I just heard a minister encourage his congregation that 2008 was important but

[mfcorey1]

2012 is critical. No truer words have ever been spoken. By the way, he is progressive. He cautioned them to not be distracted by those who want to create a divide between the President and African American Christians. No such divide exist. It can mainly be found on the lips of the pundits in the news.

[mmonk]

1. I agree except to a point.

There is a division on the question of Gay and lesbian marriage and to ignore it is not to fix it. However, I don't think it is a division that will lead the AA community to vote for Mitt.

[mfcorey1]

2. Point well taken. nt

[JDPriestly]

10. Lots of Christians agree with Obama on Gay and lesbian marriage.

[mmonk]

11. I'm aware of that as well.

[nobodyspecial]

3. Frankly, I don't want ministers on either side

trying to drive the vote. Pay taxes or stick to matters of faith.

[mfcorey1]

4. He never encouraged the congregation to vote for either candidate, but he did speak to the

importance of equality and the critical nature of the next election. Where the voice can be heard, is where it should be. That includes church, social networks, casual conversations and even DU.

[nobodyspecial]

5. Social networks, casual conversations and DU

are appropriate because the members of these groups are taxpaying members of society. The paid their dues and bought into the system. You want churches to be part of the conversation? Start advocating that they lose their tax-exempt status. Churches were not taxed because they used to spend their money on taking care of those in need -- widows, children, elderly, etc. Now, churches are spending their money trying to influence public policy and politics. They need to be taxed just as any other lobbying group.

I hope to never see you posting negatively about how conservative churches preach from the pulpit or try to drive the RW agenda. It's wrong for them and it's wrong for the Dems.

[obxhead]

6. I agree with you 100%.

Churches and religious organizations should not be speaking of politics in ANY way shape or form. If they want to be politically active then they should renounce their tax exempt status first.

[jwirr]

13. The liberal church support MLK and civil rights, the safety

net programs, hunger programs, etc. for all these years. Are you saying that they should not have supported them? That means many of us would not have been a supporter if you are going to eliminate all of us who are liberal christians.

The ministers and their congregation members would not have been able to walk beside MLK in the 60s-70s. Hunger programs would hardly have had supporters if it were not for churches, Bread for the World would not have been lobbying for world hunger programs, etc. and housing would not have Habitat for Humanity. Many ministers would not have been able to speak out against the Veitnam war, etc.

I once sat in on a meeting of a Lutheran hospital in Omaha and they were explaining that they we expected to provide services to the people in their cachement area - a poor area around their hospital. That meant that they were the provider of services for the poorest in the area.

In my own church we support NAPS for seniors, WIC for families, AA programs and such by letting them use the property as distribution and meeting sites. We also are heavy contributors to the food shelf, Ruby's Kitchen, etc. Our area would be a lot poorer if all we had were the welfare office and the veterans administration to help us out.

Most of these issues are not spoken from the altar but are projects for various social groups within the church. It is not preached - it is lived. I know, I am one of the people who has depended on them (social programs) for years and I have also been one to the people who has been a speaker asking church members to support them and teaching them why they should support them. I do not apogize for any of it.

[obxhead]

14. What someone does outside of their church property shouldn't apply.

Using the tax exempt property for political organization, regardless of how righteous it is, should not be allowed.

I'm not saying a minister can't join the protest lines to fight for civil rights. I'm saying the minister can't organize the protest from inside of his church.

[jwirr]

15. What about the groups inside the church that specifically deal with hunger issues, etc.? We are

part of the church. I for one belong to a quilting group that donates the quilts to local needy as well as Lutheran World Relief which gives them out at disasters (earthquakes etc.) throughout the world. Must we to stay our of politics?

[obxhead]

16. Acts of goodwill

such as feeding the poor and providing support to the needy are not political in nature.

Those things may be politicized by politicians, but are not politics.

[jwirr]

17. Exactly my point. And when I right a letter to my Congressman to support a program for those

needs that is not something I should stop either just because I learned about the situation in a group of church members concerned about the issue. I do not give up my citizenship when I joined the church.

[obxhead]

18. When you "right" your letter

will you be sitting in the church pews?

Will you be in an organized group within the confines of tax exempt church property?

[jwirr]

19. The letter would be written from home but the idea would have come from the group inside church

property. Unfortunately.

[mfcorey1]

7. This was never a conservative. Liberal dems are progressive. What you are expressing is simply

your opinion and you have a right to it, but don't tell me what a minister can and cannot say. This one never, and I repeat, never, told his congregation who to vote for. The congregation's members can make up their own minds. Your indignation is puzzling. Are you in opposition to marriage equality? I condone it, the President and the minister who spoke to his congregation. I hope to never see you posting to take up for the hatred from conservative churches.

[nobodyspecial]

8. Wow

Way to make *huge* leaps with no facts in evidence and malign me at the same time.

You expressed your opinion. I expressed mine. This is called a discussion, which is entirely appropriate on a discussion board. I expressed my opinion that ministers should not engage in politics and why I believe that. You are free to make your own case. Don't take it personal that I don't agree with you.

How do you even think that I'm opposed to marriage equality from my post? In this case, it has nothing to do with the message, but the messenger. Just so we are clear, I'm in favor of and actively support marriage equality. I think you and the president should be vocal and I will continue to join you. However, I don't think progressive churches should advocate for it from the pulpit any more than conservative churches should advocate against it.

And, don't worry, you won't ever see me advocating hatred in any shape or form, even against those with whom I disagree.

[mfcorey1]

9. Done!

[jwirr]

12. You think church members do not pay taxes? Think again.

[nobodyspecial]

20. Where did I say church members?

My exact words: Frankly, I don't want ministers on either side

trying to drive the vote.

And throughout my response I was talking specifically about ministers advocating for or against political issues from the pulpit. And churches, as an organization, not individual members, acting as lobbyists.

It makes me angry that churches have been used for decades to fight against marriage equality and women's choice. It would be hypocritical of me to say they shouldn't be allowed in these cases but it is okay if it is something I support. I also think it does a disservice to church members to use them as political pawns to do a church's bidding.

I don't want churches is kids' education and I don't want them in the political arena. I believe in separation of church and state. Religious beliefs of one group should not dictate public policy for all groups.

[jwirr]

22. You basically pointed out that groups outside the church pay their taxes leaving the impression

that church members do not. That is one of the sticky issues regarding the separation of church and state. Like all other groups members belong in two roles. That is why the rule says that the government cannot do anything to influence religion - that is create a state run religion etc. and says nothing about the citizen.

Unfortunately the rw is pushing the bondaries of the church and state ideal by preaching politics from the altar and by electing representatives who are trying to use the state to make the rest of us follow their religion. That is totally wrong but when I make quilts for distribution by the LWR and the government in disasters I am not breaking the state/church ideal. I am supporting the government in a disaster. I of course have my own reasons for doing that but I can guarantee you that it is not to take over the government so that everyone has to do like I believe. And I would be the first to object to religious laws being forced on me. Or on you.

[Zax2me]

21. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

Forever intertwined, it seems.