Pulpit Politics

Well said, Pastor!

In the last 2 elections we have seen that Evangelicals are a very powerful voting bloc. The candidates are doing what they do, which is go after a very large voting bloc. McCain to prove he is conservative, Obama to prove he is not that liberal. Is it wrong? Perhaps. Is it ever going to stop? Of course not. Churches are one of the most political places I've ever been a part of whether you are a member of the most conservative church or a member of the most liberal of churches. We all participate in the political process.

It is unfortunate that sanctuaries, regardless of faith or denomination, are offered for use for ANY activity that is not explicit in worshipping and celebrating the deities (in this case: God, the Christ, and the Holy Spririt--which, for me, represents one Godhead) for which these sacred places were created. Instead, our sanctuaries have become sound stages, recording studios, movie sets and market places. Now, would-be holy places are used to host political dog and pony shows. Of course, Christians should seek God's council in choosing the leaders of this nation. (Here's a not-so-novel idea: Prayer?) Of course, Christians have a responsibility--like all Americans--to be well-informed regarding the candidates to whom we give the responsibility to govern. But, let's not be remiss. As we seek to get in depth understandings of the candidates, their positions and their convictions, let's not--because of the venue, its host or the professions of faith by the invitees--miscontrue blatant political postering as religion. And, can we keep holy places holy? For Christ's sake, literally.

It seems most people do not read others' posts. So, I will state again in no uncertain terms:
There is a huge difference between the two following concepts:
"Church and State"
"Religion and Politics"
The latter is unavoidable and perfectly legitimate.
There is no way to take the religion out of a candidate, the statement about keeping church and state separate means only that the government will not have a "state church" and that the government will not provide funding for a particular faith tradition.
That said, the evangelical churches do clearly have an overly prominent position in the halls of power in this country (lobbyists) and that does come scarily close to having a state recognized religion (since this one religious tradition does receive more legitimacy than all others combined).

A cursory review of American History would reveal the concept of 'separation of church and state' was first noted in a letter by T,. Jefferson to the Baptist church in Danbury, CT outlining the idea that 1st Amendment rights ," nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". was to free the church to operate without impingment by the state - that is, establishing a state religion. Instead, we have the religion of Secular Humanism (Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2). www.1776americandream.com, www.Wallbuilders.com, and other sites provide ample evidence of the interrelationship between government and 'men of faith' from the Minutemen (who were deacons and elders) to statesmen who led religious services both in the government and as Geo. Washington led in services and prayed at Valley Forge. It was not too long ago (and written in the Congressional Record) that one of the qualifications for public office was belief in a Supreme Being (God). Each of the state Constitutions reflects this concept (including MA.) BTW, those aren't the Bill of Rights on the Supreme Court building; they are the Ten Commandemnts with Moses, the first law giver from God, and the foundation of our Tripartite government. Sorry about the Rant, but what is your moral compass?? I'm a nobody who believes in an Almighty God, saved by the shed blood of the Perfect Lamb and assured of eternal life even now. Dave.

What happened to separation between church and state. Why does Rick Warren feel he is qualified to host an event like that. Frankly, I made up my mind months ago as to whom I am voting for. Everything you will hear from the end of the primary season to the day of the election is questionable. If religion is such an important issue, and the state of "grace" of each candidate is so important, then how do you explain the nasty ads, the lies, the smear campaign. That would indicate that the candidate is pandering to a particular group and his soul is really not in the state he wants you to think it is. Pandering of the highest order.

Ms. Smith,

I'm glad to see that I was not alone in thinking that there was something very wrong about these men being interviewed in a church, by a pastor who asked the question "does evil exist and whatcha gonna do about it?"

These men are "interviewing" for the JOB as CEO of the government of the United States, not the Chaplain of the House. The Founders would be appalled!!!

"Who cares what you like, Susan? Evangelicals constitute a substantical bloc..."

I love it when Christians of different flavors attack one another. There really aren't

This sounded more like "sour grapes" from someone coming from a rapidly declining denomination. What a jealous RANT.

Rev. Smith represents a dying denomination - UCC. This denomination has been loosing members rapidly over the last few decades. Instead of "poo-pooing" Christians who are actively engaged in faith and community AND who have managed to grow churches Rev. Smith should do more than just keep declaring how upset she is at Rev. Warren and reach people for her tradition and local church.

