Pastors and Politics

[epchick]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

My problem is when the person steps onto the pulpit and says "Vote for XYZ Candidate."

I agree. Do you think there is a difference between what you said and someone who says "I am going to vote for so-and-so."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kstar

Billy Graham came out for Vietnam and the Gulf War, to me that is encouraging people to vote for candidates that support those. He also supposedly became friends with Kim Jong Il, and called him a "different kind of communitst." To me- a very political move.

Are you really suggesting that no member of the clergy should talk about politics at all? Not just in the pulpit but ever?

And where do you get that he "supported the Gulf War," especially in such a way as to constitute an endorsement of candidates that supported it (especially given that it was over before any presidential election)? The fact that Bush asked him for advice on the "just war" doctrine?

Yes, Billy Graham was very anticommunist, the context in which his comment about Kim Il Sung (not Kim Jong Il) and his support of the Vietnam War have to be understood. Exactly how did that support equal endorsement of a candidate? One can certainly take sides on an issue without implicitly endorsing any candidate who shares the same position. Or are you suggesting that everyone who speaks out against the Iraq War is endorsing Ralph Nader?

The reality is he made it a policy early on not to endorse any candidate or party, and he has never done so.

[SWTXBelle]

Not to mention - there were Democrats who supported both Vietnam and the Gulf War (s?). LBJ, anyone? Why, bless my buttons, I believe Hillary herself (among others) voted for the Gulf War, part deux, even though she later changed her mind.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Are you really suggesting that no member of the clergy should talk about politics at all? Not just in the pulpit but ever?

And where do you get that he "supported the Gulf War," especially in such a way as to constitute an endorsement of candidates that supported it (especially given that it was over before any presidential election)? The fact that Bush asked him for advice on the "just war" doctrine?

Yes, Billy Graham was very anticommunist, the context in which his comment about Kim Il Sung (not Kim Jong Il) and his support of the Vietnam War have to be understood. Exactly how did that support equal endorsement of a candidate? One can certainly take sides on an issue without implicitly endorsing any candidate who shares the same position. Or are you suggesting that everyone who speaks out against the Iraq War is endorsing Ralph Nader?

The reality is he made it a policy early on not to endorse any candidate or party, and he has never done so.

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. (However, yes, it was Kim Il Sung.)

However, I think a Pastor has his first amendment right just like anyone else. Billy Graham could warmonger all he wanted.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by kstar

Billy Graham could warmonger all he wanted.

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

Originally Posted by epchick

I agree. Do you think there is a difference between what you said and someone who says "I am going to vote for so-and-so."

No; when they're up on the pulpit, speaking to the congregation, I think that a statement like that constitutes an (in my opinion) unacceptable political endorsement. I think it would be a different story if they were talking in a 1-on-1 context with a church member about politics.

[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.

[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

[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...

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by epchick

Ok, so I heard this on KLOVE today and I thought i'd get GCers opinions on the topic.

I knowt hat the whole idea of "separation of Church and State" was to keep religion out of politics, but I didn't know it meant the reverse as well (keeping politics out of religion).


Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors



Do you think that Pastors should be able to mention that "I'm going to vote for Obama" or "I'm going to vote for McCain" from their pulpit (of course without going to the extreme like Rev. Wright)?

I wouldn't mind my pastor casually mentioning that he was gonna vote for Obama or McCain, but I WOULD mind if he said "I'm voting for _____ and you should too because...."

I agree with your last opinion about in passing and "off the record' having a pastor state who they are voting for and why. I dont agree with pastors preaching politics from the pulpit. My pastor is very careful to not do that as well (otherwise I'd switch churches). I like the separation of church and state. People should be free to make up their own minds on how to vote and not be told how to vote from anyone.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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

True, sensei. I mustn't be greedy. I must be satisfied with what we have and not wish for that which will never be.

[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.