -- should we the taxpayers (who are not all Christian, all conservative or even all spiritual) have to subsidize through our taxes an organization that is advocating political candidates. If the churches wish to do that, then they should be on the same playing field with other groups that have a political agenda and pay taxes. With the right to be tax-free comes responsibility to use that status for the goals stated by the organization -- not for political advocacy. As for the immigrants coming to our country and not assimilating -- they don't wish to be part of our culture for many of the same reasons you don't -- the perception of lax morals and "anything goes" attitudes. Perhaps you would be better off seeing them as your allies rather than fearing them and denigrating their culture.


10/11/2004 10:55:43 AM

imdancing, Sorry I wasn't on my computer this weekend to respond more promptly, but I was actually LIVING -- spending time with my spouse, child and friends -- rather than rifling through my Bible looking for verses to pull out of context. So, here is my answer to your post to me and to the rest of them: Both conservative and liberal pastors/priests/etc should speak on the issues of the day and on our responsibility to use our faith to guide our decisions. As our religious leaders, they would be failing their calling if they didn't do that. However, no religious leader should stand up in the pulpit and tell his/her congregation to vote for George Bush/John Kerry/Ralph Nader/the Republicans/Democrats/etc. No candidate running for President this year fully follows the teaching of Jesus so each of us has to decide on our own. If a religious leader does speak out for a candidate, the church as stopped being a place of worship and has become a place of politics and should lose it's tax exempt status.


10/11/2004 10:54:35 AM

imdancin: I did not threaten you in any way, nor would I. People often feel threatened when their social, political, or religious views come under attack. It is not personal, however. You may try to smooth it over with rhetoric, but it was a racist comment. As for studying Korean culture, my two best friends are Korean, and neither of them have ever tried to eat my dog. I did not try to dispute the fact that people in Korea eat dog, just that it's wrong to assume that all Koreans do so. Once again, I will ask the question of why do you think they eat dog in Korea? Because it tastes great? Or because they don't have much to choose from? We are spoiled in America, so spoiled, in fact, that we cannot fathom that people in other countries would eat dog. I live in a city that has one of the largest Korean populations in the United States, and no one that I know eats dog. Why? They now have more choices.


10/11/2004 08:17:31 AM

I heard this morning the the Vatican has changed it's position and is now endorsing the war in Iraq. Is this meddling in Politics or a moral imperative that needs to be heard?


10/10/2004 11:38:32 PM

age... you sound like a real threatening person.........I am not racist in the least. What I said was true and if you have studied cultures, you would know it was true. Today, many immigrants (and I'll just mention illegals) do not try to assimilate to our American culture. Multiculturalism has attacked the very back bone of America. It has imposed however the culture of the immigrants country and does not respect ours. FACT...Over 5,000 years of history in South Korea dog-eating is part of their culture. Bottom line. Fact. True. We in the US consider dogs to be almost human. Example... in confucian cultures where heirachy is valued, although human beings and dogs are close, at no point are they remotely equal. In the United States dogs can play and live inside most homes, while in countries like Korea, they do not come inside. So do we honor these peoples customs and cultural rules? You tell me?


10/10/2004 10:08:00 PM

imdancin: I have posted several messages in the last two days addressed to you. I have pointed out several false and/or misleading statements that you have made in your posts. I also pointed out your hypocrisy, which was clearly expressed in your racist and ethnocentric statements concerning Koreans and other immigrants. You have not responded to any of these. I can only assume that rather than dealing with your own hypocrisy, you would rather ignore me. That is fine, but you cannot hide from God, and He takes the sin of hypocrisy seriously. Perhaps you should recall the fate of the first Christian hypocrites.


10/10/2004 09:20:35 PM

meant: "Caesar shouldn't always have to bear the burden of accomodation in that regard."


