question for Rob

[Eric]

[Rob Marus]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Eric]

[Guest]

[Joshua Villines]

[KeithE]

[Guest]

[mlovell]

[KeithE]

[Guest]

KE: I'm sure you thought that was funny, Jim. Glad you had a chuckle.

<b>Actually, despite your sureness, you have no idea what I was thinking or whether or not I was chuckling, but since you mention the Dunn/Carter comparison, I can assure you that what I said was not meant to be funny, and there are no chuckles to be felt with regard to Carter…only sadness. He was a total disaster.</b>

What is inconsistent between those statements? Also you have wrestled two sentences from a whole paragraph which is repeated below:

I don't even have heartburn over preachers preaching occassional political sermons as long as they do so respectfully of all sides indicating it is their own view and not with smirkiness (Falwell-like) or attempt to coerce listeners. Persuasion OK, encouragiung coercion in their own church NOT OK. No church member should feel ostracized for stating their political positions within the body. Pastors have the responsibility to see to it their churches are not co-opted for political purposes. So if they preach politics, do so "humbly".

<b>The two sentences are clear and consecutive, no matter if at the beginning, the middle, or the end of anything. One completely contradicts the other, and the context has nothing to do with it. If you can't see the inconsistency, then for you, there is none. To me, it's quite obvious.</b>

But I repeat, what was inconsistent in the two last sentences? I do not understand, unless it was just general frustration with the "tone" of my post.

<b>If you are experiencing "general frustration" with the "tone" of your post, but do not understand that circumstance, maybe someone can help you. I know I can't. I have no more idea of the tone of your post or of your frustration than you have of my thinking and chuckling about Carter.</b>

But the CLN is not a "church". It was formed at a political action group with stated mission as ML posted. Churches (usually) have religious missions and their mission should not be co-opted no matter how unified they think they are politically.

<b><I><u>Usually</u></I>? I've labored under the impression that churches <I><u>always</u></I> have religious missions. Unless a church has it written into its mission that it will also serve as a political organization, a pastor or other member (especially the pastor) co-opts its stated mission when he steps outside the requisites of that "religious," consensual mission, as, for instance, preaching politics, whether humbly or not. You admit that the CLN is a PAC. The churches you criticize are not PACs, not that it matters. The CLN, made up of "religious leaders" for the sole purpose of doing political work (absolutely nothing having to do with religious matters), violates the constitutional church/state relationship of mutual "hands-off," whether a church in name or not. Its members represent churches, a collective establishment of religion as described in the Constitution that should not impact government any more than it should be impacted by government. One wonders how a church determines how unified it is <I>politically</I>. Would there be questionnaires, for instance? If it should be determined that a church is not unified politically, would preaching politics still be okay, especially if done humbly, as you approve?</b>

I have already said that the CLN and the Christian Coalition have every right to form political action groups, primarily run outside the church. These groups should not be using church membership lists or church bulletins or even the church offices as primary organiazational staging grounds as a means to send forth their message. That is clearly co-opting the church.

<b>Precisely what do you think the CLN members will do, if not co-opt their churches in any way they see fit to carry out a political agenda? For what other purpose would they bother with the organization? In this day, it certainly has nothing to do with "educating" the parishioners. As I said before, I think all these characters/groups are wrong, and a plague on all their heads. Actually, whether the CLN or some other church group or PAC of any persuasion, the ministers who dabble in them are indicating that they think their parishioners are too dumb politically to make up their own minds about how to vote or what to think. This is arrogance carried to the nth degree and it does not speak well of the ministers who presume to "educate" (the euphemism for campaigning for some entity or other) their parishioners.</b>

[KeithE]

[Mark Pepin]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Mark Pepin]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Mark Pepin]

[Guest]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Norm]

When Dunn et al. use their church or advocate that others do the same to advance a particular political candidate, one may justifiably criticize them for being hypocritical, but when Dunn et al. work through a PAC (read independent of church involvement), it is surely bizzare to criticize them for statements that advocate the separation of church and state.

[Mark Pepin]