Should churches stay out of politics?

I can understand that a pastor or other church leader thinks he or she is doing what they feel is right by speaking out on political issues, especially in these politically divided times, but the founding fathers specifically called out for a separation of church and state for a reason. They had experienced what happens when religious leaders had political control.

Even in the present, a majority of us here in America complain about religious control in a number of Middle Eastern countries. We complain because we think their point of view is wrong.

While some religious leaders have a good and fair point of view, others do not. We can't easily pick and choose what is right or wrong, and certainly followers will be inclined to follow their religious leader no matter what the public says. Therefore the answer is to keep religion out of politics completely to bypass the potential that exists for abuse of power.

Joe, you got it totally wrong. The so-called separation of church and state is to prevent the government dominate church (or what religion people should believe), not the other way around. That's why it says "the Congress may not pass any laws endorse one religion". In other words, Pres. Bush cannot make Methodist a national religion. It never meant to prevent a church leader (e.g. a pastor) talking out about issues that's one way or another related to politics. Through the American history, you can confirm this argument through many of our founding fathers' speeches and behavior. Nothing was banned until ACLU started its agenda. By the way ACLU was founded to defend the communists during early 20th century. If pastors cannot speak out his opinion, how about the press. Every newspaper has a columnist who writes, not the news, but opinions. Why then, it is ok for the media to "steer" people's opinion but it is not ok for pastors (or your neighbors) to speak out their opinions?

CDL,

Thanks for the reply. I can see your point about not wanting government leaders forcing their beliefs on the populace. That is a good one. I think it works both ways.

In response to your last question, I would put a person's pastor on a much more influential level than the media. If someone's pastor says "they're not right with God" or that the person is voting against God's will, I think that potentially has alot more pull than an op-ed read in a newspaper or online blog.

The old church and state issue rears its ugly head. The people have spoken. The masses, the population has spoken. The (Catholic) church is gearing up of a major campaign against President elect Obama. If the new media ignored it then it would be a non issue. Catholics are now a minority. Since when does minority rule?

Priests and Ministers and Clerics of all religions should stay out of any political issue. They cannot and should not regulate a person's conscience in issues relating to trying to control people whose beliefs are different for theirs.

I believe Rev. Newton is right. But, the message should have been "you should vote based on your beliefs " before the election. I voted for McCain because of the abortion issue. And I believe that if the Christian people had got out and voted their beliefs, McCain would have won.

He has no right to judge his parishners this way. Did he put this demand in the church bullitin 12 years ago when Clinton was elected into office? NO!!! This is just a sign of his own racism. He should be asking his church for forgiveness for hating his fellowman. The bible does state that we should love one another. How can he call himself a man of God, saying he loves God when he can not be supportive of the man God put in place as leader of this country?

I think the priest is showing his own earthly flaws as a racist. People have been having abortions for decades, way before Obama. So, obviously he isn't the only one that thinks that women should have a choice in whether or not to have an unwanted child. I thought the church was suppose to be about love for all people. It seems like this priest is trying to cause a separation among his followers. We need to quit looking at the darkness of ones skin color and look at the darkness that's covering our nation from poverty, homelessness, high crime, and etc. God put us all here not just one group of people. Yes, everyone has different thoughts and opinions but in the end it's all suppose to come together to make this a better world to live in.

It is true that the pastors or priests may have more influence to SOME people, just like popular celebrities would have. Again, we are all protected under free speech (including pastors and priests). On top of that, religion practice is also protected by the Constitution. Your reaction to what you hear is your choice.

I just want to stress the misunderstanding and abuse of the so-called separation of Church and State. As I said in the previous post, it was designed to protect religious freedom so that NO GOVERNMENT can establish ONE national religion which will effectively outlaw other faiths. Our founding father did this because many of them came from England where there was a mandatory national religion. It has nothing to do with how the Catholic church influenced the governments in Europe back in the old days. No it doesn't work "both ways". Religion is a big part of many people's life and you cannot silence these people speaking out their political viewpoints just because they are religious. Democracy belongs to all citizens.

I am not a Catholic but I do want to protect my rights as guaranteed in the Constitution - freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of hearing arms. Obama is the president-elect and soon he will be the president of the USA. With that said, he is not above the laws and he is still bound by the Constitution. I expect the right for me sitting here and type my opinions without worrying CIA or NSS will be knocking my door.

MICKI, where is your racism coming from? There are EVEN black preachers speaking out against Obama because of his abortion record. It has NOTHING to do with racism and I am NOT a white man.

In my opinion, it is not a stretch to compare this priest and his use of the Roman Catholic Church with the Taliban and their (mis)use of Islam. Both are extremist.

seperation of church and state must always be maintained. something Gov. sarah palin should adhere to.yet Gov. palin refuses to do. i hope and Pray she will be only aone term Gov. then fade quitely to the sidelines. Gov palin wrecked Sen. Mccains path to victory,need isay more!?

seperation of church and state must always be maintained. something Gov. sarah palin should adhere to.yet Gov. palin refuses to do. i hope and Pray she will be only aone term Gov. then fade quitely to the sidelines. Gov palin wrecked Sen. Mccains path to victory,need isay more!?

CDL,

Thanks again for responding. I do want to say that I appreciate you having a fairly toned back and forth even though we have different opinions. Sadly, I think it has become more and more difficult for people to agree to disagree, and easier to just demonize anyone who doesn't believe the same thing they do.

