Some Pastors are more political than others.  It's been my experience knowning many Pastors, some well known, some not, that most are not political.  The ones that come to mind as overtly political would be Jerry Falwell, D.James Kennedy and Rick Warren.   Right now, two of the three are dead. 

But many others, big and small are not telling their people how to vote.  The more political they are the more they may  speak out on social issues like abortion and homosexuality telling their congregations repeatedly how wrong this would be and not to vote for anyone with that mindset.  But I've never heard one specifically, from the pulpit, tell anyone who to vote for.   

My husband, a preacher, would NOT speak on politics from the pulpit.  He felt that preachers have the awesome responsibility to preach the gospel and should stay out of politics.  If you're preaching the gospel correctly, the other will take care of itself.  Too sad, but many are not preaching like they should nowadays.  Churches today are more social than gospel. 

As far as outside the church, believers, like any group have the right to organize and support whom they wish.  That's democracy. 

The reason why the strongest Christians support say the Republican party is because the Republican Party, has in the past, been the strongest advocate for biblical values.   I tend to vote for the man, not the party but so far there hasn't been a Democrat I could, biblically speaking, put my support behind.  As soon as they say they support abortion or homosexuality I have to follow my conscience which is centered around the Word of God. 

In the long run tho, I know it really doesn't matter because the world is going in a direction that will not be stopped.  It's been predicted and it's pretty easy to say that all systems are go exactly as written. 

This feminization of the churches is just another sign (in a long list) showing where we are heading. 

pushing the Jesus guy?     I like that.  Ya, I'm a Jesus Freak.  I admit that.  He's where it's at so ya, I guess I'll keep pushing the Jesus guy... LOL. 

That's not it.  I keep telling you.  You can mention it but not proselytize it.  You are, without a doubt, putting down Catholic Commentary stuff verbatim.  If you speak from your heart or discuss scripture, fine.  But don't sit down and unload a dictionary of Catholic belief here.  I know the difference.  You know that. 

well the way you say it, makes it look pretty silly but remember little kids like to dress up and make believe.  When my kids (three little boys) were little they were always play acting.  For a while there I never thought I'd get my youngest out of his Ninja Turtle outfit.  At least Bibleman stands for good pure stuff.   To me that's better than dressing up like the devil. 

I didn't think this sideissue warranted so much attention. It's more meant in the direction of a social sciences approach  to how societies and organized religions mesh together and my internal focus had been more on the question why different religious beliefs are enough grounds to kill someone. War over religion seems to be so pointless.

Thank you for your answer, KFC. It is interesting to hear your point of view and personal experience on this, all I had was a statistic and oppinion poll. And the family research council's homepage.

Utemia posts:

kfc posts:

 leauki posts:

The World Book definition of "religion" is  1. Belief in God or gods. 2. worship of God or gods  3. A particular system of religious belief and worship.  4. Anything done with reverence or devotion.

Protestantism then is a religion developed in the 1500s that definitely has a history.  

I enjoyed reading the back and forth between Utemia and Leauki ......With the exception of points concerning Germany, of which I know little, I think Leauki's points regarding religious people in the public square were well made.

Germany has valid treaties signed with the Vatican that concern the teaching of religion in schools and the qualification of the teachers. That is one intertwinement of government and religion. Nowadays, students can opt out of religious class and take ethics or philosophy classes instead. Also, catholic religion in school was more about church history and knowledge about religion and theology and not so much about conveying faith. My teachers weren't priests either.

Then there is an official church tax that you pay when you're a registered member of your denomination. And yeah, the catholic and protestant bishop conferences that gather do talk about moral and social issues and make statements on them. There is also a division in Germany between predominantly protestant and catholic regions (and regions where people were recatholicized.) Interestingly enough, it always carried a political significance in the past wether someone in a position of power was protestant or catholic. In some region, I dare say it still does.

It is an interesting historic issue in itself how the protestant and catholic church tried to redefine themselves after WW2 and find a new social and political identity in the new west german state. The allied command was certainly interested in working together with the churches because they held a certain power on a local level. I don't think this issue is overly interesting for americans per se, not even most germans know alot about it.

