infidel65 on January 15, 2008 at 5:13 PM

I don’t necessarily agree that it’s a dumb law. Does this fall under the guise of separation of church and state? For a politician (state) to campaign in a church? I would say yes. What’s funny is that the dems will blur the line in this instance, but if my kid wants to say the Lord’s Prayer in school, Katy Bar The Door! The ACLU will be on her like flies on sh*t.

It’s always been like that here. The key to the Black vote in the South is through the Pastors, and always will be. Pay them, get their vote.

…and no, the IRS is not stupid enough to go after them.

Huckabee got up and preached! Twice! During his race for president! What greater endorsement of a candidate is there? Is he a preacher or is he a politician? That he is presently running for president ought to preclude him from setting foot in the pulpit. Republicans seem to be getting a pretty free ride in this instance.

Drum on January 15, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Why does a preacher need to quit preaching. I looked at the sermons he preached and they had no “Please vote for me!” in them AND the Pastor did not endorse him or tell his congregants to vote for him. Try as you may, there is a double standard and the Democrats won’t live to the expectations they have of Republicans.

Haha, Obama? Well, I don’t know if anyone told you Allah, but he’s a Democrat so – NOTHING TO SEE HERE! And have you no shame? The man is black for goodness sake! Off limits pal, off limits!

RightWinged on January 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Ahem! That was Bryan pointing out the double-standard, which is strangely not being applied to Huckabee at this point (gee, I wonder why; could it be that Huckabee is eminently defeatable in the general?).

New York Times, for example, can actively support a party and/or candidate and it’s OK. The NYT can destroy a highly successful intelligence program… and get away with it. But a minister can’t stand on a pulpit and endorse a presidential candidate. It’s insane.

infidel65 on January 15, 2008 at 2:50 PM

A church is tax-exempt, the NYT is not. If a church wants to endorse a candidate, blaze a trail – but the church needs to give up its tax-exempt status first. That’s the problem with this whole “Obama is endorsed from the pulpit” thing.

pullingmyhairout on January 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Yes, that’s the current law; but my point was that it’s a dumb law. Had the minister endorsed Obama 100 yards from his church, I assume that would have been OK. Not that it should make any difference.
Tax-exemption means, in effect, that you can’t make a profit, but it shouldn’t entail giving up your first amendment rights. There is no good reason to connect the two.

Having said all that, I totally agree with the main thrust of this thread. The hypocracy of the MSM/Democrats rears its ugly head once again. I’m surprised the Clintons haven’t said anything; although it would be difficult after calling a ‘truce’ only yesterday.

Try “Hello strongly worded letter”. It was a pastor at a black church supporting a black Democrat- nobody is going to touch them.

Hollowpoint on January 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Try deafening silence.

rightwingpastor on January 15, 2008 at 4:36 PM

but let a Republican candidate be promoted in a church service and all HELL will break loose with them.

Huckabee got up and preached! Twice! During his race for president! What greater endorsement of a candidate is there? Is he a preacher or is he a politician? That he is presently running for president ought to preclude him from setting foot in the pulpit. Republicans seem to be getting a pretty free ride in this instance.

do these Churches actually believe that they’ve so completely covered every facet of the Gospel, that they now have time to discuss politicians?

And someone brought up abortion. The Gospel in context of a sermon on abortion would deal with sin and Gospel: that is, the wise pastor would not point to the vote (constitutional amendment, etc), but would rather stick to his role as pastor by pointing to the reality of abortion being murder (sin) and the forgiveness to be gotten through Christ’s sacrifice (Gospel). This is why we go to (or ought to go to) church.

Half the time the pastor is a half-wit anyway when it comes politics, so why should we take his political views serious? I go to church for the Gospel, not the latest commentary from National Review.

Or, did I misinterpet?

a capella on January 15, 2008 at 2:46 PM

You misrepresent….You cannot be a Dem supporting abortion, so-called seperation of church and state, the ACLU, Govt. controlled schools, the term “holiday” over “Christmas”, forced entitlement funding, and be a Christian.

I never said that one could not use their 1st Amendment rights of Free Speech if one was Jewish or Muslim. I said if one claims to be a Christian church, they should not be endorsing views espoused by the Democrats and other liberal agendas.

New York Times, for example, can actively support a party and/or candidate and it’s OK. The NYT can destroy a highly successful intelligence program… and get away with it. But a minister can’t stand on a pulpit and endorse a presidential candidate. It’s insane.

infidel65 on January 15, 2008 at 2:50 PM

A church is tax-exempt, the NYT is not. If a church wants to endorse a candidate, blaze a trail – but the church needs to give up its tax-exempt status first. That’s the problem with this whole “Obama is endorsed from the pulpit” thing.

Before I clicked the link, I’m thinking how many times you see Democrats in Black churches down South faking their accents to blend. If it had been a Republican candidate, I would have been surprised.

If a church brings in a politician to speak on pro-life issues they can lose their tax status. If they bring in a Democrat that fully supports abortion on demand, that’s different.

So, you’re O.K. with it only as long as it is a Christian church? Conservative Jews and Muslims don’t count? Christian values held by liberal Democrats are different than those of the conservative wing of the GOP? Or, did I misinterpet?

A. Islam should be disqualified by the courts as a religion and recognized only as a political movement, much like Communism was inhibited in the 40s and 50s.
B. Jews don’t advocate the violent overthrow of our government, so they can stay.
C. Would that the Democrats did occasionally voice Christian values.

What some of us are arguing for is freedom from govt interference for religious people (who aren’t into beheading infidels). Copy?

My guess……Obama! However, I believe in unfettered free speech and have no problem with a church discussing politics and endorsing candidates. My problem lies with churches moving away from their moral obligations to support Christian values which are really only held by the Conservative wing of the Republican party.
azcop on January 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM

So, you’re O.K. with it only as long as it is a Christian church? Conservative Jews and Muslims don’t count? Christian values held by liberal Democrats are different than those of the conservative wing of the GOP? Or, did I misinterpet?

I don’t have a problem with this, and I’m an atheist. This guy may have broken the law, but sometimes the law is an ass.

infidel65 on January 15, 2008 at 2:16 PM

The problem is that the law is selectively enforced. The rules don’t apply to democrats.

I think it’s ironic that the democrats are always screeching “separation of church and state” and yet they are the ones who actively seek and accept the endorsements of churches and pastors.

Another pastor (of a church that didn’t exist 100 years ago, the Holy Ghost Big Bang Theory Mission Temple Fireworks Stand Pentecostal, or whatever it is) tells his people to vote for the man who is arguably the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history.

Which side is the devil on in this debate about pulling live babies apart in utero? And why should the govt get between these two, or try to shut one or both of them up? Let em slug it out. God isn’t neutral, and neither may His people be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×4056517

BHO gets a free ride on his religious quakery (and most everything else). And this church will get a free ride too. It is to be expected. The media won’t touch this story because BHO is a black Democrat and reporters “have a hard time staying objective with this guy.” Meanwhile we get numerous stories about the fine details of Romney and Huckabee’s religions. Again, to be expected.