I'd like to take issue with the argument presented in this essay, but there isn't one.

If the author's purpose is simply to describe her state of mind, she does that well enough by presenting a muddled mish-mash of unconnected observations. But if her purpose is to persuade other people to take her view of the issue, then she has not succeeded.

The author of this terribly ill-conceived and poorly written essay simply lists, in 500 words or less, all the reasons why she is troubled by the "Civil Forum" at Saddleback church for a number of reasons. She says the event:

1) muddies the separation between church and state
2) seems to privilege Christianity over other religions
3) smacks of hypocrisy by allowing the politicians to have a "photo-op" in a church setting
4) pays too much attention to the evangelical voting bloc, and not enough attention to other religious groups
5) rubs the author the wrong way
6) gives evangelicals another reason to consider themselves superior

There is no discernible attempt to organize these objections into some kind of logical argument. There is no attempt to find a common problem to which all these various objections point. There is no transition of thought. There is no hint of the relative importance of one objection over another.

In all honesty, I am genuinely surprised that a piece like this made it past an editor and onto the (virtual) pages of such a highly respected newspaper.

"Are you pimping the American religious community?"

Absolutely, yes, that's correct.

I strongly agree with your comments, except for the work pimping. I find it also disingenuous to court only single sect of Christianity.

Sen. Obama did not go to a synagogue, but he did go to the Jewish organization with Sen. HRC to discuss he stance with Israel. But his was not exactly a religious group.

We are still living in an era of the Scopes Monkey Trial at best.

You hit the nail on the head. I couldn't figure out what it was about this event that disturbed me, but you got it right. And, I, too wondered as I watched (yes, I'll admit I did) whether the two candidates would also appear together before other kinds of religious congregations. And, today, almost all the media focus is on (surprise, surprise) how the two candidates answered the question about abortion. This does seem to be the defining issue among some religious groups, which sure leaves out a whole lot of what I believe religion is all about.

This forum demonstrated as well as anything the degree to which our system of government has been corrupted and diminished over the past eight years. Let's hope the majority of Americans can see through this deception and figure out how we can restore the protections of the Constitution and the separation of powers that it requires.

I have travelled extensively over the past two decades. In my spare time at hotel, I would pick up the bible available in the room and browse through it. I may have read the bible over and over again many times, may not be in sequence.

So I can safe say, Bible does not prevent Obama or McCain or Warren to sit down together and discuss their views and beliefs and share their beliefs in public through mass media.

It is the show of wealth and power that is associated with such mega churches, that is against all principles and teachings of Bible.

I am sure if Christ was alive and had the chance to witness the opulence and bigotry being espoused in his name today, he would be very very ashamed.

On second thought

After listening to Pastor Warren question the candidates, I am glad he did host such a forum.
It was a breath of fresh air after so many months of stale politically spun Q/A from biased Networks.

It took away any lasting doubts I harbored about these candidates. Neither of them should enter into the Presidency.

Republicans/Democrats are not getting the job done. A viable third party is not in sight yet, but I hear one coming round the bend… what a beautiful sound.

I googled Rev. Smith and I've just read through a few of her articles and web-postings. She seems to be very politically oriented in her ministry activities. It seems that she in not really for the separation of church and state, merely the separation of Evangelical churches and state.

Let's see if I understand her logic.

Because the candidates are not holding this meeting at a synagogue, mosque or AME church, they must be pandering (her word was 'pimping') votes. And because Rev. Warren is an 'evangelical' he must represent a specific block of voters and this block of voters will not vote they way they should. Ergo: religion should be left out of the political debate.

What does she expect? 42% of Americans attend a Christian church at least once per month. Just shy of 10% attend non-Christian places of worship. The religious are a significant percent of Americans. There is no synagogue, mosque or AME church as large as Saddleback, nor a rabbi, imam or AME pastor with as recognition as Warren and his church.

She argues that Warren's event muddies the separation of church and state, instead expecting people to make political decisions in a non-religious vacuum, and yet, religious/moral underpinnings are at the heart of political decision we make - all law is simply legislated morality.

Ironically, Smith's own denomination, the UCC, is one of the most politically active. To be consistent, I suppose she should either leave her denomination or amend her article.

Sorry, Dr./Rev. Smith,

I want both candidates discussing their religious beliefs, background, values, etc.

For me, it *IS* important.

