PDA

View Full Version : Elections Pastors and Politics


irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 11:28 AM
Does anyone else think they are playing an increasingly big part in politics?

I mean, even when the religious right is having trouble, like this year, the candidates are going out of their way to align and be seen with random pastors.

Why do we care what they have to say?

Direckshun
07-22-2008, 11:55 AM
We don't, because we're not in their congregations. Congregations are incredibly mindful of what their pastors believe politically. Therefore, politicians care. And if you care about what politicians care about, you care.

I think pastors that are emerging now have a generational power as the old guard starts dying off: can they move religious activism in politics in a more positive, productive direction, or will they continue the ages-long pattern of committing them to one side of the fight and digging their heels in?

I think that pastor who's going to host McCain and Obama is the former, and I'm happy both candidates are giving him a voice. I forget his name.

Warrior5
07-22-2008, 11:58 AM
I think that pastor who's going to host McCain and Obama is the former, and I'm happy both candidates are giving him a voice. I forget his name.

Rick Warren

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 11:59 AM
We don't, because we're not in their congregations. Congregations are incredibly mindful of what their pastors believe politically. Therefore, politicians care. And if you care about what politicians care about, you care.

I think pastors that are emerging now have a generational power as the old guard starts dying off: can they move religious activism in politics in a more positive, productive direction, or will they continue the ages-long pattern of committing them to one side of the fight and digging their heels in?

I think that pastor who's going to host McCain and Obama is the former, and I'm happy both candidates are giving him a voice. I forget his name.

Rick Warren is his name.

I do happen to agree that it's a generational thing. I think they're cropping up as the last stand for their generation. I don't think we'll see them gain much more than they have now, especially if the internet is a good polling ground. :p

I do however hesitate at "positive, productive direction" with respect to religion and politics. The reason being is history has shown that they don't get along. And that most of the time a positive, productive direction ultimately fails and leaves in a state worse than before.

markk
07-22-2008, 12:01 PM
I have only heard things like abortion talked about from the pulpit. I have never heard a candidate endorsed or party. They don't talk about budget plans or health care or whatever. I'm sure there are plenty who identify with helping the unfortunate and think that should be the government's work and other aspects of the democrat platform.

Pastors didn't need to be involved in politics until the 70s or so, when liberalism started encroaching on territory that religious people consider sacred, like the sanctity of human life. There are still plenty of prominent figures in the evangelical chruch who feel politics is dirty business and the church should just be in the business of evangelism.

They will probably need to defend their territory in the future, with the hate speech stuff like they have in Canada and other more post-modern parts of the world seeming likely to come here.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 12:03 PM
Churches are flourishing and seeing growth and new young pastors are moving into bigger churches. The Church is one of the great strengths in America and our church and church leaders are moral guideposts for our country. It always was that way and thankfully always will be.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 12:06 PM
I have only heard things like abortion talked about from the pulpit. I have never heard a candidate endorsed or party. They don't talk about budget plans or health care or whatever. I'm sure there are plenty who identify with helping the unfortunate and think that should be the government's work and other aspects of the democrat platform.

Pastors didn't need to be involved in politics until the 70s or so, when liberalism started encroaching on territory that religious people consider sacred, like the sanctity of human life. There are still plenty of prominent figures in the evangelical chruch who feel politics is dirty business and the church should just be in the business of evangelism.

They will probably need to defend their territory in the future, with the hate speech stuff like they have in Canada and other more post-modern parts of the world seeming likely to come here.

What are you talking about re Canada?

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 12:07 PM
Churches are flourishing and seeing growth and new young pastors are moving into bigger churches. The Church is one of the great strengths in America and our church and church leaders are moral guideposts for our country. It always was that way and thankfully always will be.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's true. Too many have gone down hard for a variety of morally bankrupt things. Child abuse is too easy now. Now it's tax evasion and things like that.

Pastors have never really been the moral guideposts for anything.

Direckshun
07-22-2008, 12:10 PM
The reason being is history has shown that they don't get along. And that most of the time a positive, productive direction ultimately fails and leaves in a state worse than before.
How so?

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 12:11 PM
Unfortunately, I don't think that's true. Too many have gone down hard for a variety of morally bankrupt things. Child abuse is too easy now. Now it's tax evasion and things like that.

Pastors have never really been the moral guideposts for anything.

Your idiocy is proven again.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 12:13 PM
How so?

