Pastors and Politics

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by kstar

Seriously? Billy Graham, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson ring a bell?

Don't forget the Catholic church whose American leaders announced during the last election that if a Catholic supported someone who was pro-choice that they could not take communion?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PANTHERTEKE

I don't believe a religious leader should be talking about politics or endorsing certain candidates. This pisses me the f*ck off, and it's mostly Liberal and Democratic "pastors" who do this (just stating the facts).

No, you're not stating facts. It happens often enough on both sides of the church aisle.

Originally Posted by kstar

Seriously? Billy Graham, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson ring a bell?

As others have noted, Billy Graham has always been noted for not getting into politics or endorsing candidates. Nor do I recall Oral Roberts getting political or endorsing candidates -- saying God would take him if people didn't send money, yes; endorsing candidates, no.

As for Bob Jones, are you talking about Senior, Junior or III? Or did you know there have been three of them? Senior was indeed quite political active; Jr. not so much. III did denounce Reagan, write to W that he had been given a divine mandate and endorse Romney.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, you're not stating facts. It happens often enough on both sides of the church aisle.

As others have noted, Billy Graham has always been noted for not getting into politics or endorsing candidates. Nor do I recall Oral Roberts getting political or endorsing candidates -- saying God would take him if people didn't send money, yes; endorsing candidates, no.

As for Bob Jones, are you talking about Senior, Junior or III? Or did you know there have been three of them? Senior was indeed quite political active; Jr. not so much. III did denounce Reagan, write to W that he had been given a divine mandate and endorse Romney.

Oral Roberts University was actually recently near losing its tax exempt status because it was using university funds to support political candidates.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Don't forget the Catholic church whose American leaders announced during the last election that if a Catholic supported someone who was pro-choice that they could not take communion?

That's getting into something a little more nuanced than endorsing a candidate. The ROMAN Catholic church (which is the one I assume you mean) was simply following through on their church doctrine concerning their sacraments. It's not as though they made up some arbitrary rule just to punish those who supported a pro-abortion candidate.

I am not Roman Catholic, and I disagree with some of their conditions for communion, but the political aspect of enforcing those strictures is not as clear-cut as out and out recommending a candidate, or calling on members to NOT support a candidate.

It raises an interesting question - do y'all have a problem with churches delineating their doctrines during an election season? For example, pro-life parishes, or those who act as "sanctuary" parishes for illegal aliens, those against capital punishment, etc.? (I am reminded of the Unitarian church where my sister was married - they had a poster with their goals for the parish for the year. #1? Legalize marijuana. )

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oral Roberts University was actually recently near losing its tax exempt status because it was using university funds to support political candidates.

But Oral hadn't been president of ORU since 1993. His son Richard was president when the tax-exemption issues came up, and that was part of what brought about Richard Robert's resignation and brought Oral Roberts ought of retirement to help run the university again.

Saying that ORU or Richard Roberts was endorsing candidates =/= Oral Robers endorsing candidates.

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Don't forget the Catholic church whose American leaders announced during the last election that if a Catholic supported someone who was pro-choice that they could not take communion?

Huh. Oh well. I guess this means I'm not being saved.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Don't forget the Catholic church whose American leaders announced during the last election that if a Catholic supported someone who was pro-choice that they could not take communion?

I don't think this is accurate.

What was addressed was Catholic elected officials who had supported abortion themselves not receiving it, I'm pretty sure.

And honestly, if you openly support violating church teaching aren't your already outside of the communion of the church? It's not a democracy after all.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think this is accurate.

What was addressed was Catholic elected officials who had supported abortion themselves not receiving it, I'm pretty sure.

And honestly, if you openly support violating church teaching aren't your already outside of the communion of the church? It's not a democracy after all.

That's what I thought too, but I'm not Catholic so I decided not to speak up about it in case whoever made that assertion is.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think this is accurate.

What was addressed was Catholic elected officials who had supported abortion themselves not receiving it, I'm pretty sure.

And honestly, if you openly support violating church teaching aren't your already outside of the communion of the church? It's not a democracy after all.

Well, what's interesting about it is that they are also completely anti-war and anti-death penalty but only made the statement about those who voted for a candidate who was pro-choice, so it's selective.

