Preaching Politics from the Pulpit

[Evo]

This isn't about Obama. It's about the flagrant abuse of authority of preachers preaching politics to their followers. People that go to church are pretty much taught since a small child that a member of the clergy is always to be trusted, if you have a problem, are in trouble, in need of direction, you should talk to your pastor, priest, rabbi, etc... These people have captive audiences that will believe to some degree everything they say.

I have nothing against a religious figure talking about religion. I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all.

This is the latest preacher that should have kept his mouth shut.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pfleger

CHICAGO - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that he was "deeply disappointed" by a supporter's sermon at his church that mocked Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Chicago activist, also apologized for last Sunday's sermon at Obama's church, in which he said Clinton's eyes welled with tears before the New Hampshire primary because she felt "entitled" to the Democratic nomination and because "there's a black man stealing my show."

In video circulating on the Internet, Pfleger said the former first lady expected to win the nomination before Obama's sudden popularity.

"She just always thought that, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white.' ... And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama." And she said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show,'" Pfleger said at Trinity United Church of Christ.

He then went on to parody Clinton, sobbing and wiping his face with a handkerchief.

"She wasn't the only one crying," he said. "There was a whole lot of white people crying."

This got on the news because it was at Obama's Church. This kind of thing seems to be going on in quite a few churches, just gauging from the churchgoers in my office.

How do you feel about preachers preaching politics?

 

[BobG]

I think atheists can take hope that they'll get an atheist candidate for President sooner than they think. Candidates will start to claim they're atheists just to avoid embarrassment.

 

[drankin]

I think preachers should be able to say anything they damn well please. It's called freedom of speech. When the government starts telling preachers what they can say and cannot say we are in trouble.

People need to take responsibility for who they trust to teach them morals and values. Not the government or whomever you were thinking would prevent a preacher from speaking his mind, Evo.

 

[Benzoate]

This isn't about Obama. It's about the flagrant abuse of authority of preachers preaching politics to their followers. People that go to church are pretty much taught since a small child that a member of the clergy is always to be trusted, if you have a problem, are in trouble, in need of direction, you should talk to your pastor, priest, rabbi, etc... These people have captive audiences that will believe to some degree everything they say.

I have nothing against a religious figure talking about religion. I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all.

This is the latest preacher that should have kept his mouth shut.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pfleger

This got on the news because it was at Obama's Church. This kind of thing seems to be going on in quite a few churches, just gauging from the churchgoers in my office.

How do you feel about preachers preaching politics?

I agree with you , but be realistic: You cannot control the thoughts of each individual has about their preacher. They've are going to have to make up their own minds about whether are not all their values are based on what they're preacher says. Not all clergy men who talk about politics are bad . Martin Luther King being a famous example. If he did not talk about human rights in his church and motivate people to make a social change, Jim Crow laws would still be in existence.

Sadly though, there are probably a heck of a lot more Jerry falwell's than Martin Luther Kings. Furthermore, I don't think you should attack the preacher so much. Many of these clergymen would not have the political power they've have if not fore the mindless sheep that continue support these kinds of people. What is a head without its body? Blame the sheep , not the sheperd .

The root of the problem is that a lot of people failed to think rationally about what comes out of their preacher's mouths and mindlessly eats whatever their preacher feeds them.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If political action is part of their religious beliefs, I have no problem with that. Society - via the state - shouldn't attempt to regulate what is preached in a church.

However, the price the church should pay is loss of its 501(c)(3) status.

 

[drankin]

If political action is part of their religious beliefs, I have no problem with that. Society - via the state - shouldn't attempt to regulate what is preached in a church.

However, the price the church should pay is loss of its 501(c)(3) status.

I can agree to this to some extent. If a preacher has an opinion that is political in nature then he should be able to voice it without consequence. But what of all the other non-profit organizations that are political in nature, should those go without the tax status?

Edit by Evo - I removed your reference to Jesus. This is about religions pushing political views. This is not about your favorite religion.

 

[Evo]

I think preachers should be able to say anything they damn well please. It's called freedom of speech. When the government starts telling preachers what they can say and cannot say we are in trouble.

People need to take responsibility for who they trust to teach them morals and values. Not the government or whomever you were thinking would prevent a preacher from speaking his mind, Evo.

I disagree. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. While it is usually used to protect religion from Government, religion shouldn't be a part of politics.

http://pewforum.org/religion-politics/

 

[drankin]

I disagree. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. While it is usually used to protect religion from Government, religion shouldn't be a part of politics.

http://pewforum.org/religion-politics/

It's not to prevent religion from having political views it's to prevent GOVERNMENT FROM BEING RELIGIOUS. That's a compete perversion of the "seperation of church and state".

 

[Evo]

It's not to prevent religion from having political views it's to prevent GOVERNMENT FROM BEING RELIGIOUS. That's a compete perversion of the "seperation of church and state".

Did you read what I said?

Also, since you say "it's to prevent government from being religious" you still think it's right for religious groups to try to make religion an inseparable part of politics?