10/10/2004 09:19:26 PM

It is right that churches lose their tax-exempt status if they endorse political candidates. If the tables were turned, would churches want the political process deciding who shoud govern the churches? We have separation of church and state for a reason. We may give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's and Caesar shouldn't always have to bear of accomodation in that regard.


10/10/2004 07:14:25 PM

Our rector has never said that sin is acceptable. Just where do I find these feel-good seromons I hear so much about? Jack didn't suggest anything of the sort, you inferred it. Neither political party is in-line with the Word. A Christian can be a Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Independent, or other. Thus not endorsing a candidate doesn't water-down the word. Just your own non-Biblical opinion. If you want hell-fire and brimstone, I'm sure you'd be welcome at Westboro Baptist.


10/10/2004 05:17:04 PM

i meant to say last post."feel" good sermons


10/10/2004 05:12:15 PM your suggesting Clergy should compromise the word of God, by preaching "fee good sermons" I do not want a politically correct pastor.........I want a pastor that preaches the word. Today this is NOT the politically correct thing to do. People want to hear that sin is ok and acceptable.


10/10/2004 03:31:50 PM

imdancing, Don't you think that if pastors/priests/rabbis endorse particular candidates or political parties they will divide their flock and sow dissension?


10/10/2004 12:43:52 PM

Imdancing, I'm sure everyone here can agree that you're the one who "doesnt get it". Hurling Bible verses around and changing them to adapt to your meaning doesn't prove anything. And just because you say so, godly/godless people don't favour/disfavour Bush. Corporate executives have chosen money as their god, probably the most hedonistic people on earth, and they are most certainly voting for Bush. African-Americans are far more church-going and religionist than white people as a whole, and I can guarantee you that 90% of their votes will go to Kerry. Lastly, most people are smart enough to vote on issues, qualification, and history, not the amount of religious rhetoric that can be spewed. What the hell does it prove? Why don't you just run for president, then?


10/10/2004 12:00:55 PM

Jesus was deeply envolved in politics. Read Matthew 23. Jesus also overturned the tables of moneychangers remember....? He called the ruler Herod a Luke 13:32 Read Math 22:21. Jesus was interested in religion and politics. Do you know why???????????????? HE CREATED IT> Genesis 9:6 What humanists called "rights" the church calls wrongs. If we fail to get involved politically on these moral issues, humanists will take down the land. As private citizens pastors are NOT forbidden to endorse a candidate. And when it comes to legislative activity, that is campaigning particulaly when it concerns morals, churches are permitted to be involved as long as they do n0t spend a substantial amount in the process. Anything over 5% of their annual budget. Most churches function well within the limits of the law.


10/10/2004 11:53:22 AM

smc That verse went way over your head, I am you know who the nobleman is in this verse? The verse is a parable. "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return." This nobleman represents the Lord Jesus Christ. Like the nobleman, the Lord Jesus is gone into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom. He has not received it yet in possession, though He has it in promise. He has a spiritual kingdom unquestionably: He is king over the hearts of His believing people, and they are all His faithful subjects. He has a controlling power over the world, without controversy: He is King of kings and Lord of lords. "By Him all things consist," and nothing can happen without His permission. But His real, literal, visible, complete kingdom the Lord Jesus has not yet received. To use the words of Psalm cx. 1, "He sits on the right hand of the Father till His enemies are made His footstool." Sorry if you dont get it.


10/10/2004 11:26:06 AM

Most pastors don't know enough about politics to speak with any intelligence thereof. And, seemingly, most are blind to the hell-bent policies of Geo Bush, jr. God save us from those who want to use the place where the Word of God is to be preached... to spout rubbish about Bush and how good he is. If some Christians are all that bothered about Mr bush winning again... then let them hire the community hall and use 'their' time there. Let's not waste God's time with Bush. The day of rest ought to be guarded from the lack of rest Bush continually gives the whole world, nevermind America herself. Please, God!