Because a positive direction usually allows a religion to get into the government directly. It opens doors that are normally shut or are only used by proxy. And when religion and government fuse directly, well, we all know how that turns out.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 12:13 PM
Your idiocy is proven again.

Do you have something to the contrary? There have been a great many pastors who have gone down because of morally bankrupt actions. And that's after being revered like you say.

Chiefnj2
07-22-2008, 12:17 PM
and church leaders are moral guideposts for our country. It always was that way and thankfully always will be.

Do you include Reverend Jeremiah Wright as being a moral guidepost that people should follow?

markk
07-22-2008, 12:21 PM
What are you talking about re Canada?

Many countries have laws against 'inciting hatred' now. Canada's i think was C-250. I believe, without googling, that a pastor in british columbia did some jail time, as did someone else in a scandinavian country for a similar thing. And, wasn't there some trial where an old movie star in France recently was punished for degrading comments about race or religion as well?

We know that once a hole is drilled in the dam of a basic right such as free speech, the hole will just become larger over time. You cannot put people in jail for their opinions and have religious freedom at the same time.

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 12:21 PM
Pastors didn't need to be involved in politics until the 70s or so, when liberalism started encroaching on territory that religious people consider sacred, like the sanctity of human life.

Father Coughlin

Not the only example, but one of the leading ones.


Pastors have never really been the moral guideposts for anything.

Untrue. In my experience many are, though the examples of the money-grubbers in the televangelist racket usually get more attention due to their higher profile.

However, I utterly reject the nonsensical implication made by some that there can be no morality in the absence of religion.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 12:22 PM
For his congregation he seems to be. That doesnt make him a guidepost for me.

Churches and church attendence is not down at all in fact we have some huge growthiin churches across the KC area. Id assume that we are not somehow different from other parts of the country.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 12:22 PM
Father Coughlin

Not the only example, but one of the leading ones.

Too many coughs. Try not coughing in the middle of someone's name.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 12:23 PM
For his congregation he seems to be. That doesnt make him a guidepost for me.

Churches and church attendence is not down at all in fact we have some huge growthiin churches across the KC area. Id assume that we are not somehow different from other parts of the country.

I thought you said they were moral guideposts. If someone else's moral guidepost is different than yours, then who is right?

Aren't they supposed to be universal moral guideposts, regardless of religion?

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 12:25 PM
Too many coughs. Try not coughing in the middle of someone's name.
LMAO

I thought you said they were moral guideposts. If someone else's moral guidepost is different than yours, then who is right?

aye, there's the rub.

Aren't they supposed to be universal moral guideposts, regardless of religion?

I can't see how. A crime in one society may be a moral requirement in another.

markk
07-22-2008, 12:25 PM
I thought you said they were moral guideposts. If someone else's moral guidepost is different than yours, then who is right?

Aren't they supposed to be universal moral guideposts, regardless of religion?

if universal moral guideposts exist, where else would they come from?

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 12:27 PM
if universal moral guideposts exist, where else would they come from?

Well, you are operating under the position that religion holds the only key to morals, which would be a grave mistake.

I'm not sure exactly where they'd come from. But I do know that to be moral or to be a guidepost to what society considers to be moral, you don't have to belong to a religion, do it in the name of a religion or otherwise.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 12:29 PM
I can't see how. A crime in one society may be a moral requirement in another.

Well, yes, that's my point. The part you quoted me on was sarcasm. They, themselves, claim to be universal guideposts. Most followers would agree with that. But therein lies the problem, as you point out.

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 12:30 PM
if universal moral guideposts exist, where else would they come from?

The Hippocratic oath is not religious, but considered a "universal moral guidepost".

Sorry, but <s>superstition</s> religion is not the sole legitimate source of universal ethics.

markk
07-22-2008, 12:31 PM
Well, you are operating under the position that religion holds the only key to morals, which would be a grave mistake.

You said universal. I said, if there are morals that are universal, they would have to come from religion.


I'm not sure exactly where they'd come from. But I do know that to be moral or to be a guidepost to what society considers to be moral, you don't have to belong to a religion, do it in the name of a religion or otherwise.

Yeah, you can be moral within the expectations a social group without being religious. But you said universal. That means applying to all people.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 12:35 PM
Its not a problem for those who enjoy and understand their Church. Why is it a problem for those who are not part of a church?

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 12:36 PM
Its not a problem for those who enjoy and understand their Church. Why is it a problem for those who are not part of a church?

