IMO, churches should all pay income and property taxes. Then they could be as politically involved as any other entertainment enterprise.

After just reading the new book about Dobson and Focus on the Family and watching "Jesus Camp" I would have to respectfully say "none."

I don't want my church in government nor do I want government in my church.

Scott in Damascus,

I've had my own run-ins with Focus on the Family. They want you to think they represent Christ - but all they really represent is the Republican Party. You let the Religious Right win the debate if you accept their claim that to be Christian is to be conservative.

CC

The Democratic party has embraced and benefited from tens of millions of Irish, Italian, Polish and home-grown Catholics over the past 100 years or so. I am one of them.

I see little to be gained by posting articles dealing with religion on this or any other progressive site. Most of us US Catholics more or less ignore the Pope when it comes to birth control, abortion and equal rights for gays. But if you push us by making broad statements and condemnations regarding our religion and our heritage, we will react. In most cases, our reaction will be to say F* Y to the Dems and to join the Repubs. From my perspective, that would be very bad.

So, Happy Easter to all, and vote Dem!

As the director of a local organization, the Oregon Center for Christian Values, whose mission is to activate Christians to live out the values of the gospel I agree that faith can have a very positive role in public life. If ALL Oregon Christians really started living out the biblical values of caring for the poor, caring for sick, and caring for God's creation, we would see our state change for the better. Most recently, the movie "Amazing Grace," about the life of British abolitionist William Wilberforce, has reminded Christians that our central responsibility as citizens is to be a voice of conscience and to declare the vision for the common good that we find in words of our own scriptures.

They want you to think they represent Christ - but all they really represent is the Republican Party.

I think it is important to distinguish the Republican churches from the Christian Churches, including many evangelical Christian Churches who condemn homesexuality and abortion and have a large numbers of Republicans members. I don't agree with them or the politics of many of their members, but they are legitimate expressions of faith.

On the other hand, Pat Robertson followed his father into politics and created his "church" as a means of building his political base. He has been joined by a significant number of other phony Christians who are really just preaching the gospel of privilege and the politics of hate. They use "Christian" as a popular brand name like Disney. Too bad Christ didn't trademark his name.

You will find many of the traditional Christian churches on the front lines of battles for equality and justice. You won't find many food banks that aren't dependent on people of faith. Nor many low income advocacy groups who don't draw their support from faith based organizations.

Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez were both people of faith.

I think it's incorrect to believe that conservative Christians (or fundamentalists) are always lock-step Republicans. I predict we'll be seeing a growing schism as Mitt Romney's stature increases. The Conservative Baptists I was raised with would vote for a lot of Democrats before they would vote for a Mormon. While my efforts to appeal to fundamentalists on social justice issues as being truly Christian often seems to fall on deaf ears, IMHO, Democrats won't have to lift a finger for this rift to take root in the next year.

Hasan Rahimpur Azghadi: After the publication of the cartoons and the malicious affront to the Prophet, I went to Denmark to attend a seminar. I talked with them in order to do the very least I can to defend the honor and sanctity of the Prophet. I said to them: You claim that Islam was spread by the sword? Firstly, it was Christianity that was spread everywhere by the sword. Europe was Christianized out of fear of the swords of the Roman Empire. The American continent was Christianized by the European armies and battleships that attacked and occupied it. Africa was Christianized by the colonial armies of the 18th and 19th centuries. Where have Muslims ever accepted Islam under threat of the sword? Is it conceivable for a person to convert to Islam out of fear of the sword, only to lose his life because of the affront to the Prophet? At least 100 Muslims were killed in the protests against the cartoons of the Prophet. Was such devotion created by the power of the sword? When, in his book, the evil Salman Rushdie, offended the honor of the Prophet's wives, the mothers of the believers, and the Imam [Khomeini] said that killing this evil man is permitted, that whoever kills him is a martyr, and that even the publishers of this book should be killed... I said that this faith caused many Sunnis and Shiites to carry out operations that led to their martyrdom. There were some young Lebanese men who were unable [to kill Rushdie], but got martyred. Did we become Muslims by the sword?! Was all the culture, science, love between Shiites and Sunnis, and devotion to the Prophet and the Koran created by the sword? It was you who became Christian by the sword.

