Pastors and Politics

[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.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

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.

Billy Graham is a conservative. PERIOD. I named both conservatives and Republicans to cover the spectrum that PANTHERTEKE implied refrained from being political. What part of that is hard for you to understand?

The reality is that conservative leaders, including the Religious Right (which I know Graham was not allied with) are the ones discounting reality. They think that the world can abide by some ancient moral code that has absolutely no basis on the current reality. I'm pretty well versed in reality, are you?

As I said, Billy Graham never outright endorsed a candidate or party, however, his actions and the devotion of his TV audience (and he did still have an audience, even without a current show he was still sermonizing) were enough. If you were a loyal Graham fan, which you seem to be, you would be influenced and strongly prefer Nixon over JFK, considering he was counseling the Republican throughout the campaign. You would consider that he spend the night at the White House the night before Desert Storm was launched as an approval of the War and Daddy Bush along with it. His actions spoke to those fans. There are two for you, before you turn blue.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kstar

The reality is that conservative leaders, including the Religious Right (which I know Graham was not allied with) are the ones discounting reality. They think that the world can abide by some ancient moral code that has absolutely no basis on the current reality. I'm pretty well versed in reality, are you?

I'm quite well versed enough to tell that you aren't nearly as well-versed as you would like to believe, thanks.

As I said, Billy Graham never outright endorsed a candidate or party, however, his actions and the devotion of his TV audience (and he did still have an audience, even without a current show he was still sermonizing) were enough. If you were a loyal Graham fan, which you seem to be, you would be influenced and strongly prefer Nixon over JFK, considering he was counseling the Republican throughout the campaign. You would consider that he spend the night at the White House the night before Desert Storm was launched as an approval of the War and Daddy Bush along with it. His actions spoke to those fans. There are two for you, before you turn blue.

LOL. See, here is the whole problem -- you assume way too much and then assume that your assumptions equal reality.

Yes, I am a Graham fan, for a variety of reasons. But I can be a fan of someone without agreeing with them on all issues, especially those issues I may view him as less qualified to speak about. Just because I happen to think a great deal of him and admire, I am not conservative (at least not across-the-board conservative), either politically or religiously.

So, despite the fact that I admire and appreciate the way he has counseled various presidents (and Lord knows, Nixon needed his counsel), I would not have voted for Nixon. And though I found the fact that he spent the night at the White House the night before Desert Storm to say a great deal about the seriousness with which "Daddy Bush" approached taking that action, I did not take it as an endorsement of the War itself, I did not support the War and I did not vote for Bush either time he ran.

Since you're "well versed" in reality here, perhaps you'll recognize that the things you mentioned were not necessarily as likely to be seen as "endorsements" by Graham's "fans" like me; perhaps they're more like to be denounced as endorsements by his detractors like you. It's clear you don't like him or his "moral code that has absolutely no basis on the current reality." It's also clear that your dislike prevents you from looking at things objectively.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by kstar

Billy Graham is a conservative. PERIOD.

Not that MC needs anyone to fight his battles for him, but I just wanted to point this sentence out - nice argumentative technique. Holy crap.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

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.

Meow, MysticCat.