John Hagee.

Rod Parsley.

Jerry Falwell.

I hope all that HTML works!

John Hagee.

Rod Parsley.

Jerry Falwell.

I hope all that HTML works!

The farther left of their mainstream counterparts have embarked upon an intense and antagonistic mission to expunge the Religious Right from politics in this country and some would argue that if they could find the means expel them from the country as well. They do not care if the RR believes all kinds of hokey pokey nonsense as long as they are incapable of influencing politicians and voters into making social choices.

Fine.

Yet and this continues to be my point that posters above seem to try and deflect off into hypothetical what ifs. Those same people are perfectly fine with Barak Obama and his heavily involved in politics church. They are accepting of the good reverend Wright who is preaching Social agenda and marching on town hall in an effort to get their version of social injustices rectified by using the pulpit to inflict upon the citizens of Chicago their version of what is right and true.

Those who purport to support Barak Obama have been the ones who have bullied the RR into hiding in America. They are guilty of Bullying everyone on the internet. They are guilty of demanding that Hillary withdraw when their are obvious ways in which she can still win the nomination and now at the height of their Invincible bullying they are endorsing the very thing that they have reviled.

The Bully is being called out. Lets see how he responds to this.

The farther left of their mainstream counterparts have embarked upon an intense and antagonistic mission to expunge the Religious Right from politics in this country and some would argue that if they could find the means expel them from the country as well. They do not care if the RR believes all kinds of hokey pokey nonsense as long as they are incapable of influencing politicians and voters into making social choices.

Fine.

Yet and this continues to be my point that posters above seem to try and deflect off into hypothetical what ifs. Those same people are perfectly fine with Barak Obama and his heavily involved in politics church. They are accepting of the good reverend Wright who is preaching Social agenda and marching on town hall in an effort to get their version of social injustices rectified by using the pulpit to inflict upon the citizens of Chicago their version of what is right and true.

Those who purport to support Barak Obama have been the ones who have bullied the RR into hiding in America. They are guilty of Bullying everyone on the internet. They are guilty of demanding that Hillary withdraw when their are obvious ways in which she can still win the nomination and now at the height of their Invincible bullying they are endorsing the very thing that they have reviled.

The Bully is being called out. Lets see how he responds to this.

And on the welfare policies, I think there's a fine line too, because at some point it does become an endorsement for a particular political party or ideology. Instead, I think the churches should stick to the purer message of social justice, and let the members come to their own political decisions about how best to achieve that (which also factors into my criticism of the Church on prochoice politicians, because I think it's possible to be politically prochoice and believe that one should work to change hearts and minds against abortion instead of working directly to change the laws.)

And on the welfare policies, I think there's a fine line too, because at some point it does become an endorsement for a particular political party or ideology. Instead, I think the churches should stick to the purer message of social justice, and let the members come to their own political decisions about how best to achieve that (which also factors into my criticism of the Church on prochoice politicians, because I think it's possible to be politically prochoice and believe that one should work to change hearts and minds against abortion instead of working directly to change the laws.)

That might seem weird and not make sense, but it does to me. Like if someone is against gay marriage because they think it will hurt society from a developmental standpoint and argue on those grounds, and a church supports them then I'm OK with it. If someone argues that they are against it just because their church is against it then I'm not.

Or if the church tried to get us to expand welfare because Jesus commanded us to help the poor I wouldn't support that. But if someone supported welfare from an economics perspective and the church supported it and said how it tied in then I wouldn't mind it.

Of course, in either case I think the churches are hurting themselves when they become so overtly political. And what Wright did was plainly against tax law and I would love Obama to come out and state that he thinks the overt campaigning was inappropriate and they should lose their status.

That might seem weird and not make sense, but it does to me. Like if someone is against gay marriage because they think it will hurt society from a developmental standpoint and argue on those grounds, and a church supports them then I'm OK with it. If someone argues that they are against it just because their church is against it then I'm not.

Or if the church tried to get us to expand welfare because Jesus commanded us to help the poor I wouldn't support that. But if someone supported welfare from an economics perspective and the church supported it and said how it tied in then I wouldn't mind it.

Of course, in either case I think the churches are hurting themselves when they become so overtly political. And what Wright did was plainly against tax law and I would love Obama to come out and state that he thinks the overt campaigning was inappropriate and they should lose their status.

Either way, if Obama wins the presidency and starts to attempt to integrate faith-based initiatives into public policy, I'll be just as pissed off as when Bush does it. But I don't hold the fact that Bush is a born-again Christian against him, just like I don't hold Obama's choice of faith against him.

Either way, if Obama wins the presidency and starts to attempt to integrate faith-based initiatives into public policy, I'll be just as pissed off as when Bush does it. But I don't hold the fact that Bush is a born-again Christian against him, just like I don't hold Obama's choice of faith against him.

That is why I cut and pasted their mission statement. That is the next logical step.

Barak Obama comes from a church that is very, very heavily involved in political works using the ministry of the church.

This is the exact same thing that the religious right has been Crucified for doing. Yet now those very same people who crucified the Relgious Right for injecting religion into politics is endorsing a candidate who has quite obviously embraced the same thing, goes to a church for 20 years that practices that which they have railed against for years.

Spin it all you want. You either reject this sort of activity and reject Obama or you accept it with Obama and once again say loud and clear that the Religious Right is relevant and allowed full bore in politics.

You cannot have it both ways and be anything short of a hypocrite.

That is why I cut and pasted their mission statement. That is the next logical step.

Barak Obama comes from a church that is very, very heavily involved in political works using the ministry of the church.

This is the exact same thing that the religious right has been Crucified for doing. Yet now those very same people who crucified the Relgious Right for injecting religion into politics is endorsing a candidate who has quite obviously embraced the same thing, goes to a church for 20 years that practices that which they have railed against for years.

Spin it all you want. You either reject this sort of activity and reject Obama or you accept it with Obama and once again say loud and clear that the Religious Right is relevant and allowed full bore in politics.

You cannot have it both ways and be anything short of a hypocrite.

As I see, that debate — while it involves elements of religion and politics, church and state — was not centered on Church and State, rather on the meaning/import of the Wright-Obama relationship; on the questions of:
- Did Obama go far enough?
- Should he have disowned Wright, the person, rather than simply rejecting Wright's meanest statements?
- Should he have spoken up, publicly and privately, sooner?

To now introduce arguments about church and state is not irrelevant to the larger discussion, but it's certainly not central to the three questions listed above — at last, not as I see it.

I'm a mix of right and left, more right on some issues, more left on others. I do think there should be a hard line separation between church and state, whether we're talking about religious left or religious right. But that has very little to do with the place of religion in a larger, non-political social context, or the influence of religion on individuals, be they elected officials or not.

As I see, that debate — while it involves elements of religion and politics, church and state — was not centered on Church and State, rather on the meaning/import of the Wright-Obama relationship; on the questions of:
- Did Obama go far enough?
- Should he have disowned Wright, the person, rather than simply rejecting Wright's meanest statements?
- Should he have spoken up, publicly and privately, sooner?

To now introduce arguments about church and state is not irrelevant to the larger discussion, but it's certainly not central to the three questions listed above — at last, not as I see it.

I'm a mix of right and left, more right on some issues, more left on others. I do think there should be a hard line separation between church and state, whether we're talking about religious left or religious right. But that has very little to do with the place of religion in a larger, non-political social context, or the influence of religion on individuals, be they elected officials or not.