Since the reason this came up was related to abortion, I have a couple of questions/observations I'd like to post.

1.) Most, but not necessarily all, of the people I have heard who are anti-abortion are conservative. When I am talking with my conservative friends they are vehemently opposed to big government and say they don't want the government controlling their lives. Just as you mentioned above, they value and want to protect their freedoms. If so, then why do they want the government telling women what they can or can't do. What happens if someone becomes president who says his interpretation of the Bible is that women should not work?

2.) Why are there so many unadopted children and teenagers in the USA. The latest number I saw was half a million children in foster care. Why are all the anti-abortionists not adopting all these children so that they have a loving home and have a greater chance to grow up in a positive environment and ultimately have a positive effect on society. Please don't take my comment to the extreme. I am not saying that every child who grows up in foster car will be a bad seed. I am just saying that the percentages are stacked against them. I feel like alot, but again not all, of them may speak out against it, write their congressman, picket or whatever, but even if they are successful in closing an abortion clinic they pat themselves on the back, go home and wash their hands of it while the child who was born unwanted has to live with it the rest of their life.

These are my thoughts, I would like to hear your side as well.

Thanks again.

Joe, it is always more enjoyable to have civil discussions than a shouting game. To answer your question concerning small government, anti-abortion, and women's privacy rights. Here is my take. If you consider human life starts, not at the moment when a baby leaves the mother, but at the moment a life is formed within the mother, you probably will understand why social conservatives draw a line there. The so-called "pro-choice" implies that women have the rights to their reproductive decisions. I would say, yes, they do. The decision is made at the time they decide to engage a sexual intercourse. Not after they are months pregnant. In the case of rape is tough because she did not have a chance to choose. However, still the unborn baby is a human life and should be protected equally under Constitution. The analogy would be like parenting rights and privacy doesn't go beyond the children rights. If a child in an abusive family, the DSS can remove the child from the parents. So, why then it is ok for a parent to kill the baby before s/he is born? I agree with you that orphanage is an issue. Personally, as much I'd like the government to only provide basic services instead of a big brother, I don't mind the government to step in for the orphans. In principles, it is better for the charity (churches, etc.) to help these unfortunate babies. There are children homes in Greenville area for this very purpose. It would be nice if some charity can provide room and board and medical needs for pregnant women who otherwise may abort the baby due to financial concerns. I just have my first daughter and I know how expensive it could be. Perhaps this "benefit" can be extended to the rape victims so that the life of the baby can be preserved while the mom can move on her life 10 months later. I hope my answer somehow provides a new perspective for you to consider. Anti-abortion isn't about against women rights. It is meant to protect the unborns who cannot speak for themselves. During GOP primary, I voted for Huckabee because he is not a typical Republican. He explained very well why Christians should be pro-life before AND after the babies are born. (As a governor, he supported merit-based education aids for ALL children, including the children of illegal immigrants.) Joe, you did bring up a good point. Conservatives should pay attention to both the unborns and the "already-born's". Indeed, many churches are still in this business and it certainly is an area that can be worked on even further.

Churches should NOT stay out of politics. That is what is wrong with the world today they want to take the church and God out of everything if they would leave it alone maybe people would learn some morals and respect for others and the world would not be the way it is today. AMEN!

CDL, Thanks for the explanation. I have read it many times and discussed our conversation with my wife. I can certainly empathize. I'm afraid I'm not a convert though. Don't get me wrong. I don't take the subject of abortion lightly, and I agree women (and men) should think about the consequences before consenting to sexual intercourse. However, I think that the reality is that not all people do this, and I don't view bringing a child into this world as a "you broke it, you bought it" type of a situation. The irresponsible parents will not be the only ones paying for their actions. The child will have to live with it as well, and if they are not wanted it will be a hard life. My view is, the first trimester the mother (and father if he is involved) should have the right to make a personal choice. Before the end of the first trimester they should have had enough time to make a decision. After that I think it should be allowed if the mother's health is in danger. If we ever got to the point where there were no more children waiting to be adopted then I could see there would be no reason for abortion because every child would have a loving home waiting for his or her arrival in the world. But until that day arrives, I think the reality is that we have not gotten to a point where all the unwanted children born into this country can be properly taken care of. Again, I wish all the people who were so passionately anti-abortion would first tackle the issue of the "already-born's" as you termed it. If they could help solve that problem, as well as work to implement some kind of support for pregnant mothers, I think most people would not feel the need for an abortion. Back to the original question this poll was asking: I wanted to say a couple of things. I agree with you, I don't think the pastor said what he said out of racism. I think he does believe what he is saying is true from a religious stand point. I also agree he does have a right to free speech as we all do. If he simply said, "I do not support Obama because I can not support someone who is pro-choice." That would be fine. My problem with what he said, and why I go back to my original statement agreeing that churches (of any religion) should stay out of politics is, he was trying to control the votes of all his parishioners. I don't think anyone should have someone else controlling how they should vote. It would be the same as business owner telling his employees they have to vote for Candidate X. Anyone in a position of authority has freedom of speech, but they are not free to control others.

I guess the so called "Rev. Wright" didn't get the message. Is it ok for black churches to preach politics, but not white churches?