Separation of church and state is only used for one side's advantage.

Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson do not voice their political views for just anyone, only the canadites who have them on their payroll. That is campaigning and is not allowed in churches and like organizations. It wasn't just the Rev. Super Duo it was both Sen. as well in many baptist churches rallying the troops and where was the news coverage for those politically incorrect events?

So, if it is OK for one why not the other? Separation is what should happen but doesn't always happen. Both events should not take place but they do and to me they are equally as wrong.

Hey, I'm not saying that Sharpton and Jackson are right. I don't agree with them campaigning in churches either. But as I previously stated, I haven't heard any stories about them threatening members of their churches to either support their candidate of leave the church. So there is a difference between what they were doing and what this other pastor did. Again, neither party in either situation is right. Yet the pastor in the latter situation went beyond supporting the candidate. He put certain church goers in a very compromised situation.

Please don't continue this as another "the other side argument." Neither party is right in either situation. But unless Sharpton and Jackson also threatened people to support their guy or leave, that argument is baseless (for this situation).

In any event, separation of church and state or not, this church either needs to lose their tax exempt status or find a new pastor.

I'm sorry but we will disagree that this is just another example of what happens on both sides.

The church in question is no worse than Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson going to places of worship in order to get votes, set up transports back and forth to the polls, and info on how to vote for the "right" choice; all the while collecting checks from the "right" canidates.

At least this current preacher had enough gumption to say what he thought, not what he got paid to say, and didn't try play on the ignorance of the congregation to get his paycheck.

At least the congregation was smart enough to stand up for themselves and do something about it.

I rarely enter into discussions here, but I just wanted to add that I have worked in Advance and Scheduling as well as Finance. (We processed invitations from anyone who extended them and filed them away in order by date. The higher ups then chose which to accept based on time, venue, etc.) I would say that around 90% of all invitations we processed made it clear that both candidates were invited. NEVER did the candidate I worked for ever pay to attend the services. If they did, you would find the donation under disbursements on Tray.com.

Tray.com is a wonderful resource that you should check out. It gives out the donor information in detail.

But, my point is: Any campaign donation has to be disclosed. So, keep in mind that when candidates visit houses of worship THEY HAVE BEEN INVITED. I think if they showed up randomly and wanted to speak to the congregation to garner votes, it would be one thing. But, I don't see any issue if the congregation itself has said, "Please come and talk to us. Tell us what you stand for." It is not a money-making event for either side. If that was the case, you'd either see money coming in or money going out to or from a church.

If members of a church rally together and set up GOTV (get out the vote) events, that's one thing. If a preacher of a congregation says vote my way or get out, that's a whole 'nother thing. It's one thing if members fellowship by setting up grassroot efforts in a candidate they believe will help them preserve their way of life and faith. It's another if the church leadership is forcing them out for not agreeing with them.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. I stated that I understand both sides are wrong for performing church campaigns. But I'll state it again, neither side is right.

But I don't see the vision in comparing a Sharpton or Jackson campaign at a chruch as opposed to this North Carolina pastor telling people to "vote for Bush or repent." To me, that's a difference and I'll again state that neither side was correct in any action but the latter took it a step further.

But then again I have an open mind on the subject and I just read an MSNBC.com article stating that the IRS is or has investigated over 60 churches and other non-profit orgs regarding election campaigns from the last election. I'm sure related to both "sides." And I'd support the removal of any official/pastor/preacher, etc of any of these orgs, no matter political affiliation.

Regardless of the church and state thing, regardless of "sides" here, you posed the question as to why people are getting up in arms about this? (Or to that extent). To answer that question it is against rules set by the IRS to perform politicking by tax-exempt groups. (As this is related to this thread, not any issue regarding Sharpton or Jackson or anyone else.)

I thought "separation of church and state" was more concerned with keeping religion out of the government, and not the other way around.

I can't say I'm bothered by what this pastor is doing. I mean, if you don't like it, find another church. What's the big deal? I think he's an ass, but that's a different issue.

For some people, their local church and pastor are the center of their life. Some don't have the option of going to another church (transportation issues, etc.). It's like a second home, and for them to be told they're not welcome at that second home would probably be tremendously upsetting.

I agree with you on your first point though; at least that's the way I understood it.

I suppose you are right regarding the separation of church and state but I guess I view it as one in the same. I think I was viewing this as religion influencing politics. The guy is entitled to his political views but it just doesn't sit right with me if he tells people to pretty much "put up or get out." I suppose they could go to church somewhere else but what if they've been part of that church for several years?

Even still, the bigger issue is in regards to the tax-exempt status of churches and the rules regarding politicking in the church. Honestly, if they want to be a pro-Bush church, let them. But they shouldn't be granted tax-exempt status. Let them pay taxes on their member fees/donations, on their property, on their fundraisers.

Anyway, let's talk football, where are your Bears going to be at this Year Valky?!?!

Hm, kicking some Packer butt, I suppose.

You know, I hate you sometimes! You Broncos get all up on my Chiefs. Your Bears stick it to my packers. You leave me with nothing, nothing I say!

Sucks to be from Wisconsin, eh? ;)

This pastor is a genius.

Due to the exposure he received from this, expect him to be inking some book deals, as well as receiving some rather nice honorariums for speaking engagements at churches, schools like Oral Roberts University, etc.

Also, expect him to become a "Fox News Contributor".

My understanding of American History is that the founding fathers came to the New World to escape government persecution -- especially religious persecution -- so it is my belief that they wanted to keep government out of religion.

If they were alive today, they might feel the opposite.

I don't like it either way.

The church and state issue will go on forever...tax status cannot be revoked b/c of what the Preacher has said. He is really just a figure head and there is a council that runs the church and if they don't agree then they remove the preacher and go on.

can't congregations ask for a new ministers?