 

[Benzoate]

I disagree. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. While it is usually used to protect religion from Government, religion shouldn't be a part of politics.

http://pewforum.org/religion-politics/

Why can't preachers expressed their political beliefs? They are citizens of this country just like everyone else. The consititution does not (or should not)allow laws to made based on religious beliefs. That is the essense separation of church and state.

 

[Evo]

Why can't preachers expressed their political beliefs? They are citizens of this country just like everyone else.

Of course they can express their beliefs, outside of their official capacity which is to teach the word of God. When they abuse their position within the church to push their own personal political agendas, they've gone too far, IMHO.

Go back to my OP

I have nothing against a religious figure talking about religion. I absolutely have a problem when they overstep their bounds and start preaching politics. I personally believe that this should not be allowed at all.

I feel that if the government should stay out of religion, religion should stay out of Government. I personally feel that there is way too much religious interference and control over our politicians.

 

[drankin]

Did you read what I said?

Also, since you say "it's to prevent government from being religious" you still think it's right for religious groups to try to make religion an inseparable part of politics?

Why shouldn't religous groups be part of politics? There is a myriad of groups that are part of politics. Why single out religous groups as opposed to environmental groups, for example? That's straight communism.

 

[Evo]

Why shouldn't religous groups be part of politics? There is a myriad of groups that are part of politics. Why single out religous groups as opposed to environmental groups, for example? That's straight communism.

If churches want to lose their privileged status and become a lobbying group, then that's different. They want their cake and eat it too.

 

[Andre]

... if the government should stay out of religion, religion should stay out of Government...

100 Points. We have a long way to go.

 

[drankin]

If churches want to lose their priveledged status and become a lobbying group, then that's different. They want their cake and eat it too.

Think of all the non-profit NON-RELIGIOUS organizations that have political agendas. Got to strip them too.

Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean those who do should lose their right to free speech when it involves politics. Don't you see what that is?

 

[phyzmatix]

I think preachers should be able to say anything they damn well please. It's called freedom of speech. When the government starts telling preachers what they can say and cannot say we are in trouble.

I disagree. Preachers/reverends/ministers (whatever you call them) have a lot of sway with their followers or "flock" and can influence them immensely...I do not think it's appropriate for people in these positions to propagate or openly support a specific political candidate, party or ideal.

Apartheid is a classic example of why religion and politics shouldn't be mixed.

 

[phyzmatix]

Think of all the non-profit NON-RELIGIOUS organizations that have political agendas. Got to strip them too.

Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean those who do should lose their right to free speech when it involves politics. Don't you see what that is?

Green Peace can't sabotage your chance at an afterlife if you decide to go against what they preach...You can't compare the two...Religious organisations hold a lot more power over their followers...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Churches have every right to speak out on issues of morality and ethics, but when they start pushing for a particular candidate or degrading others, then they should lose their tax exempt status.

 

[phyzmatix]

Churches have every right to speak out on issues of morality and ethics, but when they start pushing for a particular candidate or degrading others, then they should lose their tax exempt status.

Well-said.

 

[drankin]

Green Peace can't sabotage your chance at an afterlife if you decide to go against what they preach...You can't compare the two...Religious organisations hold a lot more power over their followers...

But religion is not a recognized political organization. It holds no real power in itself. What you guys are suggesting is censoring belief systems. That = communism.

Fortunately, as long as the Constitution is the basis of our government, we won't see this kind of thing happen.

 

[Benzoate]

If churches want to lose their privileged status and become a lobbying group, then that's different. They want their cake and eat it too.

if you are inferring that are exempted from paying taxes, then yes I do agree with you. Churches should be taxed because a preacher receives a salary just like every other profession. We walk different paths when you say that the government should regulate what a preacher says if he is considered to have to much power. That facism in its sleepy form.

 

[drankin]

if you are inferring that are exempted from paying taxes, then yes I do agree with you. Churches should be taxed because a preacher receives a salary just like every other profession. We walk different paths when you say that the government should regulate what a preacher says if he is considered to have to much power. That facism in its sleepy form.

From what you are saying all non-profit organizations should be taxed. Because most everyone working in those organizations are getting paychecks.

 

[phyzmatix]

It holds no real power in itself.

What you guys are suggesting is censoring belief systems.

No-one said anything about censoring people's beliefs. I have no issues with people following whatever philosophy or doctrine they please. My problem is that preachers, like teachers, are in positions of authority and can abuse this power very easily since their congregations already perceive them as people somehow "closer to divinity than your average person" and could interpret their (the preachers) personal opinions as that of whichever deity they represent. Nothing has as much power over the religious as their religions...

 

[Gokul43201]

In my opinion, organized religion is a government protected scam, similar to the (tax exempt) California State Homeopathic Medical Society, but much bigger and much more influential.

