|
Post by booklady on Nov 2, 2008 14:11:29 GMT -5
What is the place of the church in the political process? What role is acceptable on the part of our church leaders, especially in our local churches, in terms of "advice"?
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Nov 2, 2008 14:16:12 GMT -5
I'm "troubled" by some remarks made this morning by my priest.
I feel like his job is to lead worship and conduct the liturgy, preach the gospel and help us see biblical applications in our lives, and let us draw our own conclusions about what God wants us to do in the voting booth.
What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Nov 2, 2008 17:13:18 GMT -5
For starters, it's against the law.
Our minister talked about "on my honor", telling us that we must continue to believe, hope and work for a world that will be just, peaceful and compassionate. In the meditation, he talked about "the little boy who was born this week" (my grandson Sam) and said to never stop trying to make the world a world that baby Sam deserves.
The last hymn was "Oh, Freedom".
I would guess that 95% of the people there will vote for Obama. It's the "liberalest" church in Grand Rapids.
But Obama's name never came up.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 2, 2008 18:33:16 GMT -5
I see no role for political comments, advice or recommendations in the pulpit. However, if a church wants to give up its tax-exempt status, it can be as political as it chooses.
Obviously, there are some issues that have political overtones - abortion, assisted suicide, same sex marriage, stem cell research - and it might seem hard to keep them separate from sermons. But I think it can be done. A church can take a political stand by its good works. For example, if a church chooses to support women who think they can't afford a baby or takes in young pregnant women to see them through till their babies can be adopted, then the moral position of the church is crystal clear, without endorsing any candidate.
Interesting, Bl. It occurs to me that you're in the position of Obama when he didn't always agree with his pastor's vehemence. Should you leave your church or stay and try to influence it with your own good sense?
|
|
|
Post by jspnrvr on Nov 2, 2008 19:04:35 GMT -5
Our pastor used Philipians 4:4-9. As much as anything he was wanting everyone to just plain lighten up, whether it be the economy, the election. He told a few jokes, talked about laughter as medicine, but not in a touchy-feely pop psychology way. That was a very small part of the message. If God can design an aardvaark it's a sign that He has sense of humor. Rejoice in the Lord, don't be anxious.
Whoever we wake up to on Wednesday, God put them there. Whether it be Abraham Lincoln or Pol Pot, God puts them there. He used Pharoh and He'll use our next President. Whoever is in the office pray for them, and for each other, that's our job. Rejoice in the Lord. That all things will be used for God's glory, and nothing can separate us from His love, not even ourselves. A little dab from Romans 8.
So there we are. Someone is in charge and it ain't me. I'm going to do my best to remember that, and re-read the bulletin, and say my prayers.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Nov 2, 2008 19:44:54 GMT -5
Listen, we're not talking about a political sermon or an overt endorsement. It was just a remark or two about what our church believes about one particular social issue. Well, maybe two. But I already knew that, and didn't need any last minute instructions. And while many American do feel their vote is decided by a candidate's stance on just one or two social issues, for myself it's more complicated than that.
No, gk, it's not something I could change by leaving the church, and these are not issues that the church changes its stance on based on people disagreeing with them.
I don't think what he did or said violated any law, it just bugged me, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Nov 3, 2008 0:44:15 GMT -5
Bookie, I happened to flip through the newspaper mailed to all families registered with a parish in our diocese. There was one largish article with three columns - one for each candidate's stance on various issues and one for the church's stance on each of these issues. While I suppose that they have every right to publish that information, I did not appreciate what seemed to me to be an attempt to lead readers to the "appropriate" candidate. It smacked of paternalism.
|
|
|
Post by ozski on Nov 3, 2008 7:42:49 GMT -5
There was one largish article with three columns - one for each candidate's stance on various issues and one for the church's stance on each of these issues. We as American voters have every right to know a candidate's stance and voting record. In fact I believe it is our duty to know these things before we vote. As members of a religious or any other organization, we also need to be aware of all it stands for. I don't see a problem, truthfully. They aren't telling parishoners how to vote (right?), just getting information out to those so they may make that choice.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 3, 2008 10:18:57 GMT -5
Bl, I didn't mean you could change it by leaving, rather that you might influence it by staying. And only in a small way, I understand.
