How is this different from the evangelicals and Catholics right wing Republicans talking about abortion from the pulpit?

.

It’s no secret that since man invented religion it has been used as an excuse to bomb women and children, fly airplanes into buildings, march children off to Jerusalem in a Crusade and the list goes on and on and on. This country and for that matter this state is made up of a hugely diverse population. When religion is brought into politics, the troubles start when it’s YOUR religion, not MINE.
There are much deeper lessons to be learned here than this unrelenting Democrat vs Republican bull****. Allow the extreme conservative right to base all they do and all everyone else should do on THEIR religious beliefs. They will slowly segregate themselves into a dark corner, all alone. Don’t get pulled into their narrow minded “it’s my way or no way” mindset. Leave religion to be practiced in the church and at home, not to be used as a political hammer.

I think the key difference is that in many cases anti-abortion advocates speaking from the pulpit often endorse certain candidates or parties. In this case the preachers are not endorsing Rendell, but endorsing a policy of the government that is line with their Christian values. I think it’s fine to discuss why a policy is more or less in line with Christian values on the pulpit, I think it’s fine to have your faith inform your understanding of the righteousness of a government policy, however I think in recent years this positive trend has turned ugly when certain churches have blurred the line between faith and action and being a political action committee for a particular party.

It is easy to get into a knee-jerk false left-right argument about who is more righteous in their use of churches as political arms of the two major parties, but we must distinguish between the symbolic notion of a politician of either party speaking at Dr. Martin Luther King’s church and the types of actions taken in recent years by political apparatchiks of a particular party who have co-opted many large evangelical churches through funding through third parties, intrusion of faith-based funds to politically favored churches, and through stage managed religious front groups whose primary purpose is to carry water for one political party.

We cannot make the mistake that many in the mainstream media have made in defending their status as an unbiased arbiter, we cannot pretend that in all situations that the truth is somewhere in between two sides on a particular issue. This way of doing journalism has done our democracy a great injustice in recent years, and in practice only favors bad actors. Imagine this hypothetical when you envision what’s happened to the mainstream media, you are in court suing someone who shot you with no provocation, the judge says well Mr. Smith I know you have said you were shot, but before we look at your medical records proving your injuries, before we talk to the witnesses, before we look at surveillance tape, let’s hear what Mr. Jones has to say about your accusations. After Mr. Jones lies about his role in the shooting, and says there is no evidence, you then attempt to show the overwhelming evidence and the judge says “Case closed, who knows what the truth is in this situation, probably somewhere in the middle, case dismissed.”

At some point, pastors and rabbis could easily become habitual targets of lobbyists and start doing commercials from the pulpit. A bit far fetched, but it was meant to make a point. The point is health care may very well be a Good Samaritan cause and worthy of a Sunday morning broadcast from God, but it opens the clergy to suspicion, fraud, enticement to accept monetary compensation for such a commercial and beyond all that, open to outside manipulation by those where religion is the last thing on their minds. It’s important and prudent that politicians use the many other avenues available to them to advance their agenda…not the pulpit. It’s also important and prudent that the pulpit not use politicians to advance their selective agenda.
JP

You will always have the poor. Not my words, if you think you are greater than GOD, have at it. You lefties should take care of the things that you beleave in, gay rights,murdering children in the womb, taxing only the rich, mourning the death of every individual in a war, except our great and blessed service people, you love trees, and dogs,rats,cockroaches,pissants and ardvarks,snakes, and cattledung, and of course whaleshit. I atleast give you credit where it is due,let the buzards live so they can peck your eyes out,for an empty soul has no eyes. There is only one redemptive factor upon our lives, and I am sure with all of your brains,and self admiration,youll figure that out on your own also. But I am sure you will be just a little bit late, on that to.

I do believe in respecting everyone’s opinion, even this unbelievable rant of yours.
JP

I’m sure most of us have a relative that, when referenced in conversation, forces us to just smile politely and nod. I think our friend Anonymous (aka “whales$!t” for brains) blends perfectly into that mold. The shame of it is individuals such as Anonymous that give the rest of us “wingnuts” a bad rap. It’s no surprise to anyone here that I’m in the conservative camp, but I’m no so entrenched as to not see reasonable people on the other side. Specifically as it pertains to moral, or “faith-based” issues, a lot of common cause can be made there, even on the most contentious issues such as abortion. Religiously-driven individuals on both the right and left are now working together on issues such as AIDS relief, human trafficking and child exploitation, poverty, and even teenage pregnancy. If churches are going to play a role in politics, perhaps their focus should broaden from a few pet issues to the wider scope of need that is very real, which would allow a “big tent” to be cast over many believers of all political affiliations, as opposed to one or two issues designed to drive the masses to the polls. I’m firmly pro-life (well actually, as Senator Sam Brownback says, “whole life”, aka “life doesn’t end at birth”) and believe the institution of marriage was intended for a man and woman. However, my faith informs my positions on a variety of issues – it doesn’t just stop at the abortion/same-sex marriage edge. Too many of my fellow “Christian conservatives” thunder on over the “Holocaust” of abortion and the “evils” of same-sex marriage, while spending little if any time on issues such as breaking the cycle of generational poverty or hunger on our streets and on streets far from home. They tend to come across as political hacks as opposed to committed Christians. I’m honestly not sure where I stand on churches taking political positions to their congregations. As I said, if it’s presented as a broad scope of concerns (i.e., respect for life in all it’s forms and aspects), then it’s probably a worthwhile endeavor. However, churches should not be seen as outlets for a specific candidate or advocates of a specific politician’s pet initiatives (i.e., Rendell’s healthcare plan). If the leadership of a church wants to get behind the idea of universal health care, that’s different than having Rendell’s surrogates (or the governor himself) in to speak on behalf of the plan. It’s impossible those of faith not to be guided by it when developing positions on issues or lifestyle. It’s truly the foundation of your life. However, one’s faith should do exactly that – guide and inform the individual. The individual should not be “guided and informed” by those who may have a separate agenda shrouded under the guise of religion. Beware the false prophets.

Gent, you really write down some great stuff. I just didn’t know what to say after reading “you will always have the poor”, but you’re always up to the task. I greatly enjoy reading your comments.
JP

I appreciate your kind words, JP. It’s always a welcome find to come across other bloggers who will engage in serious lively, serious discussion, as opposed to those who unleash incomprehensible rants for nothing else but their own amusement. You’re certainly in the former category. I’ve really enjoyed reading your points of view on issues and topics as well. Here’s to a lively and fun campaign season.

The Gentleman From Pennsylvania