As with most voters, I can tell the difference between sincerity and "pimpin'."

I thank Rev. Warren for providing the forum.

Christopher Johnson, your comments are the least edifying of those I've read here. Your attack on the United Church of Christ (not mentioned in the original post) is irrelevant, and quite unchristian mode of dialogue -- even for an evangelical. Try engaging the substance of the discussion next time.

Christopher Johnson, your comment was the least edifying of those I read here. Your attack on the United Church of Christ (not mentioned in the original post) is irrelevant, and a quite un-Christian mode of argument -- even for an evangelical. Try engaging the substance next time.

.
Excuse me, Rev. Smith, this may just be a difference in idioms. Why do you ask the candidates if they are pimping the American religious community? A pimp, my dictionary (and other readings) say is one who offers or solicits for prostitutes. In the case of candidates being invited (NB: invited) to appear, speak, etc., to a religious community, who is pimping -- if pimping there is in such cases?

Now, since religious communities are likewise communities composing the populace of states, why should their members not be concerned about the candidacies of those who, when elected, will affect their lives, yes, even the exercise of, to cite only one of many, their religious rights? The proviso should be, that such religious community (to be out front, their leaders) should listen to all candidates and thus avoid partisanship--which is what would constitute "pimping the religious community."

The principle of the separation of Church and State does not mean at all that one should not be concerned about the other, that both, on the contrary, are enjoined to serve the people and protect their places securing for them their Rights and Freedoms. Religious communities in the USA (and elsewhere) should help where and when they can to promote democracy including working for peaceful, intelligent, egalitarian elections. Religious leaders with their communities ought to seriously analyze the political platforms, the programs, the dreams, etc., of candidates. And listening to them in their venues is one such step. (In some places on earth, the only "even or levelled field" of campaigning is provided only by the churches, do you know?)
.

I believe that politicians should honor the separation between church and state because politics are all about strategy, and having a political debate in a church serves no other purpose than that. I believe that the church is a holy and sacred place and should not be used as a stage for political propoganda. If their purpose was to send a message of respect or reverence towards the church or place of worship there shouldn't be any reason, as Pastor Smith stated, why they wouldn't do the same thing in a mosque, or temple, or any other place of worship. But we all know that wouldn't happen. Bottom line is, the church is not a place for political hoopla and debate.

I completely agree, Susan. These politicians need to keep their campaign speeches and debates out of any religious space. Even if they obliged your request and held a Q&A in a mosque or a synagogue, what about those of us who are not religious? What about the atheists? Where is the pandering towards that voting block? The non-religious do make up a slightly larger percentage of the population now than the Christian Evangelicals, so why aren't we being pandered to on the basis of our non-religious stance?

If a question like that upsets anyone, then it only goes to show how important the separation of church and state truly is in governance.

there's nothing but to understand that politicians do what they must. i think it's the american people who should better understand the separation of church and state. the american people should want to keep politicians in political settings, and on political topics. but we'll blind ourselves to the social injustice they're doing faith by making their opinions so widely known. that's our way. everyone wants to know how to believe.

I'd ask Susan who is manipulating whom? Warren invited them, ask him why?

Where better to meet with evangelicals than in a Church. At least you know what you've got in front of you.

Please purge all spam - this is very disruptive.
Thanks....

They're doing it because "the other one" is doing it.

Rick Warren is only taking his rightful place as God's representative at the head of the nation. These two men are seekers of power. All power comes from God. Rick Warren is a power monger.

Since they expect to gain power from this encounter with God's representative it makes sense that the ministry is God's proxy, vicars, God's attorney's in fact. In other words, God's kingdom is actually ruled by them in the absence of God. Rick only flexes his muscle addressing issues that concern us all like the price of oil and global warming -spiritual issues.

Not to worry, Jesus will be along any minute to end democracy and install himself ruler, the king of kings to rule the earth. In the mean time we have God's vicars to rule.

Now about the ministry's source of power, the Bible. Is it really God's word? Is God really anti democracy and in favor of a king of any kind to rule the whole world? Have you reviewed the reading of the Bible at hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul yet? It answers all questions and leaves God a strong supporter of democracy. Hell is kingdom is hell while heaven is democracy is heaven.

Hoax buster is but a voice in the wilderness warning us about false Gods. Rather ominous how the Bible when properly read shows itself to be the work of devil and not God at all.