I'm pretty fierce on the separation of church and state. Anything that identifies positions of specific candidates or parties is political. Sounds to me as if Jay's pastor did exactly the right thing.
Tax-exempt status is a mistake to my mind. Real freedom of speech and religion should be completely separate from government, no exemptions except for actual charitable work like offering shelter and food to the poor.
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Nov 3, 2008 14:52:00 GMT -5
There was one largish article with three columns - one for each candidate's stance on various issues and one for the church's stance on each of these issues. We as American voters have every right to know a candidate's stance and voting record. In fact I believe it is our duty to know these things before we vote. As members of a religious or any other organization, we also need to be aware of all it stands for. I don't see a problem, truthfully. They aren't telling parishoners how to vote (right?), just getting information out to those so they may make that choice. No, they are not telling us how to vote. But it still struck me as paternalistic. Here's the link - pages 11 - 14 in the October 18 issue. Honestly, I didn't read it in its entirety. The text above the columns was what I found bothersome. www.bridgeportdiocese.com/fcc.shtml
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 3, 2008 15:26:01 GMT -5
I guess they don't remember how Kennedy's election was considered remarkable given the prejudice against Catholics that had prevailed in this country from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 5, 2008 15:59:26 GMT -5
I see nothing wrong in stating a church's moral doctrine at a time when it is relevant and explaining its significance to the current situation.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 5, 2008 16:23:36 GMT -5
You may see nothing wrong with it, Joe, but how would you feel if it were an Imam preaching votes for Muslim candidates? Not necessarily preaching anything hostile, just a determination to elect as many Muslims as possible.
That's why it's against the law, whether you see anything wrong with it or not.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 6, 2008 0:11:21 GMT -5
Apples and oranges, unless I missed something in bl's post. As I understood it, the priest said nothing about the faith of any of the candidates. He just highlighted a couple of moral values which he thought have a bearing on public policy and therefore people should take into account in voting. It would be a gross violation of the free exercise clause to prevent clergy from speaking of the real-world implications of moral values, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 6, 2008 10:56:39 GMT -5
I was referring to the comparison of party platforms and the church's position. That's entirely over the line. But it's a tough call. Suppose all through the primary and election seasons, a preacher focused entirely on abortion and same-sex marriage. To me that would be heavily loading the church's message in a political way, but I don't know if it could be proven to be political. Many church teachings could be applied to political decisions, and I guess it depends on how specific the sermon and how much it's hammered at during a political conflict. For instance, when a sermon focuses on helping the least among us it doesn't lead directly to supporting expansion of the SCHIP (children's medical insurance) legislation. John McCain voted no on the expansion and Bush vetoed it twice before the Dems caved in. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17416046 So if preachers in AZ were bringing the issue up whenever these bills were being argued, is that political?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 6, 2008 14:24:12 GMT -5
Even on the comparison, I'm not so sure — well, I disagree. If it says, here's what we say, here's what the Whigs say, and here's what the Tories say, it's factual.
I think they have a right to say pretty much what they want, as long as they don't say, "Vote for X," or "Don't vote for Y."
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Nov 6, 2008 18:08:16 GMT -5
Actually, I didn't necessarily mind the table. As Joe said, it's factual and it does put all the relevant information in one spot. What bothered me so much was the unsolicited advice to examine one's conscience before deciding how to vote, as if the only good choice would be the candidate whose platform adhered most closely to that of the teachings of the church. That was what sounded paternalistic to me.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 6, 2008 19:14:19 GMT -5
I guess I'm not making my point very well. The point is their tax-free status. I can't deduct my contributions to a 527 and they aren't exempt from property or income tax. Churches can say whatever they want, but they can't preach political messages and stay tax-exempt. That's why I said I think only their purely charitable work should be tax-exempt.
I heard the tail end of a news report today that seemed to suggest there will be lawsuits in CA on the same-sex marriage ban. Apparently the Mormon Church was very active in getting that passed, but I didn't hear the complete story.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 7, 2008 2:43:43 GMT -5
It sounds as if this may be like the situation in Colorado a few years ago when a court invalidated a referendum because it thought that the voters who passed it had a religious motivation behind their votes.
