This was wrong then...

There is no way to seperate religion and politics because they are so connected, Fenian, because religion is such a part of the lives of so many and as I said, I don't think it is a problem until religion begins to mix with making laws.

There is a huge difference.

Here is an example -- I often frequent a baptist church down the street during the weeks I am not worshipping at bed-side baptist. It is a black church, with a black congregation with a fire and brimstone type black preacher. He always has a good message and his church is packed to the brim with about 1200 people each week.

Two weeks ago he preached about homosexuality being a sin and had a whole lot of people shouting "Amen brother" and "C'mon, preach it" and whatnot throughout.

Was he practicing politics? Was he injecting himself into politics or political debate? Or was he preaching a message about an issue that also happens to be a hot button issue?

And again Alley you still haven't answered -- why is it OK for you to vote based on your convictions, which apparantly come from somewhere other than religion or faith, but it is not OK for people to vote their convictions if their convictions are based in their religion, their faith or their church?

 

Yes, there is.
Mr. Madison said so.

"Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?"

 

Ok, if it is that easily separated, why do so many of these left-wing groups feel the need to bash high-profile preachers for what they preach from their pulpit to their congregations-- even if their congregations also include a television audience?

I'll tell you why --many social and even economic issues are both religious and political -- and the vast majority of religious people establish their political views based on their faith and their convictions.

The two are inseparable, particularly given our current political climate.

 

So big damn deal! He thinks it's a sin.

Doesn't the Bible say we all sin? Will he preach against lying next week or not honoring your mother and father the week after that?

Let me know what taking the Lord's name in vain is the subject. I may need some help with that.

 

yes, actually, he will. That's the point --- preachers and ministers preach against a lot of things, that is their jobs as the spiritual advisor to a congregation of people. -- the only time they get the lefties pants in a bind is when they preach against something they deem to be a hot-button political issue.

And if you'd like I could send you a cassette of the sermon he preached on that very subject -- taking the lord's name in vain and the various ways we as Christians do it -- for $3 plus S and H.

 

I just don't understand preaching against particular sins and holding it against people when the entire basis of the religion is that we all sin and will continue to do so and that's why Jesus died.

 

It may just happen that I agree with the pope and I share the same country and business as you. Whether it's him saying it or me, I'm still voting based on my conscience.

On the flipside, if John Kerry or any other politician is willingly part of the church, I think he has a choice to accept the church's teachings, or join an organization that's likeminded.

 

We've trod this ground, before, Red.

Suffice to say, the church is fallible. You can be Catholic and not think the church's political stances are necessarily correct.

 

No, I don't buy it. It's funny how people somehow cling to religion as if it is something that you just are — well, you're not. If you grow up in a conservative household, then decide you're liberal, you change affiliations. If you grow up in Alaska and decide you'd rather live in Florida, you move. If you can't stand the direction your boss takes your company, you probably look for different work... and so on.

Why do people think it is their right to change the Church as an institution with a rigid, codified tradition and belief system just because they happened to be a member? If you think the Church is fallible, fine. Become an Anglican, become a Methodist, become an agnostic... Find a church that suits your beliefs, start one, whatever.

 

Good for you, Jersey.

More people need to let the folks making these decisions -- a remarkably small percentage, BTW -- know that they don't enjoy what is being done in their names.

And Red, your argument only holds water if the Catholic church has never changed its positions.

Otherwise, it's a rhetorical house of cards.

 

It never has changed the positions it holds on the infallibility of the pope, nor has it changed its positions on major social issues. Most of us haven't seen the Church change on anything.

I'm not out to judge anyone, Catholic or otherwise, and I believe sin to be a very personal thing, but it drives me crazy how many people believe they can or should change Catholicism to suit them. It is what it is.

 

Are your services still done in Latin, Red?