Posted by uknow1 on January 2, 2008 at 2:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another Anti-American who wants to ramrod his beliefs down everyone else's throats! If you don't believe in science, the Constitution, evolution, or the seperation of church and state, or tax laws, and believe that everyone who doesn't buy into YOUR religion is a heathen who is wrong and you're right, then follow-this guys credo. The arrogance to say "so what" to violating long-standing federal law is hard to fathom from a man of the cloth (laugh here). Afraid of reality. Afraid to make their own decisions. And, if you want to further divide this country and see it totally go down the drain, then get in line behind these clowns... Or, become informed on your own. Do some deep Internet research as to the real backgrounds of these candidates, and do not believe what you hear on the TV news, and form your own opinion. Google Huckabee, or Edwards. Spend an hour reading into their backgrounds. Is that too much of an effort to help save your country? Do you believe in yourself enough to do that? Or do you gotta pretend that everyone of these charlatans who comes down the pike is your long, lost, daddy for you to finally latch on to and be saved by? Get a grip. This is one and the same group who was behind Bush, though they will deny it now. Where'd that get you? Endless war,a bankrupt country on the precipice, exorbitant gasoline prices (regular gas was $1.46 when Bush came into office), not to mention other escalating energy costs, health insurance that is now designed to ripoff the people they're suppose to protect, usery rates on credit cards, the sub-prime lending debacle, and the list if damages to American families over the course of the last seven years goes on and on and on....want more of it? That's the road this guy and his candidate(s) will take you down. Hope you enjoy the ride!

Posted by bombero42 on January 2, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent posts! They say insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The same type of unworldly, politically naive ministers and voters put George Bush in office. They can't admit that they share responsibility for 4000 death and tens of thousands wounded American soldier. They also share responsibility for the 3 trillion in additional national debt added under Bush. The horror of facing that truth leads them to ignore it and continue on their same ignorant path.

Posted by Freedom1 on January 2, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He won't be saying "So What" if the income of his Church and it's holdings are subject to taxation because of his blatant disregard for the law. And, I sincerely hope that the IRS goes after him - the sooner the better!

Posted by Blizzy on January 2, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a Bush supporting right wing nutjob, and a moderate Christian. Crazy huh?

So much publicity for the people who don't support a President, openly showing those who oppose us that we lack unity. Why would I want to be part of a crowd that encourages our enemies to see our weaknesses?

Posted by aliceblois on January 2, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In reading the article, I see nothing illegal or unethical about Rev. McCoy's actions. (He does not endorse any specific candidate, but rather encourages believers to seek leaders of faith). Why are the "liberal minded" posters above so threatened by his use of free speech? Seems a bit close minded and (gasp) judgmental to me. Would you ever dare to endorse such bigoted views about anyone of any other religion? I think the above posters need to take their own advice to "spend an hour reading" and think for themselves rather than believing everything you hear in the news. Do you think all Christians are close minded and ignorant? Look in the mirror.

Posted by Jacksprat on January 2, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There were several of the writers of the constitution that saw a proble with religion and the goverment. So they made sure that these was covered to prevent just what is happening now. If we look at countries like Iraq, Patasine, and so on where there is no freedom of or from religion, in these countries your have to follow the religion of the leaders, and now look at the mess there. Hundreds are being killed, many more put in jail. Is this what we want here. The Constitution says no, so men like this one and all of the others should stay out of the political race, they don't belong there. It is right for them to tell the people in their church to go vote, but wrong to spend church money to go to other place to help certain people by getting those who favor them out to vote. they need to stay at home.
God bless America, maybe we will not loose our freedom, let us hope that the voters have a mind of their own.
Happy New Year.

Posted by Freedom1 on January 2, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Couldn't have said it better jmcgaw3046! And a Happy New Year to you and yours.

Posted by DoctorDude on January 2, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry but you Evangelical "Christians" REALLY messed up by installing your false prophet in the Whitehouse these last 7 years. The Dude you gave us looked to the Lord for guidance yet only brought death and devastation to the world. Don't you think that the "Christian" thing to do would be to defer to reality based voters this time 'round. SERIOUSLY.

