Awakening of NC Churches Re Trump as clear and present Dange

[Stephen Fox]

https://www.greensboro.com/opinion/colu ... gHh2Yk4fU0 Meshes well with the alarms on William Barber

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Part screed, part lame sound bite string.

And, the guy who puts Hitler/Nazi four times into a single paragraph probably needs a vacation.

Might explain what you mean by dropping the separation of church and state.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

The Peeples article was part screed and part a lame string of sound bites. The liberal churches have been intensely political (and partisan) for decades. It's just silly to write as if they have not. I'm fine with that. I am not obligated to conclude that the impassioned plea she makes is anything original. It's mostly boilerplate, warmed over stuff like we've heard for a long time. I understand what Peeples is saying. It's nothing new. Do you not understand that?

Is it lost on you that even with caveats and provisos, repeatedly putting Hitler/Nazi in is a silly attempt to connect Evangelicals (undefined, of course) with them? This is an old rhetorical technique. I'm sure a smart guy like you is familiar with it.

Your explanation of church and state is all opinion. Has nothing to do with the constitutional issue normally meant when using the phrase. Your links merely attempt to support your opinion. Concrete public policy matters are not theology, but politics. If you want a theocracy where your version of what God wants is imposed through public policy, then have at it. God wants Medicare for all? God wants this or that immigration policy? God wants this taxation level, this welfare level, etc. You are hopelessly incoherent here.

There is not now nor should there ever be any law against any big C, little c, parachurch, pastor, imam, rabbi endorsing any candidate. All of these may endorse candidates, advocate for various public policy measures, and the like.

Old friend, you are at your worst when you start whining about forum policies. I suggest you respond if you wish or ignore if you wish. No one forces you to do either.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Stephen Fox]

Rachel Maddow raises two chilling questions tonight on her show: Is there any bottom to Trump's assault on the rule of law? Is there anything you can imagine him NOT doing if it's to his benefit even if he knows it would hurt the country? The answer is, no of course not. There is no bottom; there is no limit. When he says he wants to be president for life, believe him. When his political party blocks all measures to prevent foreign interference in the next election, understand that they want such interference on behalf of Donald Trump. When Trump sets out to exact revenge against honorable and honest public servants who did not lie on his behalf, know that he will not stop. This is where we are.

Which raises the second major question: How do we survive these times? One answer is to work like hell to prevent Trump's reelection. But what if his political party gets its way and there is no free and fair election in 2020? What if, let's just say, Trump loses by a small margin and refuses to abide by the results? What if he is, by hook or crook, reelected? How do we prevent every vestige of democracy from being swept aside? How do we preserve some communal sense of decency? How do we stay sane? These are the questions we now must consider. It's a scenario that sounds apocalyptic. But I'm pretty sure Rachel Maddow is right.

The quote aoove from the facebook wall of Frye Galliard this morning, a former columnist and r religion writer for Carlotte Observer

[William Thornton]

Stephen has always been attracted to wild conjecture when it fits his frenetic thinking. We have a recent history of not accepting election results. Hil, Abrams here in Georgia. Complaining about districting, polling places, and voter rolls is just standard political talk. Maddox is paid to entertain with such talk.

[Dave Roberts]

The political ways of churches has long been alive. In the early part of the 20th century with the industrialization of the more rural parts of NC, churches were complicit in siding with owners against the laboring classes, in helping hold people down. Often, especially in company towns, even the church buildings were the property of the mill and were not to criticize the excesses they saw, even of the KKK in their membership. In the 1950's and 60's, churches were strongly in support of societal order by supporting Jim Crow laws. Ministers who spoke against such things were soon removed. When it was "the solid South" for Democrats, the churches were often the assembly place you might see you politician visiting in worship and giving glad-hands in the parking lot. Ministers were often on the platforms at political rallies as chaplains of various political groups. In much of the old South, the cry for enforcing "separation of church and state" became much stronger when African-American churches became the centers for school desegregation, labor organizing, and the base for Black politicians. Baptists have always supported the separation of church and state on paper, but certainly not in reality.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

What the Democrats need is a really skilled foreign government to step up and flip it. Germany maybe? We (the old we) worked well with them all these years stealing secrets from everybody else via Cipher.

[Sandy]