I think politics and religion should be separate. One is moral, one is legal and that distinction is big to me.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, what's interesting about it is that they are also completely anti-war and anti-death penalty but only made the statement about those who voted for a candidate who was pro-choice, so it's selective.

No, I don't think they did say anything about those who voted for a candidate. They said something about the politicians who had supported abortion. I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if you can find a quote. I just believe the quotes will be about political figures who themselves passed/supported laws that supported abortion.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think politics and religion should be separate. One is moral, one is legal and that distinction is big to me.

Laws are a reflection of what we think it moral though.

I understand that you (and I in a lot of areas) don't think it's the government's job to regulate moral issues it doesn't need to regulate, but it's kind of silly to pretend that they are completely separate. It's a question of what morality is so objectively harmful that it becomes the government's business to act.

The church isn't completely anti-war; there's a just war standard that is pretty much left to the secular power to determine except in extreme circumstances. While you may be onto something about a failure to condemn politicians who supported the death penalty, I think there are two distinctions: there aren't as many Catholic politicians who promote both their Catholicism and their pro-death penalty stance AND while the church opposes the death penalty, I don't think it regards it as being as significant a cultural issue when it comes to devaluing life overall. The straight number of deaths involved aren't comparable.

ETA: I think the point of the officials making that comment was to try to say, you can't continue to openly flout church teaching and expect to receive the sacraments. I suspect that if the church had spoken as directly about the other issues that you named as it has about abortion and people continued to publicly support something other than church teaching in their public lives, you might have seen a more blanket statement.

EATA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042701209.html

It's weird that it's a Novak column, but I couldn't find anything that makes the general, deny communion to voters thing that you were referencing.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kstar

I perhaps agree that Graham did not endorse any candidate/party outright, but I still believe that he strongly encouraged his congregation or tv audience to vote with the candidates that supported his personal issues. That is endorsement enough for me.

Billy Graham hasn't had a congregation since the 40s. And can you point to just one example where he "strongly encouraged" anyone to "vote for the candidates that supported his personal issues"? Not where, for example, he spoke on the need to oppose communism, but where he actually said that those listening to him should vote for candidates who oppose communism?

I only took issue with PANTHERTEKE stating that only liberal or Democratic pastors took political stances, when there are religious icons on both sides of the aisle speaking out.

Many of us took issue with that. We also took issue with you for the examples you gave, since some of them were off target.

(BTW, Billy Graham is registered as a Democrat. So if you're going to use him as an example, he supports PantherTeke's assertion, not yours.)

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I have to give you credit, you do bring an interesting perspective to these political discussions...

Would that it was as informed as it is interesting.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Would that it was as informed as it is interesting.

Well, yeah, but come on MC, let's not get carried away...

[kstar]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Billy Graham hasn't had a congregation since the 40s. And can you point to just one example where he "strongly encouraged" anyone to "vote for the candidates that supported his personal issues"? Not where, for example, he spoke on the need to oppose communism, but where he actually said that those listening to him should vote for candidates who oppose communism?

Many of us took issue with that. We also took issue with you for the examples you gave, since some of them were off target.

(BTW, Billy Graham is registered as a Democrat. So if you're going to use him as an example, he supports PantherTeke's assertion, not yours.)

Would that it was as informed as it is interesting.

You can be registered as Democratic, but still be conservative, and no one could say that Billy Graham was a liberal.

You think they were off target, I, and other true liberals, think they are spot on.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kstar

You can be registered as Democratic, but still be conservative, and no one could say that Billy Graham was a liberal.

And neither did I. PantherTeke said the pastors guilty of espousing politics from the pulpit were mainly liberals and Democrats. You asked if he'd never heard of Billy Graham. I pointed out that BG is a Democrat, thus he would fit PantherTeke's description. What part of that was hard for you to understand?

You think some of them were off target, I, and other people who think reality is overrated and ignorance is bliss, think they are spot on.

Since I hate to see "true liberals" unnecessarily defamed, I fixed it for you.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite just one example where Billy Graham "strongly encouraged" anyone to "vote for the candidates that supported his personal issues." Just one. Don't worry, though; I'm not holding my breath or anything.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Don't forget the Catholic church whose American leaders announced during the last election that if a Catholic supported someone who was pro-choice that they could not take communion?

Didn't they say should not take communion? And leave it up to the priest whether or not to administer it?

-an EX-Catholic