10/10/2004 11:17:45 AM

talk about taking a verse out f context!!! Luke 19.13 reads like this: Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten pounds, and said to them, 'Trade with these till I come.' 'Occupy til I come' is a poor translation, if you want to understand what this means in the 21st century!!! imdancin needs to stop and rest and go and do some proper Bible reading and research.


10/10/2004 10:22:26 AM

imdancin (cont'd): Furthermore, your contention that "countries are strong when they had moral, God-fearing leaders" is a complete fallacy. Germany was strong when Hitler was in power. France was strong when Napolean was in power. The Roman empire was strong when Caesar was in power. Which reminds me, the Roman Empire was also strong when Nero was in power. Have you ever heard of the Neroian persecution of the Christians? Yeah, he was "...moral and God-fearing," wasn't he? Have you ever heard of Lenin or Stalin? The list goes on and on.


10/10/2004 10:21:46 AM

imdancin (cont'd): As for "immigrants coming to America and imposing their cultural rules on us," with the exception of the Native Americans, we are all immigrants. That is the beauty of America...our diversity, our ever changing and expanding culture. We are all God's children; Jesus died for all of our sins. Love thy neighbor as thyself. If you are unsure who your neigbors are, you need to re-read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Perhaps your pastor should teach this lesson today, rather than talking about politics.


10/10/2004 10:17:56 AM

imdancin, First I am a non Christian American and I do not see why I need to have my politicians be biblically guided. Religious leaders should stick to ministering to the poor and the needy, leaving politics to their parishioners' conscience. And if a Korean family wishes to buy a dog to eat, that is fine by me. I do not know a lot about Korean culture but I eat lamb, chicken, fish and cattle, one animal is as good as another. Sadly, Fundamentalists think they have a monopoly on truth, and that they are "a light upon nations," when in actuality, they are merely a source of laughter for others. Jesus was a political rebel who would have been against the war, and definately against the leaders telling the people what to believe. The things they ascribe to that poor Jewish carpenter must make him turn over in his grave.


10/10/2004 10:00:55 AM

imdancin (cont'd): As for your question about Koreans...first of all, I don't even see the relevance. Secondly, and more importantly, how dare you call yourself a Christian in one breath, and then make such a racist and ethnocentric (maybe you should look that one up) statement in the next. Just because a Korean lfamily ives next door to you does not mean that they are going to eat your dog. Have you ever wondered why they eat dog in Korea? Do you think that there are a lot of cows roaming around in Korea? Do you have any clue how much beef costs there? Do you think that they live in a prosperous society? Come some research; you obviously have a computer. You could use it to educate yourself about other countries and other cultures.


10/10/2004 10:00:07 AM

imdancin (cont'd): As for your post last night. I have values and morals as well; I just don't believe that everyone should believe the same things that I do. No, all freedoms are not equal. The enumerated freedoms that are protected by the Constitution are the most important, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is above the President, above the Congress, above the Judiciary, above state/local governments, and above the will of the people. See the Supremacy Clause. We, the people, decide what those freedoms are by electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and our respective state legislatures to vote on such issues. .


10/10/2004 09:39:53 AM

imdancin (cont'd): John Kerry is a Christian too. He's Catholic. Have you ever heard of the Pope? How can your pastor say that Kerry does not align himself with Biblical issues? Which ones? I do not recall anything about abortion or stem cells in the Bible; if, however, I'm mistaken, please direct me to the correct passages. Furthermore, how does Bush align himself with Biblical issues? I do not recall Jesus supporting war or torture either. What happened to turning the other cheek? Nor did Jesus ever condone FORCING others to live according to His way. He spoke, and the most beautiful words poured out of His mouth, and people listened. He never used His power, His influence, His authority to help himself, only others. He cured people; He fed people; He loved people; He died for all of us. That was Jesus' way. Despite His opposition, He never told the Pharisees and Sadducees to go f*** themselves in Cheney-esque fashion


10/10/2004 09:39:19 AM

imdancin: Once again you are missing the point. It's not that the clergy CANNOT espouse political views, it's that they SHOULDN'T, and if they do,they should lose their tax exempt status. Please see my previous post that I addressed to you yesterday concerning this issue. .