This is NOT a good movie and is not getting rave reviews from the evangelicals I know.  I would not support this at all.  Just so you know.   It's not biblical but more political than anything. 

I noticed it's centered around a woman Pastor!  Again, if they're wrong about this simple mandated scripture what else are they wrong about?  What they are doing with young children's minds is not unlike what the jihadists are doing with their young children as well. 

I know in Poland that the government is tightly controlled by the RCC.  The Baptists (and other groups) are being taxed where the RCC is not.  The RCC owns much property while the other denominations are poor and struggling.  And there is alot of friction because the RCC does not look kindly on the Protestant groups around them.   Many, in government jobs who wish to go to the Protestant churches have to do so in secrecy in order to keep their jobs. 

I agree with your sentiment about the movie. I found it very interesting in a creepy sort of way nontheless. The most interesting part for me of that film was that there was no narrator and especially the kids seemed to talk freely. Of course, I didnt know what questions had been asked to get them talking.

I think you're spot on with the comparison to jihadists, that part scared me the most. It is good to know that these aren't in the majority.

Even if they stand for a minority, there are enough issues that overlap to get a broad idea about what many think about abortion, family, patriotism etc. If you don't know alot about evangelicals in general it isn't a too bad place to start. Of course a critical evaluation is necessary but extrapolating to more general terms is possible.

I see you are still whining about Poland. 

 As far as I'm concerned, Poland's Catholicity brought it out of Communism.   Talk about being persecuted for their religion...that's Polish Catholics under Communism.

Poland isn't tightly controlled by the Chruch...but it may be tightly controlled by Catholics.

Poland is a Catholic country as was the rest of Europe including England, Scotland and part of Ireland. But unlike them, Poland was not taken over into Protestantism as a result of the Protestant Revolt that began in 1517 Look where Europe, England and the Scandinavian countries (which were wholly Protestant )are now! Protestantism failed...they are secular, or deep into Marxist socialistism or Islamified.

Will this happen to us in America...time will tell.

It's not often addressed, but at the founding of America, the Protestants held sway and for nearly 100 years, they would not allow Catholics to vote, hold office and they taxed them unfairly too.

Isn't that movie about some weird Pentecostal sect? I'm not sure if that should be taken as representative for all of Christianity or even Evangelicals. That would be like judging Islam based on solely the acts of Al-Qaeda and the "Jesus Camp" is not even in the same league as the more moderate Islamic fundamentalist groups.

But Christianity can safely be "criticised" and hence such a movie is regarded as a "documentary" whereas a movie about some of the Islamic sects the media call "moderate" (despite their murderous ideologies) are considered hate crimes.

Many feel like they are being very brave when they criticise Christian fundamentalists, but in reality they do it because doing do is (almost) completely safe and because criticising other groups requires too much reality to be faced.

England didn't really become Protestant as such. The king just wanted to divorce and execute his wives a bit too often and the Pope (naturally and rightly so) wouldn't allow it any more. That's when England decided to become "Protestant". It wasn't about injustices or theological differences at all.

I wouldn't call Ireland a Catholic country any more. Few people go to mass and the Catholic Church has in recent years been demonstrated to be exactly what many church buildings say they were: a refuge for sinners (if you get my meaning).

The same scandal is now unfolding in Germany. The Protestant countries have nothing of the sort. So while the secular states with mostly Protestant populations have failed, their churches have not (necessarily). But the Catholic Church failed big time.

In Poland the Catholic Church did good, but in Germany it, like the Protestant churches, refuses to protect Christianity and speak up against Islamisation (although individual Catholic clerics do) and has now lost its good name and hence its power to act as well.

That's true and I thought well known.

But the viewer is entirely left on his own to make up his mind wether what happens in that summer camp is good or not. It's not about a sect, it's a film about a pentacostal summer biblecamp that was open to everybody that wanted to go there. They show what happened in the camp and with what methods those children were "brainwashed" - THAT was the focus of the intended criticism, not christianity. It's is not a bad documentary at all for that purpose because it drives the point home pretty well, so there's no need for quotationmarks. This bible summer camp has since then closed as a result of the movie.