First of all, unless a court ascertains from every voter what his motivation was, it is presuming facts not in evidence if it decides that the result was the product of a religious motive. And how can the court know that every voter answers truthfully? There is nothing to prevent an opponent from saying "I voted in favor because my pastor said God wanted me to." There is no way to prove which voters voted which way. And the court would have to determine not only how many voters voted yes out of a religious motive, but also how many voted no on the basis of a belief that God favors treating everybody alike.
Second, to equate voting by individuals on the basis of religious belief to the establishment of a religion when the vote is not one to establish a church is to falsify the meaning of establishment. The Constitution makes no requirements on voters as to their motivations. It is a matter of results. If there is no established church in California, then the establishment clause has not been violated.
Third, to apply a religious test to the exercise of the franchise must be even more antithetical to our constitutional system that applying one to holding public office higher than that of voter. To disenfranchise millions of voters on the basis of their actual religious beliefs would be intolerable. Equally intolerable is disenfranchising them based on their presumed religious motives.
If Prop 8 is overturned by a court, it will be one more piece of irrefutable evidence that we no longer live in a republic based on the principle of popular sovereignty, but under a judicial tyranny.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 8, 2008 10:05:44 GMT -5
As I said, I don't know the details. I did see a piece by Tony Perkins (Family Research council) lauding a young Morman couple who he said donated all their worldy goods ($50K) to the cause of defeating Prop 8. That, of course, is their right. I hope they can still feed the kids. We will see if there is evidence of proseltyzing from the Mormon church that urged a No vote.
As for judicial tyranny, I think we are currently experiencing exactly that and hope Mr. Obama can speedily reverse the Bush program for manipulating the courts. He's an expert in Constitutional law, thank God.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 9, 2008 0:00:22 GMT -5
The problem isn't that the executive branch is manipulating the courts. It is that the courts have seized all power. Nothing can withstand their whims. There is no longer any semblance of the balance of powers that we heard about in civics. When a court can prevent the supposedly sovereign people from amending the constitution which they adopted, then the courts are the absolute dictator.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Nov 9, 2008 19:10:04 GMT -5
When a court can prevent the supposedly sovereign people from amending the constitution which they adopted, then the courts are the absolute dictator. If a court has prevented a constitutional amendment from passing, I'd like to be reminded of when that was.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Nov 9, 2008 19:16:15 GMT -5
www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-05-values-voters-obama_N.htmI thought this was a very interesting article about Obama, religion, and the campaign. In light of the discussion in this thread, this paragraph from the article jumped out at me. Does it cross the line between church and political expression? Yet when it came down to the final Sunday, the campaign turned to traditional Democratic religious turf: African-American churches, where a letter from the candidate was read urging voter participation.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 10, 2008 0:25:54 GMT -5
No time to read the article now, BL, but I'd call that right on the edge, wouldn't you? Urging participation is fine, but not in a letter from a candidate or anyone else well-known in one of the parties.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 10, 2008 2:18:27 GMT -5
The traditionally black churches have been hosting democratic candidates on Sundays for years with nary a peep that I've heard of from people anxious to preserve separation of church and state or to keep churches out of politics.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 10, 2008 10:11:48 GMT -5
Just change the sentence to read, "Churches have been..." That's the truth, you know.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 10, 2008 18:41:27 GMT -5
Honestly, I haven't noticed other churches doing the same thing. Meaning, I haven't seen stories in the newspapers about other churches hosting candidates.
BTW, the sort of thing I'm talking about is that candidate X is attends the Sunday worship service and gives a talk during it, and maybe meets the people at a social afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by ozski on Nov 10, 2008 22:15:41 GMT -5
The traditionally black churches have been hosting democratic candidates on Sundays for years with nary a peep that I've heard of from people anxious to preserve separation of church and state or to keep churches out of politics. I agree joew. Although I have voted both sides of the ticket in my voting lifespan and will continue to do so; I have noted that one side [in particular] tends to turn a blind eye to what their party participates in, but will not tolerate the other side engaging in. Blame it on my Libra-ness, but I am a chronic "fair play moderator". So if turn about is fair play perhaps some of us should be admonishing those churches of which you speak of their risk of losing their tax exempt status. Them ain't fighting words, just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 11, 2008 0:21:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 11, 2008 0:51:15 GMT -5
|
|