How confusing.

Anti-Mormon hate-speak on this religious blog.

Not very nice, and not at all Christian.

I have yet to meet a Mormon I didn't like and respect.

They are kind, clean living, family people and law abiding.

Shame on you.

I'm not sure if "pimping" is the right term for what McCain and Obama are doing. I think PASTOR RICK is pimping out his flock. That makes McCain and Obama the "Johns" who will purchase the favors of the flock with their campaign promises and personal religious statements.

This unseemly event is evidence that the camel of religion has certainly got its nose in the political tent...its disgusting to see candidates pander to a particular religious group- Christian, Jew or Muslim. Its clear that its done solely to win votes. Does any one believe George Bush's or John McCain's or any other politican's protestations of religious belief? I don't.

A candidates religious belief and affiliation should have absolutely NO place in a campaign.

Why debate in a church when there are plenty of secular places to debate?

Why debate in a church if you aren't going to discuss religion?

Why discuss religion when the President has no religious authority whatsoever?

Why discuss religion when the Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office.

Why discuss religion at all when it has absolutely nothing to do with governing?

Dear Rev.

Thank you. It took a women to state what John Adams wrote in 1797 that"the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion!!!!

So get out of the church!!!

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE - and are they
all the same people? I think not.....

To B. Daniel Kim:

The issue is not "either Jesus is or is not" Rather, either you believe he exists or you don't. More than a subtle difference. No one can prove either the existence or the non-existence of Jesus, or any other god. Religion is a matter of belief, not fact.

How can there be a separation of church & state when the church is the people and the state is the people?

Greg Evans
McLean, VA

I agree with this author, politicians should not be in church forums. Rick Warren obviously has no problem with muddying the waters of separation of church and state especially since he learned how to reap the BIG benefits of faith-based grants. And wasn't it Obama who said he never heard any negative sermons by Rev Wright although he was a member of the church for 20+ years ... guess he didn't go to church except when it was politically advantageous to him!!

Protestith Susan Smith defender of Black Liberation and the political, racist Reverend Wright.

Nor do I. To put it succinctly: I do not want my government telling me where or how to worship but I equally do not want my place of worship telling me for whom or how to vote. And I am disqustedly fatigued with the attitude of the majority of candidates who assume us all to be mindless twits that will follow their latest sound bites like starving yard dogs.

I don't like it either.

This is the same pastor who declared his discomfort with the 12-Steps, then "intensely" studied the Christian Scriptures to discover that Jesus Himself had actually preached the genuine recovery steps--and even in logical order, mind you--in the Sermon on the Mount, of all places! Of course, those recovery steps--so incredibly necessary for healing countless millions of human beings of faith and unfaith--had been hidden for 20 centuries until the good pastor himself found them and published them, leading most participants to partcipate in his own church and to share their "gifts and talents" with his own church as well. (I think I can guess what that means.) I cannot help but wonder if Jesus knew that He had hidden the secret to sobriety in his priceless Sermon! My hunch: of course not! Why hide them at all, and then for 2,000 years when they were needed so much for all that time.

The 12-Steps Program is a spiritual program, not a religous one. And Pastor Warren's repeated inability to distinguish between American civic life and religious life or between spiritual life and religious life or between hubris and humility is a metaphor that should not be lost on Senators Obama and McCain or on any other American citizen.

I agree with your analysis completely, I for one am sick and tired of having religious views crammed down my throat. Its a personal matter with me and I don't care what others think or believe when it come to religion. We are all different, that's what has made America unique. Today's Christian right has lost it's why, the are know more known for what they are against that what they are for. How sad.

I am in complete AGREEMENT!!! If anyone has a curiousity of what these candidates stand up for - read the newspapers, go to their events, watch the news (credible ones), attend Town Halls. BUT to bring politics in a Church is just wrong.

Jesus made a reference of giving what belongs to Cesaer, when trying to be trapped about whether or not it was right to pay taxes. What is part of the government should stay separate fro what belongs to God. In this same manner, government and politics do NOT own religion or faith. The Church is for us to worship God, to ask for forgiveness for when we keep sinning, for strength to do what's right in a world filled with so much temptation, and to grow by hearing the word of God.

