22
   

Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 11:53 am
@Irishk,
Thanks - that really makes a big difference ...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 11:57 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
I would prefer to bar ALL political discussion from the pulpit. It is a bad habit to infuse political positions with religious fervor.

All political discussion? Really? You would have preferred that Montgomery's Ebenezer Avenue Baptist Church had stayed out of the bus boycott? You would have preferred that its reverend Martin Luther King hadn't organized it? You think that he shouldn't have preached against Alabama's Jim-Crow laws from the pulpit? I find that hard to believe.
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 12:57 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

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

All political discussion? Really? You would have preferred that Montgomery's Ebenezer Avenue Baptist Church had stayed out of the bus boycott? You would have preferred that its reverend Martin Luther King hadn't organized it? You think that he shouldn't have preached against Alabama's Jim-Crow laws from the pulpit? I find that hard to believe.


By "from the pulpit" I mean the restrictive setting of a church service where church leaders talk and the congregation sits quietly. There is no open discussion in such a setting.

Note also the distinctions made by IrishK. Thank you, IrishK
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 01:10 pm
@Ceili,
I do not have a "hate on" for the Catholic Church. Preaching from the pulpit does not allow open discussion. Other activities that churches engage in are open and therefore more appropriate. You may not see the distinction that I am making.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 01:16 pm
@wandeljw,
You're evading the issue. Martin Luther King frequently preached against racism in the US, and against the laws that enforced it against non-Whites. As to Irishk's distinctions about electioneering, Martin Luther King did not electioneer for Republicans by preaching against Jim-Crow law, and against the Democratic governors who had pledged to defend them. Like here for example:

Quote:
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

(Granted, he held the speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial, not from a pulpit. But according to people close to him, the talking points were part of a stump speech that he did use in sermons frequently. And in any event, the record does not show a lot of open discussions after the I-have-a-dream speach.)

It is not electioneering when churches say that secular authorities are pushing unjust laws. And it doesn't matter, at least not for free-speech or free-exercise purposes, whether we agree the laws are unjust. (Which, for the record, I don't in this case.)
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 01:21 pm
@wandeljw,
I've heard plenty of speeches, where I was meant to be quiet and listen, that I've gone on to discuss after... None of us would get much done if we didn't listen once in a while. I've listened to people on TV and the radio and I was the only one in the room. I've then brought that discussion here or to the living room with my friends and family.
That is what people, religious or not, do.
I've gone to class and had to sit through teachers preaching their particular creed. There was no discussion in class, but around the cafeteria table the topic of the day would be rehashed.
I'm not a religious person, now. Even when I was, I may or may not have agreed with the priest but that didn't stop me from discussing what was said. Didn't then, wouldn't now. I don't think I'm all that different from the average person. Just because you hear something, you don't have to buy it hook, line and sinker, and it doesn't preclude my freedom of will or thought.

wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 02:37 pm
@Thomas,
Ir does not matter to me either whether I agree with the political message being preached. I am against any political talk from the pulpit, because the religious dimension adds the element of theocratic dictum.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 02:39 pm
@Ceili,
As I indicated to Thomas, political speech from a pulpit has an air of theocratic dictum. That is my concern.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 03:36 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
Ir does not matter to me either whether I agree with the political message being preached. I am against any political talk from the pulpit, because the religious dimension adds the element of theocratic dictum.
I fully support abortion on demand,
the same as getting a haircut, as an aspect of self defense,
but I gotta admit that the Catholic Church has a right of free speech.
It does not sell that right for a tax exemption. Yes ?

I oppose theocracy as much as anyone.

Edit: I just noticed that this is marked for the Humor Forum.
Is this a joke ?





David
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 03:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I am totally serious, David. I am willing to dedicate my life to this cause, if that is what it takes.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 04:02 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
I am totally serious, David. I am willing to dedicate my life to this cause,
if that is what it takes.
OK. What about freedom of speech?
What about Catholic priests voting if thay were born here?
It seems to me that thay have Constitutional rights to DO those things.





David
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 04:09 pm
I agree that no matter the message, churches ought to avoid politics if they are to keep their tax free status. I love Martin Luther King's messages, but would hold him similarly accountable.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 04:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
All freedoms must be balanced with conflicting freedoms, as I am sure your legal background has taught you, David. The conflicting freedom in this specific situation is the freedom from theocracy. Our freedom from theocracy must be balanced with the speech rights of religious leaders.

(by the way, I love being "deadpan" with you, David)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 04:50 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
All freedoms must be balanced with conflicting freedoms, as I am sure your legal background has taught you, David. The conflicting freedom in this specific situation is the freedom from theocracy. Our freedom from theocracy must be balanced with the speech rights of religious leaders.
As much as I reject theocracy,
I don 't believe that their freedom of speech can Constitutionally
be bawt or sold; (among the "unalienable rights").


wandeljw wrote:
(by the way, I love being "deadpan" with you, David)
U do it well.
Have u enjoyed the delights of Russian Tea Time @
77 East Adams Street, Chicago ?





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 06:44 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
I'd like to smack the Bishops' bottoms.....hard.


It's one thing to be angry, dlowan, but there's no need to get kinky. Smile
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 07:02 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
As a grammar school student, I was inspired to support U.S. involvement in Vietnam because of a priest explaining that we can not allow all of Asia to become communist (the domino theory).


You were lied to about grammar, you were lied to about Vietnam. Did you learn anything in school, JW? Do they teach anything of value in American schools?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Edit: I just noticed that this is marked for the Humor Forum.
Is this a joke ?

Everybody can tag a thread with any keyword they like. Someone was trying to make a joke there, but I doubt it was WandelJW.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:14 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
The conflicting freedom in this specific situation is the freedom from theocracy.

I don't see how theocracy is an issue here. After all, the Catholic Church isn't claiming any power to govern anyone through the force of the state. It is merely protesting against what it sees as an unjust law, and against the politicians who sponsor it. Every organization has that right. How is it theocracy when the Catholic Church exercises it?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2012 08:34 am
@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Edit: I just noticed that this is marked for the Humor Forum.
Is this a joke ?
Thomas wrote:
Everybody can tag a thread with any keyword they like.
Someone
was trying to make a joke there, but I doubt it was WandelJW.
Agreed.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2012 08:37 am
@Thomas,

wandeljw wrote:
The conflicting freedom in this specific situation is the freedom from theocracy.
Thomas wrote:
I don't see how theocracy is an issue here. After all, the Catholic Church isn't claiming any power to govern anyone through the force of the state. It is merely protesting against what it sees as an unjust law, and against the politicians who sponsor it. Every organization has that right. How is it theocracy when the Catholic Church exercises it?
Well said; that 's how I see it, Thomas.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 08:52:34