It's only a problem for me when those that understand and enjoy their church attempt to enact their religious ethics in legislation. Leave me free to make my choices, and I'll return the favor.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 12:38 PM
It's only a problem for me when those that understand and enjoy their church attempt to enact their religious ethics in legislation. Leave me free to make my choices, and I'll return the favor.

So if I go to church, Im not allowed to have a political belief?

markk
07-22-2008, 12:40 PM
So if I go to church, Im not allowed to have a political belief?

I think it means, you are allowed to have beliefs, you just aren't allowed to vote based on them or discuss them in a political environment.

"Get back in the closet" perhaps.

***SPRAYER
07-22-2008, 12:52 PM
Great book for those inclined to reading:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/christianity-jacket.html

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 01:14 PM
So if I go to church, Im not allowed to have a political belief?

I think it means, you are allowed to have beliefs, you just aren't allowed to vote based on them or discuss them in a political environment.

"Get back in the closet" perhaps.

Incorrect on both counts. I'm simply saying that don't pass legislation that forces me to live by your religious ideals, and free to make my own choices, and I'll do the same.

Example- Legislation supporting Sex Ed, as long as it provides an opt-out provision, does not infringe on either parties rights. Legislation banning it, or requiring abstinence only education, or teaching it without an opt-out provision making it mandatory does.

Legislation allowing abortion does not force anyone to have an abortion. It only leaves the option for those that choose to take it.

Legislation allowing same-sex unions or "civil marriages" does not force anyone to enter into such a state. It only leaves the option for those that choose to take it.

All of these are contriversial, and relatively split among the population. There is little chance of reconciling the two opposing viewpoints, both of which feel theirs is correct. Thus, I find the best option to leave it to the individual to decide for themselves.

Spare me the tired "why not legalize murder" rhetoric. There is a broad social consensus condemning murder. There is no such broad consensus on these topics I mention above.

Leave me free to make my choices and I'll return the favor.

I can see how such a concept would be difficult for the two of you to grasp, as you both appear to be so fond of the government adopting the role of "moral nanny" for us.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 01:16 PM
Allowing free access to killing babies is just not something I can agree with.

sex ed in school, I would agree with you on the opt out side.

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 01:20 PM
Allowing free access to killing babies is just not something I can agree with.

sex ed in school, I would agree with you on the opt out side.

Do you believe life begins at conception? Is two cells a "baby"? How about 12 or 14? A cluster of a few thousand? To me, that's no different then saying a fertilized hens egg is a chicken.

If not, at what point does a zygote/fetus become a "baby"? Aye, there's the rub.

In the absence of any clear delineated line other than birth, I prefer to leave that choice to the individual. JMO.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 01:23 PM
Do you believe life begins at conception? Is two cells a "baby"? How about 12 or 14? A cluster of a few thousand? To me, that's no different then saying a fertilized hens egg is a chicken.

If not, at what point does a zygote/fetus become a "baby"? Aye, there's the rub.

In the absence of any clear delineated line other than birth, I prefer to leave that choice to the individual. JMO.

With no limits?

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 01:23 PM
Great book for those inclined to reading:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/christianity-jacket.html

He lost credibility long ago.

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 01:25 PM
With no limits?

I personally would oppose anything after the second trimester. I have some reservations about the second trimester.

That said, I would not presume to extend my personal opinion into law.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 01:25 PM
With no limits?

Birth is the NATURAL line....

What other limits do you propose?

FTR, I am against partial birth abortion for the sole fact that at that stage the couple or individual has had more time than necessary to make a decision. Therefore, the only time a PB abortion is necessary is life threatening situations.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 01:25 PM
so you would defer to anyone who wants an abortion at any time

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 01:27 PM
so you would defer to anyone who wants an abortion at any time

I'm quite certain I stated I believe that decision should be left to the individual, and that I would not presume to legislate my personal opinion or opposition.

What part of that (IMO) very clear declaration are you having difficulty comprehending?

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 01:27 PM
You said universal. I said, if there are morals that are universal, they would have to come from religion.

Which would be a giant fallacy.



Yeah, you can be moral within the expectations a social group without being religious. But you said universal. That means applying to all people.

My statement was tongue in cheek. Most religious people deem that religious figures (priests, pastors, etc) are moral guideposts for everyone.

***SPRAYER
07-22-2008, 01:28 PM
He lost credibility long ago.


:LOL:

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 01:29 PM
I'm quite certain I stated I believe that decision should be left to the individual, and that I would not presume to legislate my personal opinion.