10/10/2004 02:58:47 AM

The Bible says occupy till I come." Luke 19:13 The message of Jesus is this, "Occupy, until I come. Fulfill My mission, feed My sheep, win people to the Lord and take the gospel into ALL nations, teach them to observe all things in whatsoever I have commanded you. Be faithful in My calling." Matthew 28:18-20 That is what God tells us to do. His word NEVER CHANGES. It applies to today as it did at the time He lived. Any Christian who has accepted Him, and is walking the road with HIm, is not embarrassed when people laugh and ridicule them. Jesus said, "They hated me before they hated you." Bush has professed his faith and lives by it. That is why the god-less hate him. He does not flip-flop on that issue.


10/10/2004 02:31:01 AM

Edmund Burke said, All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If we who are Christians who live according to Gods laws, sit back in our complacency and do nothing, we will one day have to answer not only to our children and grandchildren but to the Father above. When it comes to politics we must decide who we will vote for based on the policies they support. Today we have moral issues to consider. ABortion, stem cell research,...what constitutes marriage....These are not private matters and they affect ALL of us.


10/10/2004 02:30:54 AM

cont... Most Christians hold strong opinions on those issues not for political reasons, but on BIBLICAL GROUNDS. Therefore we should support candidates whose political positions best align with Biblical principles. There is no reason that clergy can not point out this to their congregations. CHRISTIANS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF THE NATION. My Pastor did not tell anyone who to vote for, he pointed out however that Kerry does not align with biblical positions.


10/10/2004 12:56:41 AM

No, I think the church should compeletly stay out of political arena. In the early days of this election Mr. Bush said he was a chrisitan and he believed in pro-life and aganist gay marriage. Find that's great that's what he believes. But what came across was Mr. Bush is a "Christian" so he has to be better than Kerry. I think that's dangerous business for church to get involved in.


10/09/2004 10:12:49 PM

I agree that a church should be stripped of its tax exempt status if it decides to become politically active. This rule is not just applied to churches; it applies to nonprofits in general. If the YMCA suddenly got politically active and endorse politicians, it would lose its tax-exempt status as well. No one is limiting free speech. People are always free to say what they want to say, but if they venture from the spiritual and turn to the political, then they are no longer acting as church service members but campaigners.


10/09/2004 10:12:44 PM

This isn't a left-right issue. This is a church-state issue. This rule has been applied to both liberal and conservative congregations. Far-right conservatives just seem to think that the rule shouldn't apply to them, so they try and go out of their way to try and change it. If they are successful, religion will have an even more pervasive influence on politics in this country and the American people will become even more polarized: this time on spiritual lines.


10/09/2004 08:17:49 PM

pixel.....and you think the LEFT have no Goals. You think the LEFT are tolerant of those who do not see things their way? This goes both ways. You think we are immature, old fashioned and ridiclous for having values and morals....You think those qualities are passe today. Well some of us think they are not. You say dont interfere with the freedoms of others......Who decides what those freedoms are? Should all freedoms stand equal? If you say yes, then what prevents a Korean family from moving next to you and eating your dog for dinner? In their culture that is permissable and they have been doing it for centuries. Freedoms....??? ARe You for...Immigrants coming to America and imposing their cultural rules on us? You tell me whose rules we live by?I will tell you this...Countries are strong and healthy whenever they had moral, God fearing leaders. You take that away and they were weak and strife-ridden. America is NO exception.


10/09/2004 05:33:58 PM

Religious freedom in our country is guaranteed by the Constitution. Conservative Christian pastors already have the right to say whatever they want, and usually do. This is just another of the attacks on the Constitution by the far right. They say they want judges who are 'strict constructionists', but in the same breath they want to amend the Constitution for everything from flag burning to defining marriage. I say enough! All Americans must remember: your freedoms are guaranteed as long as you don't interfere with the freedoms of others. No one religion is 'the only true religion', as Beliefnet makes obvious. Conservative Christians must stop trying to politicize and polarize our society to achieve their personal goals. Not all of us agree with them. Live and let live.


