News-Record.com

This litigation is just so utterly ridiculous when one considers the blatant involvement of African-American churches with Democratic candidates. Personally, I don't care who has who to come and speak (tacit endorsement): it's just the total inequity and hypocrisy of it all.

The intent of the Constitution was simply, and especially, to keep the government from instituting a particular denomination as a state church; or, to control the chuches in any way - NOT to keep churches from expressing themselves in matters of social, even potlical, concern - i.e. freedom of speech - not to be able to do so is a clear infringement thereof.

The colonial churches openly and actively expressed themselves either in favor, or opposition, to the Revolution. The same for the Civil War era. It's only since the Moral Majority and the Reagan triumphs have the libs been on a "holy" mission to muzzle evangelical churches.

Personally, I would refrain from any specific endorsements from the pulpit (my choice), short of an emergency scenario; but in more informal venues and by lettter, etc. I think it's an option any church member or pastor should have - without government interference!

Liberals seem to get a pass by the media every time they go to a black church and speak (campaign) - rather blatantly at times. It's only when the liberal media and political establishment sees the considerable power of the evangelical block get behind a certain (feared) conservative candidate that they attack, pointedly and relentlessly. It's just so transparent and in-your-face.

Ah, yet again the African American church/people get a "freebie."

Drake clearly has the backing of FSBC-Buena Vista or there would be comments otherwise from the church.

Freedom of speech and separation of church/state are two separate and distinct issues. NO ONE has EVER said that a pastor or a group of people from a church could not support political candidates. However, when the two are so closely entwined that there is no identifiable difference, then the problems arise.

I personally believe this was nothing more than an evangelical ploy by Drake to grow the church, i.e. draw in more people that may not know of who/what that church believes/stands for.

You know, the African-American comment in the previous post does bother me. What bothers me most is the total and complete generalization of the comment. There were no "suspects" named or anything of that nature. No specific church or denomination, nothing. At least back up accusations such as that.

Shalom

Blogs are not position papers, Darryl; in case you haven't noticed. VERY few people, including yourself ever bother or bore to cite sources or examples. It's simply not the nature of the medium. It's generally assumed, in my experience that something which is all over the news, all the time, doesn't need footnotes.

I was not indicting Black churches. Quite the contrary! I was supporting their right to do whatever they wish in advancing their particular social and political beliefs. (Read more caarefully) It's just that evangelical (usually Causcasion) churches are roundly castigated and "investigated." It's all about liberal/conservative machinations, not a right approach to the Constitution.

As I noted. My personal approach to pulpit endoursements is NOT to make them. I think it's perfectly proper for pastors to urge their flocks to vote in Scriptural and moral directions, but not to endourse specific candidates FROM THE PULPIT. However, I do think they even have a RIGHT to endorse from the pulpit if they so chose - but shouldn't. Why would take too long here.

Nikos, while the clarification on the initial post helps, it is needed. One needs to always strive to make one's written voice as clear and exact as possible.

And believe it or not, we do agree on something; Pulpit endorsements (or otherwise) of political candidates by religious leaders should not happen. There is an ethic/ethos involved that should not be breeched. So you see, even those who are not agreeing on religious point can still find common ground. That is the beginning.

If only more fruitful dialogue would evolve from this life would be even more wonderful.

Shalom

Right. Agreement and unity are good. But I'm sure you and I both realize that it can only go so far, given our divergent paradigms. However, I always like to find common ground where possible.

I still maintain there is a certain tacit inequity here; but I understand the historical and cultural inertia at work in the A/A community. I favor free discussion by pastors/priests/ministers, short of a named endorsement. Certainly addressing all issues is fair game, even from the pulpit; and is merely an extension of normal preaching subject matter. But named endorsement and becoming a PAC is not wise.