~WEM (WORSHIP EARTH :~: MUD)

Faith has no place in politics, just look where it has gotten us today. As soon as we start mixing beliefs and guesses into society it becomes merely a matter of time before rulers assert themselves as prophets or messengers of God... Sound familiar?

We believe that the integrity of both institutions [church and state] is best served when both institutions do not try to control the other.

That pretty much says it all. When one entity tries to assert more power over the other, trouble arises for both.

As skeptical as I may be about religion at times, I am comforted when I see those using their faith to do good works. It is unfortunate that too often vocal "believers" choose to focus on issues that tear people apart rather than build community. I would like to think charity and justice are core values of most religions; the world would be a better place if more people emphasized those "morals" as the good Reverend has shared with us.

As usual, Chuck likes to reference Falwell and Robertson but fails to mention his own denomination, the UCC, when it accepts state money in a clear violation of law. Even Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (and a UCC minister!) said he was "concerned" about what the UCC was doing. Full story at UCCtruths.com.

Chuck could also use some more theology classes.

Pilate could have cared less about Jesus and there's not a single line in the Gospels to suggest Pilate was scared of Jesus at all or even considered him a threat.

The Pharisees were the ones that condemned Jesus and trumped up charges against him - Luke 23:3. Pilate even hesitated to condemn Jesus... until the crowd insists. This isn't a Mel Gibson movie, this is the Bible.

Further, Christ never - NOT ONCE - ever challenged Rome. The implications of Christ not mixing politics and religion are obvious to honest readers of the Bible... but not to those like Chuck who want to use the Bible as a tool for political manipulation.

Dead on Gary. Pilate could have cared less about Jesus. The Pharisees wanted him dead. He was arrested by temple guards on the orders of the Sanhedrin. He was tried by the Sanhedrin and then turned over to Pilate. They accused him of trying to start a revolution. Pilate offered to free either Jesus or the murderer Barabbas. The crowd freed Barabbas and Pilate washed his hands of the situation because he knew it was unjust. Pilate refused to stand up to the crowd but probably avoided an insurrection by allowing the crowd's wishes. The Pharisees were Jewish (sort of). I consider them a lot like the evangelicals of today. I grew up in an evangelical church so I can assure you that the arrogance involved in being an evangelical is probably on par with that of being a pharisee.

I also don't recall Christ ever challenging Rome...I might be wrong...I quit attending church 10 years ago and haven't done much Bible reading recently. I will disagree with the assertation that Chuck is using the Bible for political manipulation. I don't think that was his intent at all. James Dobson and Pat Robertson use the Bible for political manipulation much like the Pharisees used God's word to incite a crowd in their day.

I'd encourage everyone to keep an eye out for Melody Barnes' interview on C-SPAN with Obery Hendricks, who wrote "The Politics of Jesus." In my mind Christianity was forever corrupted when St. Augustine made it the official religion of Rome, and Christians accepted the offer. After that, Christianity become a tool of the rich and powerful, diametrically contradicting its roots as a force for the poor and dispossed. Hendricks looks at Jesus' actions, which make him an inspirational figure, not latter day interpretations, which often remove the faithful from meaningful social engagement.

Here's the link the to yesterday's program: http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=551850616

Have and Active Easter!

HA HA! Chuck says "The site he refers you to is one operated by people who work closey with the ultra right-wing Institute on Religion and Democracy."

Thats how he avoids actually dealing with his own lies about Jesus... by creating new lies about people who call him out.

Garret & John: I agree with you 100%. It's not just the religious right though, check out the religious left too.

I don't care if it the religious righ or the religious left - none of us should want anyone's religion directly infused into the government.

It's completely indefensible and hypocritical to be against Falwell, Robertson or any of the religious loons on the right only to have them replaced by religious loons on the left.

Chuck, I've got nothing against the UCC just so you know. I was just saying that Gary happened to be right when asserting that the Romans really didn't have much to do with the death of Jesus. They allowed it to happen and they performed the crucifixion but it was the pharisees on the Sanhedrin that demanded his death. The Romans really could have cared less. Thats all I was saying. Just to make this clear...I am not blaming the Jews...I would place blame on the pharisees who were pretty much a political sect.

