Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages?

wandeljw wrote:

Personally, I feel that the bishops need not have proclaimed the Obama administration as the enemy.

They didn't proclaim him the enemy, though. They correctly identified him as the author and supporter of a bill they oppose. What's wrong with that?

Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages?

Either you're naive or just focusing on one religion. Just recently, gay marriage bills have failed in many states because of the pulpit. Abortion, the day after pill, euthanasia, hell go back to prohibition, even slavery, all have been topics pontificated from the alter, by many religious leaders, some more noticeably than other. Religion is part and parcel of the american political history. I'd venture many, many countries have had the same interference.

I am describing the act of using church pulpits to deliver a political message. This is what the bishops are doing. To me, this is more than out of order, it is dangerous. Framing a political message in religious terms is how I would define extremism.

I am describing the act of using church pulpits to deliver a political message. This is what the bishops are doing. To me, this is more than out of order, it is dangerous. Framing a political message in religious terms is how I would define extremism.

Separation of church and state?

wandeljw wrote:

I am describing the act of using church pulpits to deliver a political message. This is what the bishops are doing. To me, this is more than out of order, it is dangerous. Framing a political message in religious terms is how I would define extremism.

By this definition, Martin Luther King was an extremist, because he, too, used his pulpit to deliver political messages. Do you really mean that? If not, what's the difference between King and those bishops?

The Church of Christ, Scientist (i.e. Christian Science) doesn't believe in medical ttreatment. Should it be able to offer health insurance that doesn't include any medical treatment?

It is a "two-edged sword." Important political change has been encouraged from the pulpit. On the other hand, preachers in 1932 Germany encouraged their congregations to vote for the Nazi Party.

IOn the other hand, preachers in 1932 Germany encouraged their congregations to vote for the Nazi Party. I am saying that there is a danger in giving religious fervor to political advocacy.

wandeljw wrote:

It is a "two-edged sword." Important political change has been encouraged from the pulpit. On the other hand, preachers in 1932 Germany encouraged their congregations to vote for the Nazi Party.

So your problem isn't that Catholic Bishops deliver a political message from the pulpit. It's that you dislike their political message.

I disagree, I think where ever people are gathered is the perfect time and place to discuss politics. Politics is about the people, of the people, they have every right to talk about it, preach about it, bar room prophesize about it.. Politics affects us all, religious or not. Whether we agree with what anyone discusses or not, or the conclusions the come to .. politically speaking, at least it's being discussed. I would never advocate limiting open discussion or debate.

I would prefer to bar ALL political discussion from the pulpit. It is a bad habit to infuse political positions with religious fervor.

The rules in place (and enforced) by the IRS are quite clear that endorsement of political candidates by charities or religious organizations are prohibited.

Didn't almost 200 Evangelical leaders endorse Santorum recently?

Religious leaders can speak their mind and endorse candidates as long as they aren’t doing it as an official representative of the church(i.e. church publications or at official church functions). When speaking/writing their opinions on political issues outside of the church, church leaders are urged to indicate that these are their personal viewpoints and not the views of the religious organization they represent.