10/09/2004 04:32:45 PM

If churches really do believe that they have the right and obligation to speak out on behalf of Republicans, then they SHOULD--and give up their tax exemptions. Churches are beholden to the tax deduction like never before, and at the same time chafing from it. They want to have it both ways-live off the fat of the land, and criticize the hand that (subsidizes) them. If they really feel that their God is telling them to speak out, then their God will support them financially. If not, then shut up. It is that simple.


10/09/2004 02:20:10 PM

I think that restricting what is said in place of worship - by the government - is a dangerous and slippery slope indeed. It crosses a line restricting free speech that we're already dangerously close too. That being said, however, I resent hearing political endorsements from the pulpit. I like homilies based on the life and teachings of Jesus, how to imitate His life, expositions on the eternal, greater devotion and love of God and neighbor, etc. ElGabilon is right: voting is a practical matter involving principles and morals, yes, but we also live in a country of diverse outlooks and religions, and I think everyone must be considered when governing or voting on government.


10/09/2004 02:10:20 PM

Churches should restrict themselves to "life after death", "morality" and "ethics" avoiding politics. Their members should vote according to the reality that exists here on earth and not be based upon an historical document presented as the "word of God".If the religous right believes that the bible is the word of God then let them adhere to its writings: "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and to God, the things that are Gods." In short stay out of politics.


10/09/2004 02:05:55 PM

It is dangerous to allow churches to express political opinions simply because voters then may feel obliged under a so called higher law to vote as the church wishes rather than their own.This is an attempt by conservative Christians to gain control of the government much as the religious are attempting to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. To grant such a power would be in our opinion an act of treason and the beginning of the demise of the United States of America.


10/09/2004 10:17:44 AM

imdancin: You are either completely missing the point or you are intentionally avoiding it to further your own position. The first question is not whether religious leaders CAN endorse a candidate from the pulpit, but whether they SHOULD. The second and perhaps more important question is whether there should be any consequences if they do. Religious leaders CAN endorse a candidate from the pulpit and try to influence their congregations to do likewise. I do not believe that they SHOULD for various reasons, several of which are found in my previous post. The crux of the matter lies in whether there should be consequences for doing so. YES! If a religious leader decides that free speech is more important than separation of church and state, then the church should lose its tax exempt status. If they knowingly enter into the political process, they willingly give up the protections they were previously afforded. It cannot go both ways.


10/09/2004 09:07:25 AM

Preachers have always expressed political opinions form the pulpit, when such issues arise from their beliefs (albeit progressives and conservatives often address different issues). But they should not endorse candidates in elections.


10/09/2004 07:11:01 AM

Pick me, imdancin, pick me! I'm serious. God willing, madam, I'm your man – politically speaking. I LOVE OLIVER CROMWELL! I admire John Brown. (Yes, I'll admit it. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, too.) Give me liberty or give me death! Death to tyranny! What do you say, sister? Before God (i.e., Allah) my intention is NOT to mock you. Only you might wish be careful what you call for. That's all. Peace!


10/09/2004 12:14:20 AM

greling......All he needs to do is lie.........then get off like Clinton did. They can lie and get away with it.


10/08/2004 09:25:52 PM

from the article: "Now in a similar under-the-radar strategy, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay..." If I am correct, last time I heard, Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX) is currently facing investigation and has been rebuked by the House of Representatives Ethics Committee for serious ethics violations and conflicts of interest. 1.) DeLay Not Contrite over Ethics Panel Rebuke 2.) Ethics Coalition: Texas Indictments Make DeLay Ethics Investigation More Urgent 3.) Ethics issues may weaken GOP leader


10/08/2004 09:11:00 PM

So you think the left should tell what Pators preach from the pulpit? If folks want to tear down church & State separation and if pastors want to be campaign coordinators instead of spirituals, then maybe we should start taxing these houses the same way we tax think tanks and other politically-based organizations.