It sickens me when I see people using Jesus to justify their behavior or politics, as if Jesus would vote Republican or Democrat. People who claim to be faithful and be christians, have lost their compassion and their good will for their fellow mankind. It's evident in the actions that take place today, with people caring less about others, and more about themselves. In particular I despise the hypocritical right wing evangelical extremists in our government who lie and cheat to get their own way. They think they are above God's law, yet conveniently bring God front and center trying to look "good", yet hide their racist, elitist, and hate filled selves.

We as Christians have a duty to not turn others off from God's message, and how we behave and act does affect how others think of God. When we act hypocritically, and send messages of hate to people who are different from us, and ignore people who suffer, what do agnostics think? They think what kind of religion or belief is this? But yet these are exactly the type of Christians that God warns about.

Interesting - not all the comments that are submitted get through. There seems to be some active editing going on, that has nothing to do with civility or inappropriate language. I haven't been able to figure out what the criteria are yet.

I agree that politicians should stay well clear of any religious institution except when they go there quietly and privately to pray. Ministers of all stripes should likewise shut up about political contests unless they forego any of the trappings of their faith while speaking out. I am a proud member of the Methodist Church, but I don't want any minister publicly endorsing a candidate for any public office, just as I don't want any mayor, governor or President making "suggestions" as to who the next Bishop ought to be, or what stance the church should take on matters of religious doctrine.
The church benefits from the forebearance of the IRS and most local taxing authorities precisely because it is considered to be an entity outside the authority of government. Church officials must protect that status by observing the unspoken covenant that they will likewise not lend their moral authority by endorsing candidates for office. As recent events have proven, it is a rare politician indeed whose character can be considered worthy of religious endorsements

If that irks you, please say a word about how Bush has trashed Christianity by cloaking himself with the Bible while telling lies about the need to go to war. Christians need confession and repentance for allowing themselves to be so easily and willingly decieved. Otherwise be silent hypocrits.

There is a huge difference between "Church and State" and "Religion and Politics" the latter can not (and should not) be avoided. That said, you are correct in your suggestion that Evangelicals are being given the message that they have more political legitimacy than other religious groups. Other groups need to be given the same opportunities (by which we should say Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs... - both candidates have already lobbied hard before AIPAC).

Thank you for your eloquence and courage. I could not have expressed my consternation nor distaste better!

I don't like the politicians visiting targeted churches either - and if they're subjected to the likes of Rick Warren's questions, why not the rabbis and priests, why not the hindus and muslims, why not the secularists and the theologions?
Rick Warren is obvious only because he's suggested a need for dialing back the extremes of religious issues in politics, and in that one way, he is symbolic of a much larger social trend - and it's a long term trend - and that is the growing tendency for people to actually be thinking for themselves.
If only for that one reason, then I can hold my nose, and say my own private prayers that this not get out of hand again - though these matters carry some grave and incendiary sparks.
How to govern all the people, when some want to hog the political discussion?
This question has at least some answers in attempting to meet with those who understand how out of bounds the politics has become over the last few cycles.
Rick Warren SEEMS to be wanting something a bit more civil.
We can only hope and pray it is so.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I am not a religious person, am an assuredly going to hell, but I am put off by the association with God and the church that politicians pull out come election time. And I find it especially egregious when that attention is only paid to the large Mega-churches (the ones with stadium size congregations) or the Mega-preachers (the ones with stadium size egos. It gives the appearance of special treatment for that preacher, church especially when that preacher can now go on TV or around the country and spout about all that X-politician has done for them.You're right, if they want to mingle church and state to give the appearance of a unified community then they should go to synagogues and mosques.

Excellently put, Susan!

The thought that we are going to elect a Pastor-in-Chief just makes me want to gag!!!

A President is supposed to represent ALL Americans, not only Christians of any ilk.

Like it or not, no matter what Obama does or does not do, he will be critized! Whether he agrees to debate McCain in a church, at a townhall meeting or on a stage before thousands of people there will be lots to be said about him. Is it because of his inexperience of holding public office...or because he just has a way of saying the politically rightor not so right things? After all, President George W. Bush was govenor of the state of Texas for several years and quite a business man before that and my oh my, his history lay bare for all to read and compare and good ole US citizens could read his record and decide wether or not to vote for him on those principles...what does Obama have to offer?

Right on!!

the phrase "pimping the American religious community" is the perfect description of what politicians are doing as they pretend to be "one of them".