It isn't representative documentary of evangelical christians in the US and I didn't understand it as such, and I can understand why KFC doesn't want to be compared to that female pastor who ran the camp, which I never did. But nevertheless, if you're an academic it isn't very difficult to extrapolate general moral issues that seemed important to the people in the film, and they are not so very different from what I read from many users on JU.

Interesting side-bar. I went to a Catholic University and we were required to take 2 years of religion/philosophy.  But I actaully enjoyed most of the classes.  The one about the history of the Early Christian Church was taught by a Methodist Minister.  The course covered the period of just after the death and resurrection of Christ to about 400AD.

The founding of the colonies?  Or of the US?  Clearly the latter is incorrect since Maryland was founded as a Catholic Colony (Lord Baltimore being a catholic).

DrGuy - the treaty I was referring to is called "Reichskonkordat" and it is not without controversy because it was signed under Hitler's reign in 1933. I won't go into the controversial issues here, but the information is easy to research.

The Federal Republic of Germany was viewed as the legal successor of the 3rd Reich and so the treaty remained valid and is valid today.

LINK

Freudian slip.

lula

The Protestant movement began in Germany when Luther, a Catholic, in various ways rebelled against the authority of the CC. In 1534, Henry VIII Tudor, a Catholic in England basically did the same...the differences being that Luther threw out the Sacraments and denied CC teachings  by preaching heretical doctrines while Henry apostasized and made himself the head of his own Church of England.   

Leauki posts:

The Catholic Chruch and Faith was deeply rooted in England for centuries.....but was supplanted with the Protestant Church of England. The immediate cause of the rupture was indeed about theological difference... the Pope refused to sanction Henry's divorce which both Scripture and the Church forbade.  And yes, check history...after the apostasy of England from Cathollicism came the persecution of Catholics and grave injustices....I'm referring to the Acts of Parliament passed in the reigns of Henry's successors, Edward VI and Elizabeth...both became the supreme heads of the Church of England. Under them, to become Catholic was to commit an act of high treason. Catholics were forced to attend Protestant worship, or their lands would be forfeited and they became civil outlaws.

Espionage and treachery against Catholics was rewarded. A 1605 statue in Parliament read, "Any person discovering where Mass was celebrated, shall have his own pardon and one-third of the goods forfeited by the attainder." Executions speedily began. Sir James Stephens reckons them at about 800 a year. Cardinal Newman's Present Position of Catholics in England, pp. 215-217.

In England today, a Catholic still cannot hold office or become monarch but a Muslim, Jew, Jehovah Witness or Quaker can.

Leauki posts:

No. Leauki, the Catholic Church didn't fail and never will or can fail...for as Christ promised He would be with her until the end of time and the gates of Hell will not prevail.

Yes, granted the frail, human side of the Mystical Body of Christ is full of sinners and Catholics themselves condemn the bad conduct of anyone of her individual members, her priests and religious included, stonger than you. Our Lord also told us faithful that scandals would come and woe to those who cause them.

lula posts:

Dr.Guy:

Yes, Protestant anti-Catholicsm was at the strongest during the time of the founding of the colonies but it went through 1865...Catholics got to vote around the same time slavery was abolished.

After all, the Puritans had come from England where they were cradled and most bitter against the Church and Catholicism. Ever hear of the yearly celebration on Guy Fawkes Day aka "Popes Day"? That's when the Colonialists paraded burned effigies of the Pope up and down the Eastern coastline while the children sang anti-Catholic songs. This went on for 150 years until 1775 when George Washington wanting to secure the aid of French Catholic Canada and Catholic France in the revolution put a stop to it.

That the colony of Maryland had a Catholic founder didn't change the fact that there were still social, political and religious constraints on Catholics. A law stated that "none who profess to exercise the Popish religion can be protected in this province."   

utemia posts:

In view of the fact that this is off topic, and I don't want to get KFC's dander up, I'll direct you to to another thread in which the Treaty was discussed.

https://forums.joeuser.com/139973/page/1/#replies

If you can open it, my comments begin with post #41.