10/08/2004 04:20:54 PM

So you think the left should tell what Pators preach from the pulpit? hogwash


10/08/2004 04:19:46 PM

tts funny that the huge auto unions influence and pressure their employees to vote a certain way. Does not matter who you are and what party you are for........union dues go to the democratic party........and you say pastors cant stand up and speak their minds.......?????????


10/08/2004 03:23:29 PM

cont. When I am in church, I want to hear about the readings of that day and I want spiritual guidance. I want to hear about using what I learn in my daily life and how to more completely live my life as a beacon of God's love. I do not want to hear about who I should vote for or who my parish is endorsing for any political office. My God gave me a brain and He expects me to use it to make informed decisions. I may be one of God's lambs, but that does not make me a mindless sheep that blindly follows what my pastor tells me to do. I read the Bible, biblical commentaries and books of theological thought; I pray for discernment and wisdom; I discuss issues with my pastor IN PRIVATE and with my family and friends. It seems to me that the people who are advocating revocation of this IRS ruling are doing so for the increase in their own power and their own worldly prestige. I think for myself and maybe you should as well. Peace


10/08/2004 03:14:51 PM

imdancing, The perfect model would be that the pastors and other religious leaders speak to morality and ethics AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE and leave the politics to the politicians. What arrogance to believe that if we cannot convince others with our words and our actions we should be allowed to force them to comply with our beliefs using the law. If the country is moving away from what you see as the right path, feel free to vote your conscience to bring in people who think as you do. But it is wrong for a church leader to speak from the pulpit and exhort his congregation to vote for a particular person. That add the stamp of "God" to the pronouncement and I don't believe God is that concerned about whether Bush or Kerry is elected. He is interested in each person's heart not who runs our country.


10/08/2004 02:41:54 PM

I do not believe churches should endorse candidates. Separation of church and state is as much a part of Christianity as it is a part of western democracy. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's."


10/08/2004 12:14:10 PM

If a pastor is clearly fulfilling His calling by being a conduit for God to lead people to God and then teach people how to live lives of faith, then he would have no need to even voice his opinion on who to vote for. People who have a relationship with God thru Jesus, and seek to know God's heart, will also have God and His Holy Word to guide them in which candidates to vote for. Believers who seek God's will for their lives will also seek His guidance on who to vote for, whose life and voting record lines up best with what God's truths and commandments are.


10/08/2004 11:27:46 AM

Well-said, age718. As a preacher, I cannot in good conscience endorse any particular political candidate, and if I should ever do so, the IRS would be right in revoking our church's tax-exempt status. This country was founded on the idea of non-interference between church and state. The two principles of separation of church and state and freedom of speech, IMO, may be in tension, but they do they restrict me. Rather, they protect me. If I endorse a political candidate, I step out of that protection. The preacher is in a position of power, and it would be an abuse of that power to endorse a candidate. And contrary to Jerry Falwell, I do not believe it is the "brave" thing to do to endorse a political candidate. IMO, the "brave" thing to do is not to bow to pressure from other churches or church leaders, but to defend the boundary between church and state, and instead to urge your people to vote their conscience--THEIR conscience.


10/08/2004 11:23:02 AM

barblee and imdancin, Sure, go ahead and do what you can to elect people who believe the way you do. That's not the point. The point is that when your preachers start telling people how to vote then they lose their tax-exempt status. You really shouldn't have it both ways as we "secular humanists" don't have tax exempt status to try and elect our kind of people. Fair's fair, huh?