 

[drankin]

No-one said anything about censoring people's beliefs. I have no issues with people following whatever philosophy or doctrine they please. My problem is that preachers, like teachers, are in positions of authority and can abuse this power very easily since their congregations already perceive them as people somehow closer to divinity than the norm and could interpret their personal opinions as that of whichever deity they represent. Nothing has as much power over the religious as their religions...

I agree they have a powerful influence. But they are not a government organization. What is being suggested here is government regulation of non-government organizations. As far as tax status, that's a different topic with it's own bag of gotchas, I don't care if churches are taxed or not. But for government to regulate what an organization, religious or otherwise, speaks to it's members is completely un-constitutional. Completely communistic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Think of all the non-profit NON-RELIGIOUS organizations that have political agendas. Got to strip them too.

Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean those who do should lose their right to free speech when it involves politics. Don't you see what that is?

I think the difference is that something like Greenpeace is exempt because it is non-profit, whereas churches are exempt because they are churches. And it is already a matter of law. Churches have been investigated and their tax-exempt status revoked.

 

[Benzoate]

From what you are saying all non-profit organizations should be taxed. Because most everyone working in those organizations are getting paychecks.

But some churches are making a profit. Preachers earn salaries . their are mega churches that have atm machines , book stores and gymnasiums.

 

[mathwonk]

I am afraid I essentially agree with gokul. It makes me sad though. i thought the civil rights movement was an exception to my opposition to church involvement with politics, but reading Taylor Branch's 3 volume history of the civil rights movement, changed my views.

In fact most of the established clergy, both black and white, including daddy king (martins own father), opposed much of the civil rights movement.

The leader of the (black) national baptist church even cast mlk jr. out of that body with all his followers, and the catholic church arranged to have activist catholics removed or called back from southern states at the request of segregationists.

most white churches in the south refused to allow integrated groups to worship, and most black churches refused to allow voter registration classes to use their buildings, and many which did had their churches burned, often by local law officers and registrars who also belonged to the KKK.

there were a few committed religious people in the movement but they generally acted against the direction of their superiors in the established churches. i.e. there do exist genuinely religious people, and they often belong to the established church, but the church establishment often does not welcome those actions which are motivated by their religious beliefs.

in the case cited, obama's pastor was not discussing religion at all in his sermon, but rather he was playing the political race card with his parishioners, whom he was underestimating and insulting by doing so.

martin luther king's experience in the civil right movements shows there is nothing new in the fact of a real leader like obama having to fight the prejudices of both races, as well as understand their frustrations, to make change feasible.

I recommend reading the recent history of the civil rights movement to illuminate this campaign. Only 40 years ago, the FBI was heavily involved, often illegally, in the harrassment of civil rights leaders, including uncovering and exposing embarrassing information.

It makes me wonder if the govt was involved in digging up tapes of reverend wright. if that sounds like nutty conspiracy theory, recall that the sanctified bobby kennedy himself approved the wiretapping and bugging of MLK Jr, and J Edgar Hoover ordered leaks of (only) the embarrassing bits. An enormous frustration of Hoover's was the fact that extensive investigation of financial matters only confirmed that MLK was extremely scrupulous in that regard, and essentially poverty stricken, with no swiss bank accounts or any other ill gotten hoards.We have come a long way, but still have far to go.

 

[Evo]

What is being suggested here is government regulation of non-government organizations..

No, you are the only one suggesting that.

 

[drankin]

No, you are the only one suggesting that.

How else do you suggest that churches are prevented, as is your opinion in the OP?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Were churches prior to 1954 taxable? No, churches have never been taxable. To be taxable a church would first need to be under the jurisdiction, and therefore under the taxing authority, of the government. The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it.

http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

So if they are exercising religion, they are entitled to tax exempt status. But if they become a political machine, they are not exempt. To me it appears that this is where the separation of church and state works both ways.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against free speech. And churches are not tax exempt because they are non-profit.

 

[Evo]

How else do you suggest that churches are prevented, as is your opinion in the OP?

By them returning to what they are supposed to be? By a public outcry that churches need to be churches and not political campaigners and lobbyists.

 

[Evo]

http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

So if they are exercising religion, they are entitled to tax exempt status. But if they become a political machine, they are not exempt.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against free speech.

Well said again.

 

[drankin]

By them returning to what they are supposed to be? By a public outcry that churches need to be churches and not political campaigners and lobbyists.

Good luck with that campaign. Public outcry would have to be significant. And even then, a particular church might simply call it persecution, something they are called to suffer.

Religious leaders are always going to have political views and speak them to those that will listen. It's up to the individual to determine what they hear and won't hear. Rev Wright for example, he's a wacko but he has/had a lot of influence over his congregation but is free to speak his mind. Public outcry didn't do much to stop him.

 

[Gokul43201]

What is being suggested here is government regulation of non-government organizations.

The government already regulates most non-government organizations - organized religion is probably among the least regulated. I would love to see Antitrust laws, Health Regulations, Consumer Protection Laws, etc. enforced on organized religion.

For starters, can we get the UDAP (Unfair & Deceptives Acts & Practices) laws to apply to Churches?