It's a grab for votes, a pandering to one segment of society.

I am tired of politicians scrambling for the "evangelicals" as though they are the only significant religious group. they may give the most cash to campaigns but their stands on most issues are hardly mainstream or Christian.

I suggest both candiates get out of the church and stop this fawning over religious leaders.

Our country is looking more and more like the Middle Ages where church leaders held the real power - I don't want any of the current so called religious leaders to have power like that.

As a member of one of the three peace churches (the Quakers, Church of the Brethren, and Mennonites)who pioneered separation of church and state in America, we all need to be reminded that the real purpose of the law is to keep either government power or church power from ruling over the other.

Though we differ in our beliefs (I am an atheist) I appreciate the fact that some Christians, like Susan, value church-state separation. It is ironic that many evangelicals helped establish this separation in the early days of our nation's founding.

Smith's concerns about the candidates being interviewed in a church are akin to "much ado about nothing." The author is making way too much over the venue. If Obama and McCain met at the Kraft Foods national headquarters in Northfield, IL to be interviewed by the CEO of Oscar Meyer, would that mean they were pandering to the hot dog lovers of America? No . . . they would simply be using a venue with which millions of American hot dog lovers could identify. It just so happens that millions of Americans are church goers. Why criticize using such a setting simply to talk about their positions on the various issues? Nobody is going to be speaking from the pulpit and it's not a worship service.

Is it the concept of "democracy" or "theocracy" that is being offered to America and the world today? One has to wonder!

Forced theocracy will never change a nation for any god!

A god not served by choice is no god at all!

Rev. Smith
I am unimpressed by these candidates’ awkward advances upon my faith.
Obviously drunk on the lure of Presidential power, like gangling adolescents, they grin while groping my faith, attempting to coax, hoping to score…my vote. It ought to be a crime.

Excellent article Susan - and you're right. Keep politics and political campaigns out of church, period. Honor the bright line between Church and State, showing no preference for nor preoccupation with any religion or faith.

That would be the Constitutional thing to do - these lines of separation have been significantly blurred during the Bush years, where a certain extremist faction of the Christian faith has had an inordinate amount of influence over government policy decisions. This tendency has to be reversed.

Unfortunately these candidates both seem to see speaking in church in deference to a perceived campaign requirement - the majority of voters declare themselves to be religious, ergo politicians must pander to this political reality for the sake of votes.

Most of us are hoping that religious fundamentalism and fundamentalist thinking becomes a much more marginalized socio/political phenomenon in the years to come - hopefully to be kept out of government affairs altogether.

Gee, I wonder how loudly the Rick Warrens of the the world would yell if it were two muslims holding presidential debates/discussions in their mosque?

Then of course, there would be a church/state issue. Since it is christianity, there is absolutely no problem.

God, by the way, is no respecter of persons!

This minister makes sense.

Most of the points that you make are debatable either way as evidenced by the various responses. But it is truly sad to see that you have, as most protestant liberal churches and leaders have within the past 30 years or so, confused and muddied the search for truth with your feelings. People may feel offended when evangelicals say that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, but feelings should not matter in evaluating the claim. Either Jesus is or is not. Yes there are some envangelicals who sin and give off an air of superiority. But most evangelicals I know are humble as we should be.
My question to you would be how can you pastor a church when you are not even sure of what you believe in?

"......pimping the American religious community?"
Well put Susan K Smith. There is a certain sliminess in Rick Warren's willingness to be pimped out. What makes him the moral authority?

If the candidates were to use their church appearances to announce that if elected they'd seek an end to tax exemptions for religious organizations I'd be all for it. If not, let them stop pimping.

Most of the points that you make are debatable either way as evidenced by the various responses. But it is truly sad to see that you have, as most protestant liberal churches and leaders have within the past 30 years or so, confused and muddied the search for truth with your feelings. People may feel offended when evangelicals say that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, but feelings should not matter in evaluating the claim. Either Jesus is or is not. Yes there are some envangelicals who sin and give off an air of superiority. But most evangelicals I know are humble as we should be.

Pretty light-weight piece, Rev. Smith ...

OK, I think the author is being a little overly dramatic by saying the candidates are sending a dangerous message. Whatever. However, I do agree that candidates ought not be introduced in church unless they are a regular faithful, involved member of that church and have been so for a while. It also irks me when preachers introduce someone who has no concern for church affairs simply because they want to be elected. It bothers me even more when they are allowed to "say a few words." They get up and give honor to God probably for the first time in their lives. So disingenuous. Dangerous? Let's not get carried away.