10/08/2004 10:01:58 AM

I do not believe that representatives of a church (pastors, bishops, elders, etc.) should use their positions to influence their congregations to vote for a specific candidate or political party. It is an abuse of their authority and their power to influence the judgement of others. Churches should focus more on reading and discussing the scriptures, spreading the gospels, and helping people. All of the Christians who are spearheading this effort should recall that Jesus was not a political leader; His kingdom was not of Earth, but of the eternal. Rather than being a spokesperson for a political candidate, a religious leader should be a spokesperson for God, Jesus, or whatever he/she believes in. If, however they cannot rise above their petty worldliness to actually serve a higher purpose, then the churches that they serve should have their tax-exempt status revoked. Separation of church and state cannot go both ways.


10/08/2004 09:45:27 AM

Imdancin History shows that it was the pastors of early America who rallied the people to throw of the tyranny of England. Oh really ? Which "pastors" were they ? Was it Pastor Thomas Jefferson ? Was it Pastor James Madison ? Was it Past John Adams ? Was it Pastor Ben Franklin ? The largest church at that time was the Church of England, was it they who advocated the rebellion ?


10/08/2004 09:36:39 AM

imdancing; bravo...I agree with what you say. Christians and the church have to take a hard stand and be heard and stand firm in the polling booths...demand moral and Godly representation... make these representatives accountable and if they are not accountable then get rid of them.


10/08/2004 08:30:09 AM

Either way it's merely a power struggle, especially when I recall something about the ways of the world are not God's ways. Perhaps the muslims have a point in placing minor value on the worth of life. Is life worth living here on this planet if all the various factions are continually struggling for power without thought or submission to our creator. We are a fickle world full of people, rejoicing in all that we can take of power - never once realizing that giving/empowering others is the only sacramental act worthy of happiness. Created to create, given to give, empowered to empower, - "As you give so shall you receive" is broadbased statement that applies to all of living. It might not sound like a universal law, but in all reality and surrealism it works without compromise.


10/08/2004 08:12:20 AM

so nightshades, you tell me what the perfect model is? Tell me where human ethics/morals are today and why?


10/08/2004 07:50:48 AM

History shows that it was the pastors of early America who rallied the people to throw of the tyranny of England. -------------- HIstory has shown no such thing. And what about what the Church of England was saying? The Church's track record in the realm of politics is appalling. ANd it only demeans its authorityi as a spritual/religious organization.


10/08/2004 12:26:51 AM

The way I see it is this, America's only hope politically is that millions of the SILENT pro-moral majority will become militant about their morality and elect men of conviction and character to public office. If we are firm in our right and responsibilty to vote such representatives into government leadership, we could see a rebirth of MORAL and spiritual values. A professional politician will say anything to get elected. BUT his voting record shows everything and speaks more loudly than his rhetoric, for it reveals what he really believes AND it demonstates how he responds to pressure. I believe if we are going to turn this country around its at the voting booths.


10/08/2004 12:15:57 AM

Absolutely YES Pastors should warn congregations of the powerful forces assembling against them. Forces of society that seek to throw off moral cords of God. The same pagan forces , Baal and Asherah and Pan and Caesar are still more powerful than ever. Secular humanism...... History shows that it was the pastors of early America who rallied the people to throw of the tyranny of England. Whether the pastors will rise to the challenge will remain to be seen. But if every pastor in America taught his congregation that freedom is a gift from God not from government, America would not be facing the death of freedom and morality which it faces today.


10/07/2004 11:50:30 PM

Evangelicals and conservative Christians, who have long hated these restrictions, are driving the proposed change, believing that the rule deprives pastors of their right to speak their conscience and guide their flocks on political issues. Can it be that these people are afraid that their pastor's flocks don't already KNOW where their pastors stand on the candidates? How dense are they?


10/07/2004 10:55:07 PM

This one law does more than any other to prevent america from becoming just like the middle east. Let pastors say what they want on the street as independent citizens. They have for years. If they put the stamp of their congregation on it that is institutional support of a political party or platform and they should lose their tax exempt status, permanently.