should priests, preachers, rabbis, be allowed to tell you how to vote?

[mopaul]

isn't that a bit illegal, let alone unethical?

[Walt Starr]

1. ABSOLUTELY they should be allowed to tell their followers how to vote

right after they give up tax exemption for their newly formed PACs (which were formerly churches, temples, synagogues, etc.).

[tk2kewl]

2. If they do...

people should be smart enough to see them for charlatans that they are and call them on it. Three cheers for the brave folks in N.C.

[kwassa]

3. Most are wise enough not to

Congregations are often made up of a wide variety of political views, because politics is not what unites them in the first place.

[Jensen]

4. Is all those things PLUS.....

Totally DUMB...I as a woman honoring those who fought and fight to have a vote find such actions totally unacceptable.

WHY, we as a Nation, are not on that street about this and the many things that are happening to this Nation is totally incredible!:patriot:

[Ganja Ninja]

5. I think it's a good thing.

It separates the Bush worshipers from the truly religious. After that they can start passing out the Koolaid.

[saltpoint]

6. Your post made me think of the "Voters' Guides" the Far Right --

-- often uses to "suggest" to their fundie congregations that "liberals" are godless decadents.

It's certainly unethical, if not abominable, to smear public servants. Politicians can be disagreed with and voted out of office, but when fundies launch extensive smear campaigns they betray their own scriptures.

I'd like to see a yanking of tax-exempt status of those religious institutions who are blatantly promoting Bush or Frist or any other political personality or ideology.

Taxes would be retro-collectible from the 2000 election forward.

[ArkDem]

7. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be offended by your

comments.

[saltpoint]

9. My own ten cents here, but Jesse and Al are not trying to --

-- ram Jesus down the public schools' throats as the fundie Rethugs are.

They aren't calling for public policy to be based on private belief.

They more often than not summon scriptural inspiration to advance individual liberties.

I don't think their example is analogous to Jim Dobson and Ralph Reed.

[ArkDem]

25. We had better tread lightly here. In election cycles Democratic

candidates routinely speak at the Sunday pulpits in African American Churches across the country.

[saltpoint]

27. You're right, they do.

But Democratic candidates like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton don't use their affiliation with churches to restrict library book selection in local communities, for example.

There is a strong, exuberant pro-Democratic virve in their appearances at churches, yes. But the Rethugs' church events are almost specifically anti-liberal.

I think that's the difference I was trying to get at, but I didn't do a very good job of it.

[ktowntennesseedem]

8. As one American to another, they can tell me whatever they want.

But when they are speaking from the pulpit or lecturn, or in any other way in which they are speaking on behalf of a religious organization, no way. And since it's not easy separating the person from the position, it would be difficult at best for them to speak specifics under any circumstance; even if I'm talking to them at the grocery store or over the back fence (a al "Home Improvement"), he or she would still be my minister.

[immoderate]

10. they shouldn't tell you how to vote, but....

I think they can tell you how they would vote. To be prohibited from expressing their choice sounds like a First Amendment violation to me.

--IMM

[leftofthedial]

11. they are allowed to say whatever they want

but if they tell you how to vote, they should pay taxes.

(Personally, I think religion is a con game and they should not be allowed to perpetrate fraud, but we'll go with "pay taxes" for now.)

[MemphisTiger]

12. Absolutely NOT, when the congregation looks to their church

leader for spiritual guidance, politics should not be involved.

[sweetheart]

13. hell yes

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are sacrosanct. They have
no right to coerce people to vote, but they've every right to say their
peice.

[Demit]

16. Sure they do. But they don't get to keep their govt tax exemption too.

They're trying to have it both ways--being a religious organization and a political one. That they DON'T have a right to.

[sweetheart]

23. fine with me

I don't believe in the concept of a non-prophet anywhays. They
should all be taxed equally as non-persons.

[Demit]

24. LOL! Non-prophets is what they are, non-profit what they pretend to be

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. No

But all religions have ethical standards, and it is certainly within the purvue of the clergy to remind voters of that particular religion's ethical standards.

In 2000, my priest in Portland preached a sermon just before the election and asked us to consider the state of the country, what we knew about the teachings of Jesus, and which candidates would contribute toward creating a society of peace and justice.

Here in Minneapolis, the priests have urged us to call our state legislators telling them not to forget the needy during budget deliberations. I don't recall any particular sermons from the election season, especially not any endorsing candidates.

But mainstream Protestants tend to be pretty careful about non-partisanship. I can't recall ever hearing clergy endorse a specific candidate.

[bryant69]

15. Where does the interesection of politics and morality meet?

My religion has a strict policy of not speaking out on political leaders or parties, which I think is a good policy. A moral policy.

On the other hand speaking out on moral issues, isn't that sort of the whole point to having a religion.

Now you might disagree with what a religious leader would say. Nothing wrong with that in a democracy

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[KansDem]

17. I attended church religiously from kindergarten through high school...

and never once heard the minister tell the congregation how to vote.

[PsychoDad]

18. Sure, they can tell me whatever they want.

It's up to me whether or not I'm gonna be a sheep and follow.

[spanone]

19. Not while benefitting from tax exemptions.

[Qanisqineq]

20. No.

I think they can tell you who they are voting for, but not who you should vote for.

Anyway, if you are too dumb to decide on your own, you are too dumb to vote.

[BiggJawn]

21. Sure...

Just as soon as they disclose the holdings on their church and PAY TAXES ON IT!

They can tell me how to vote, shit, they can even threaten to Excommunicate, shuin, make fun of me from the Pulpit, whatever.

Doesn't mean I gotta obey them.

Hmmm. I think I just got to the root of why I don't get along well with Religion....

[Q]

God supports candidate X...

...while candidate Z is going to hell.

RWingers are taking advantage of the fact that many Americans haven't read enough history to understand that this nation was founded on the principles of 'religious freedom'...meaning freedom OF and FROM.

The Bill of Rights is dead (except for the 2nd amendment). The bitter irony is that Democrats...through their inaction and cowardice...helped bury it.

[jojo54]

22. Agreeing with a lot of replys here.

Yes, they should be able to have their opinions and views, just like the rest of us.

No, they can NOT tell us who to vote for. As a preacher, minister, priest etc, they are speaking through god, and for god. At least, that's what I was taught as a youngster.

So in turn, if they are trying to tell you how to vote or who to vote for, then they in turn are telling you god is of one political preference or the other.

One more thing, your party preference is one thing and your religious preference is quite something else - should not be combined under any circumstances. IMHO.

[Democratic Liberal]

26. No

Religioun and stateaffairs should be strictly seperated. What George Bush and all the tv ministers are doing can be very dangerous. Religion shouldn't be used for political gain. Look at what this has lead to in countries like Iran.