I believe that the Church and State can not be separated the way that people want it. The Church is set up with people that work within the government as well in the public sector. I believe that the meaning of the Separating the Chuch and State is saying there will not be a State Church, however you are free to express what you believe on your own. Second Christianity is a way of life that can not be separated because you run for office or work within the government.Not all people running for office lie. However what you say and do you are the one that will have to answer to it. "Every Knee shalt bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord" The one you will have to answer to. You can fool men sometimes however you can never fool God.

just appearing in a church to meet with voters is not a violation of separation of church and state. (no that phrase does not appear verbatim in the constitution but feel free to re-read the 1st amendment or maybe the letters of jefferson and madison, where it does appear).
the 1st amendment prevents government sponsorship or curtailing of religious practice. if you're going to try to make that argument, at least know what the constitution actually says.

I think you're right on point, Dr. Smith, I take offense to anyone who "makes light" of the core function of the church. In my opinion, the holiness is removed when people use the church for opportunism.

The evangelicals are all about blurring the line between church and state. That's the real problem. The candidates would show up in the mega church if they were not INVITED!

Loved your comments. I won't step into a church because I think the people are incredibly judgemental and then sin as much as everyone else. However, if I could find a pastor like you in Charlotte, I think I would actually go!

I have had the same feelings every election season. I am a member of a mega AME church and my pastor, might, feel the same way. When "they" some they have to sit through the entire worship experience. He does not allow them to speak during the anouncements. They have to sit and listen to The Word before they utter a word; and on first Sundays they don't get to speak at all! It is communion Sunday and it is not used for political posturing.

I hear you, but your third paragraph pretty much answers the question--that is a mega-church with a mega-presence, mega-message, and mega-coverage. I read Time magazine's recent 4-5 page spread on Warren's latest blitz--he likes to do stuff rather than talk about doing stuff. He also doesn't mind having a legion of critics either. This seems mega-PR for both candidates and Warren, I believe might just ask the right questions.

I don't allow Sunday "voty calls" either--that is worship time and weekday forums seem to work much better. Church and state is a slippery slope to prohibit the claim by any "one" party or government to make the claim that God is on their side, yet on their money. I believe Constantine might have set a precedent for imposed religion by the state--I wonder how many folks just got "wet" from that state sponsored baptism.

I don't believe the evangelicals will get "religious" points of being better than or bigger than for this. Let us never forget the Moral Majority. Though this might anger you, I don't believe it will hurt much. Let the "games" begin.

Ozzie Smith

If a candidate is a Christian and he or she is having a discussion on faith; why not have it in a church setting? If a candidate only goes to church for funerals and votes, then that's a different story. With that being said, all Chrisitian churches should be included in this discussion setting. Not just the evangelicals. It is my personal belief that the evangelical church have forsaken their duty to evangelize and have become too political. They remind me of the early Roman Catholic church. Where it had more to do with gaining power than about faith in a loving God. This has turned many would-be Christians away. So, this may do more harm than good in regards to gaining overall votes. 1 + 1 - 2 = 0 It's just that simple. Why go after votes that could cause you to lose other votes. This whole election has been about foolishness. Let's have a discussion on real issues that are effecting every American.

I agree that politicians should not be allowed to use the pulpit to essentially campaign for office.
I am certain that it is not allowed in the synagogues or mosque.Part of the problem is the polital involvement/employment of many of the clergy.Ambitious folk often leave their common sense and respect at the starting gate..Interestingly,Rick Warrens book was/is a recommended book in many Black Churches.

I don't think that a political forum with Senator Obama and Senator MCCain should be held in an evangelical megachurch or any church for that matter. What purpose will it serve? I've learned over the years that the two (church and state) are separate for a reason; and that a politician who tries to manipulate any church can not be good. I don't believe that these men of the system would consent to a meeting in a church, synagogue, or an AME church. It is sad to think that they may be manipulating any church for political reasons.

Who cares what you like, Susan? Evangelicals constitute a substantical bloc of voters in this country. Your United "Church" of the Zeitgeist is dying and irrelevant to the concerns of anyone. Suck it up and deal with it.