Thanks for the link Lula, I checked it out but it is a LOT to read and I only skimmed over the threads.

The link I gave is to a translated version of the Reichskonkordat and there is a small explanation why a international treaty made under Hitler was carried over to the new german state. That is about as far as I wanted to go into it.

PS
Germany is a special case in that it wasn't until the 19th century that a somewhat cohesive political union that could be called a nation was established. Before that it were many many little small states, citiy states, big empires like Habsburg (which was catholic)  and Prussia (which wasn't), church states etc and the denomination played a political role. It always had to do with money - the church collected taxes and having catholics living in an area meant that they could collect. If that area was protestant that meant a budget cut, so to speak, and it was thus a strategic aim in several wars to alter the denomination of the population in order to raise taxes. I think people here sometimes forget realpolitik that had been associated with religion because today it isn't anymore. I mean way back when the Vatican had its own army and waged wars.

It's been a busy day and haven't had time to read all the responses.  Maybe I'll be back later. 

And why would that be Lula?  Would they be bitter for just no reason?  Hmmmm?  Would RCC bloodshed have anything to do with this? 

No Lula, show me where he said the RCC would never fail.  Show me in scripture!   Don't give me a RCC encylopedia, give me a scripture using Jesus' own words. 

KFC posts:

As we read through the Gospels, we read that Christ established a Church founded upon the Twelve Apostles with Peter as its earthly head. Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Chruch, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven." St.Matt. 16: 18-19.   

Later, just before Christ ascended into Heaven He went to His Apostles....

"and Jesus came and said to them, "All power is given to Me  in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded, and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." St.Matt. 28: 18-20.  

I've provided Scripture that shows Christ established a Church and said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it and that He would be with it all days till the end. Now there has been only one Church that has been in existence all days since Christ and that is the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.

If the Catholic Church failed then the gates of Hell prevailed against Christ's Church and that would make Christ not keeping His word and we know that Christ can not deceive or be deceived.

No Lula.  There is NO scripture that says the church in Matthew 16 is the RCC. 

The word church in Greek is "Ecclesia"  which means "called out ones." 

It has nothing to do with the RCC.  Church is believers.  People.  It's NOT denomination.  And Christ is right on.  The church is still here made up of believers in many denominations.  The church was started in Acts 2 with Pentecost made up of Jewish Believers ONLY.  That was the beginning of the church.  AND it wasn't even in Rome.  It was in Jerusalem! 

In the 4th Century starting with Constantine is the start of the RCC.  Not with Peter.  They went backwards later and Claimed Peter as their first leader but that doesn't make it true. 

So, no you did not show me in scripture where Christ is talking about the RCC. 

There's no doubt that the Puritans were anti-Catholic and wanted to set up a new world where the government-religion tyranny would not be a reality thus setting the stage for our Constitution. 

You mention that it wasn't until 1865 that the Catholics were allowed to vote.  I'd have to check on that but will take your word for it now.   Funny tho, that you didn't mention that Protestantism didn't become even legal in France until 1598.  So of course with this background the Protestants's needed a place to feel safe.  So why did the Catholics follow them even to the New World?  They had France and most, if not all of Europe. 

That was after (1572) when the French Protestants (Huguenots) were slaughtered on St. Bartholemew's Day.  Ten thousand Protestants died on that day and not until the Edict of Nantes in 1598 did Protestantism become legal. 

So which is worse?  Not being able to vote cuz you're Catholic in the early days of our country or being massacred because you're Protestant, using a Saint's holiday no less? 

Which is worse being a Catholic in a Protestant New World or being an outlawed (and hunted down) Protestant in France in 1572? 

I couldn't find anything on this Lula.  Can you furnish a link?   I did find a timeline from the ACLU's website on voting in America.  Here's a sampling but nothing on what you said and it wasn't just the Catholics barred from voting in the early days as you make it seem.  :

And let's not forget that the wealthiest man who signed the Declaration was a Catholic.  His name was Charles Carroll.  Here's the link for the timeline:  http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/voting-rights-act-timeline

Why would a Jew create the Catholic Church? How could a Jew create the Catholic Church?