My pastor gave info

• If you go to church, has your pastor done this? - sm
  • churches & political endorsements - Les R.
  • I have a priest, and he told us we would burn in - see msg
    • and he gets to make those decisions? nm - anon
  • My pastor gave info - Yes
    • not all pastors - ExMQMT
  • No, NEVER and nm - I've gone to church all my life
  • Have not experienced it firsthand..... - sam
    • It's called separation of church and state - nm - Amanda
      • Excuse me, it is not about separation of church and state... - sam

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

WEST BEND, Wis. (AP) - Thirty-three pastors in 22 states used their sermons to make pointed recommendations about political candidates today.

The effort was orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.

The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the Internal Revenue Service with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics.

Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.

The Reverend Eric Williams of Columbus has organized 55 religious leaders across the nation to file a complaint about the ADF's challenge.

The minister with the liberal United Church of Christ says churches should stand apart from the government.

The founding pastor of a second Colorado church has resigned over gay sex allegations, just weeks after the evangelical community was shaken by the scandal surrounding megachurch leader Ted Haggard.

Haggard, a gay-marriage opponent, admitted to unspecified sexual immorality when he resigned last month as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs. A male prostitute had said he had had sex with Haggard for three years.

On Sunday, Paul Barnes, founding pastor of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel in this Denver suburb, told his evangelical congregation in a videotaped message he had had sexual relations with other men and was stepping down.

Dave Palmer, associate pastor of Grace Chapel, told The Denver Post that Barnes confessed to him after the church received a call last week.

The church board of elders accepted Barnes' resignation on Thursday.

On the videotape, which The Post was allowed to view, Barnes told church members: I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy. ... I can't tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away.

Barnes, 54, led Grace Chapel for 28 years. He and his wife have two adult children.

Palmer said in a written statement that While we cannot condone what he has done, we continue to support and love Paul.

According to dictionary.com, the meanings of the N-word are “deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.”  They go on to say, conversely, “it is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way.”  Since he whispered the statement behind what he thought was a cold microphone, it is highly unlikely that Rev. Jackson intended to cause great offense and his use of the word probably falls into the latter category of usage. 

For example, the N-word can become much less offensive and even assume neutrality within historical discourse, literature, poetry, cinema theater and the like.  One could further argue that within certain contexts (i.e. rap music, conversations within the black households, neighborhoods and businesses, to name a few) connotations of the word can be construed so as to convey a sense of community…even a brotherhood, of sorts.  Language is fluid, dynamic and vital in its nature, not static or one-dimensional.  Context, message, intent, environment, speaker and audience all impact the ultimate nuance of meaning in all forms of communication. 

I agree with you and take deep offense at the use of the N-word, regardless of who says it.  However, I would like to comment on some of the other points you raised in your post.  A careful read of the actual statement shows that Rev. Jackson did not use this epithet to personally attack Obama.  Rather, he was referring to the black population as a whole.  Granted, his choice of words was extremely poor (at least from a white perspective), but the statement was not meant for public scrutiny.  It was spoken from one black individual to another, much the same was that Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s statements were made from black preacher to black congregation. 

As a white person, I do not believe I can sit in judgment one way or another regarding his choice of words when taken completely out of context, in the same way I am not qualified to criticize the sermons of Rev. Wright.  I would like to think that I am intelligent enough to understand that, having lived in the US as a white person both before and after the civil right eras (1948 to present), I have not experienced life in America the same way black people have.  They are entitled to their own “take” on their own lives.  Who am I to tell them how to “tell it like it is?”

One last point.  I am sure that much flap and bruhah will ensue over this unfortunate news.  However, the very fact that Rev. Sharpton, you, I, the media and countless others will be having this debate over our outrage and dismay is a testament as to just how effective Rev Jackson and other early leaders in the civil rights movement were in defining the key issues, defying status quo of his times, enlisting support for the cause, effectively engaging his opposition in ongoing bipartisan initiatives over nearly 4 decades and producing fruitful, far-reaching and substantial bodies of legislation from which today’s black community continue to reap bountiful benefits and blessings.  They weathered storms of protests, incarceration, series after series of setbacks and reversals, and buckets of bloodshed in their efforts to secure the civil liberties and rights that reach far beyond the black community to encompass other forms of discrimination against women, gays, immigrants and the poor, to name a few…all so casually taken for granted and so easily dismissed in the blink of an eye with one ill-chosen, unfortunate slip of the tongue. 

For those of us whose memories reach further back than the latest round of CNN sound bytes and chat room chatter, we probably would forgive Obama should he decide not to denounce Rev Jackson’s support, nor would we feel driven to force him to abandon his own pastor of 20 years for the sake of our own righteous indignation. 

Of course, we all know the Christian Right will haul out the WMDs to slay the messenger, but for the rest of us, this will be a pretty interesting read.  I have not had a chance to completely view the video, but it will be fascinating to see how the Christian Right can bash this Pentacostal Worldview.  Here's the link.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

*You reap what you sow.* That's what they've done.

Anyhoo, thought you said you were leaving.  Hmmmmmmmm.... they didn't have a real high regard for the truth, either. 

To anyone else reading this: This person isn't even trying to hide the fact that he/she is baiting us.  Let's not permit them to do to the Liberal board what they did to the Conservative board.

Just don't read this person's posts any more.  They said they were leaving.  They aren't doing that, and their only intention is to incite. Let's take the high road and not fall for their crap!

Do you think this will be a high voter turn-out year?  Voter registrations are waaaay up this year.  (Barring, of course, the fraudulent registrations which will hopefully have been resoved by election day.) 

It's certainly been the most hotly contested campaign season I can recall - and I've been voting since the late 70s.  There's so much bravado and blustering coming from both camps, and the media clearly chose their darling many moons ago, it seems like people will either be so sick of it, or apathetic about the outcome, that a lot of folks simply won't bother to show up.

I know there's been a massive push to register young voters.  Our college campus has been crawling with people trying to stir up support for a certain candidate.  My daughter and her friends are apporached every time they attend an event, from football games to local band open mic nights.  But do you think everyone will actually turn up on election day?

And this may be totally UN-PC, but I'm not so sure everybody SHOULD vote.  I mean, if you're too lazy to register, are you really going to be doing your due diligence and educating yourself about each candidate's policies and proposals? 

What do you all think about it?

'most of the people there was'.  Or was that intentional?  

We don't usually rag on hurried typo errors because we have no spell check on this forum.  But not bothering to look up a spelling or making a rookie grammatical error are both noteworthy. 

post.  Also said if you believe they are reliable on John Edwards, then you must believe they are reliable on SP.  hence, goose, gander.