Gary...I really don't care about your UCC website. You're getting away from Chuck's point of the church staying out of politics and politics staying out of the church. He's right on that one.

This is not God--there is absolutely no evidence for him. People who believe in him are gullible fools.

Rev.:

I personally agree with much of what you say about the role of Christians and their faith in the secular realm, but I fear much of your commentary about the political alliance between conservative Christians and the Republican party lack credibility.

At what conservative blog did you also submit your essay? I've scanned a few and have yet to see it. Were you summarily rejected? Or are you indeed just as guilty of political alignment by submitting your thoughts to this very Democrat-friendly site?

I think the latter, and that's unfortunate.

And one other thing, Rev. Currie.

The "Jews" or more specifically the Pharisees did indeed not kill Jesus - the act was committed by the Romans as you say. Just a tree is guilty of killing the drunk driver behind the wheel after impact.

But only the most revisionist of opinions would fail to attribute the Pharisees - a sect of Judaism - with some blame for the progression of events, not unlike the alcohol the driver abused before stepping into his car.

And in the end blame is meaningless because the submission to the brutality was one of divine choice. But you're doing no favors to the historical truth of the matter by whitewashing out of fear to offend.

If those of us who are non-believers want to cast all people of faith out of the progressive tent, we would be in a pretty small tent.

Religion has been the foundation of much progressive social change - from abolition to civil rights to the War on Poverty. Religion has played a positive role. Unfortunately, progressive religious institutions have stepped back from movement politics to focus more on personal spiritual growth. Meanwhile, the religious institutions of the right were moving in the opposite direction and have filled that vacuum in the political sphere. It's up to their progressive co-religionists to stand up and denounce their interpretation, not us secularists. You need to police your own.

Additionally, people of faith need to be the one's arguing in the media that abortion and sexuality are no more religious issues than are poverty and racism. You can't rely on us secularists to do it for you, because then it becomes a false choice between faith and unbelief -- when really its a choice between decency and indecency.

Besides,if we were honest, it's not religious faith that we have a problem with; it's how faith is used to trump reason and all the rules of civil discourse. Faith has become the "because I said so" of modern political conversation. We are just frustrated by trying to reason with folks who refuse to engage on the field of rationality and rely on "I know what I believe" to excuse misogyny, homophobia and other belligerant intolerances. You might as well try arguing with a sponge. What we secularists need to learn is how to pick our battles.

All right. We did it. We killed Jesus, and we are responsible for every war in the world (Mel Gibson has been vilified for our sins).

We also view you "believers" as contemptible, self-serving morons. Any of you who are so certain of every "historical" fact of this small event that supposedly happened thousands of years ago deserve George Bush and Nancy Pelosi.

Rev. Currie:

Thank you for your honesty re: your position towards your own personal theology.

But I have to say - I'm not necessarily a fan of rainy winters, but those are the facts on the ground in western Oregon and you deal with it accordingly.

But that leaves me puzzled: if your theological position is one against "substitutionary atonement" then the only logical conclusion is that God is even more brutal than you realize.

If the crucifixion has has no theological implications for the believer, then you're basically saying God - if you acknowledge one as omnipotent and omniscient - basically let his son, if you believe in that orthodox notion, die a cruel death for absolutely no reason at all.

Now THAT is a cruel God that YOU have, dubious theology aside. So why celebrate Easter? What's the point of inviting all of these seemingly good readers to your Christian church? Why call it a Christian church if there's really no theological or conciliatory implication of the death of Jesus. Let me guess: your answer is that Jesus was a great teacher/rabbi of hope, reconciliation and forgiveness.

Well many people feel Steven Covey to be a good teacher, why not encourage everyone to meet you at the mall to celebrate his self-help books? And no yucky, untidy martyr death to deal with.

Have a happy Easter, to the extent it has theological meaning for you.

A heads up on the Jehovah Witnesses

The core dogma of the Watchtower organization is that Jesus had his second coming 'invisibly' in the year 1914.Their entire doctrinal superstructure is built on this falsehood.

There is good and valid reasons why there is such an outrage against the Watchtower for misleading millions of followers.Many have invested everything in the 'imminent' apocalyptic promises of the Jehovah's Witnesses and have died broken and beaten. The Watchtower has billions in assets and not one charity. Danny Haszard

<hr/>