What part of that very clear statement are you having difficulty comprehending?

That would be my stance as well.

Out of curiosity, is there any part of your opinion you would like to see make legislature? Say, for example, partial birth abortion being outlawed because of the amount of time that they've had to make a decision? Or say, the simple and general fact of keeping the choice with the individual?

HonestChieffan
07-22-2008, 01:29 PM
I'm quite certain I stated I believe that decision should be left to the individual, and that I would not presume to legislate my personal opinion or opposition.

What part of that (IMO) very clear declaration are you having difficulty comprehending?

Just establishing that i understood you. Not often do you see a position that opens abortion up to anyone at anytime.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 01:29 PM
:LOL:

Clearly, you never read any of his post VT massacre tripe. Or pretty much any of his blog.

***SPRAYER
07-22-2008, 01:31 PM
Clearly, you never read any of his post VT massacre tripe. Or pretty much any of his blog.


No, can't say that I have. What about it?

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 01:31 PM
That would be my stance as well.

Out of curiosity, is there any part of your opinion you would like to see make legislature? Say, for example, partial birth abortion being outlawed because of the amount of time that they've had to make a decision? Or say, the simple and general fact of keeping the choice with the individual?

I would certainly prefer that people do not pursue partial birth abortion. I find the procedure repugnant, to say the least.

That said, I would not attempt to enact that preference in legislation. Nor would I oppose it.

My only criticism of such legislation would be if it was used as a wedge to completely outlaw all forms of abortion procedures.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 01:37 PM
No, can't say that I have. What about it?

Well, let's start with http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/04/18/where-is-atheism-when-bad-things-happen/

And the rebuttal: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/19/18451/0971

And then let's proceed to:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/dinesh_dsouza_is_a_contemptibl.php
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=913247
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/20/d_souza/
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/10/dinesh-dsouza-i.html

Not only does he have one of the most asinine views of religion but he is a partisan hack to the extreme. The Left is completely responsible for 9/11? Seriously?

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 01:39 PM
I would certainly prefer that people do not pursue partial birth abortion. I find the procedure repugnant, to say the least.

That said, I would not attempt to enact that preference in legislation. Nor would I oppose it.

My only criticism of such legislation would be if it was used as a wedge to completely outlaw all forms of abortion procedures.

That's where I figured you'd draw the line. And that happens to be where I do too, even if I find PB Abortion to be the closest thing to the Pro-Life camp's reason of "it's contraception" argument.

Adept Havelock
07-22-2008, 01:41 PM
That's where I figured you'd draw the line. And that happens to be where I do too, even if I find PB Abortion to be the closest thing to the Pro-Life camp's reason of "it's contraception" argument.

That's a fair assessment, IMO.

The Left is completely responsible for 9/11? Seriously?

I could have sworn it was Bin Laden and Al Queda, in spite of Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's babble.

***SPRAYER
07-22-2008, 01:43 PM
Well, let's start with http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/04/18/where-is-atheism-when-bad-things-happen/

And the rebuttal: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/19/18451/0971

And then let's proceed to:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/dinesh_dsouza_is_a_contemptibl.php
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=913247
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/20/d_souza/
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/10/dinesh-dsouza-i.html

Not only does he have one of the most asinine views of religion but he is a partisan hack to the extreme. The Left is completely responsible for 9/11? Seriously?


You haven't shown me where he "lost credibility" what you have shown me is you don't like him and never did, that you disagree with him and always have.

What is really bothering you is the fact that Dinesh owns every single atheist he's debated. The only one I would call a draw was with Hitchens. But no atheist ever beat him. Atheists are good at bullying unsophisticated but well intentioned Christians, but they are humiliated by Dinesh.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2008, 01:44 PM
You haven't shown me where he "lost credibility" what you have shown me is you don't like him and never did, that you disagree with him and always have.

What is really bothering you is the fact that Dinesh owns every single atheist he's debated. The only one I would call a draw was with Hitchens. But no atheist ever beat him. Atheists are good at bullying unsophisticated but well intentioned Christians, but they are humiliated by Dinesh.

:LOL:LMAO

Irony within two sentences.

***SPRAYER
07-22-2008, 01:54 PM
:LOL:LMAO

Irony within two sentences.


Anybody who wants to watch the debate can decide for themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4

***SPRAYER
07-22-2008, 01:57 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iw7J15TeDG4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iw7J15TeDG4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>