Posted by RelaxPeople on January 2, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

what's unethical is the newspaper giving this dude the front page. i think its funny that christians think christian politicians are any better than non christian leaders?!?! get real, vote for the person that can do the most good for america, california, and ventura county.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on January 2, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

aliceblois ,Great Comment!
I do believe everyone should read up and learn all they can on all the candidates. BUT remember some that are running are for things that totally against what the bible says. And as a Christian and believer of the Bible I would not vote for those.............just my beliefs. But to each his own. Its a free country and anyone can vote for who they feel will do the best job!!!!
People talk about Bush and all the men we lost in the war yet we are talking about some candidates that are for abortion......just how many will be killed then????I would say in the thousands if not millions.

Posted by LoveSantaPaula on January 2, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I could not disagree with you more: The DUDE in the whitehouse did not look to the Lord for guidance! If he had, we would not be in the Middle East and the DUDE would have made wise decisions. Maybe the DUDE used his "Christianity" to dupe his supporters. There is nothing wrong with voting for people of "faith" -- the problem is that unless we know them personally, we really don't know if the candidates are really men/women of faith or just pretending to be.

PS: just because a person is of "faith" does not mean he/she is a Christian. I have met many Muslims of faith, Buddists of faith, Jews of faith, etc.

Posted by hemlock1262 on January 2, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I personally am appealing to Satan to smite down these promoters of apostasy, these spawn of fools, these glib, tongue-talking, snake-handling, carnival hucksters. And anyone they vote for. And I encourage everyone to go to the polls and write "Beelzebub" in as their preferred candidate. Only when America turns with its arms open to the Dark Master will we truly achieve greatness. 666 is the sign of salvation.

And of course, I can say that, because, as the good reverend puts it, there's absolutely nothing wrong with applying "faith" to politics.

Because it's not like Green is a racist, Christo-fascist agent provocateur or anything -- he just understands how important "faith" is in politics.

Posted by surfmedic91 on January 2, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SpeakingTruthfully: If the "Dude" in the Whitehouse did look to a religious figure for guidance, then he would have joined the religious fighting in the Middle East long ago. The reason there is a "war" in Iraq is because of religious disagreements. If it was over say, a union contract dispute, we wouldn't be involved.

Posted by freethought on January 2, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Blizzy - Our enemies already know our greatest weakness. His name is George W. Bush.

Posted by freethought on January 2, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

aliceblois - I'm with you on nothing being offensive about the article. I'm an atheist, and I don't see anything threatening about it. The only thing that really offends me anymore are those who are easily offended (some consider my very existence offensive, which is not a nice thing to say to anyone).

Posted by freethought on January 2, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AnnaWhaat - Not only are some of the candidates for abortion, the majority of this country's citizens are for abortion. That's why it's still legal. That's how democracy works.

Posted by nick2fot on January 2, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why should the leaders of any Christian faith-based organization, such as the Renewal Project, need to be anonymous? This sounds more like a revival of the KKK. More importantly, why would any Christian choose to be led by people who will not reveal their identities. Jesus did not elect to whisper his message from the shadows. Rob McCoy has done Calvary Church a great disservice. Whatever his agenda, it is clear that it has little to do with Christianity.

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCoy may well have an effective political strategy, but it's a crummy Christian attitude. The use of the word "we" implies a "them vs. us" attitude that is successfully alienating many from Christianity.

It's really time for Christians to decide what kingdom they want to build -- the one here on earth or the one in heaven.

Posted by keem_s on January 2, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey freethought, if the majority says its ok to kill the minority, well that's ok because it's a democracy right?

This country is a democratic republic not a true democracy to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One other thing: In reading the comments here, I'm really taken aback by how many folks are blaming God for the acts of George Bush. Don't blame God -- Bush acted on his own. Bush may try to justify his actions with some kind of misguided religiosity, but what Bush does has nothing to do with who God is or what God wants.

Posted by Comments on January 2, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a stauch believer of the separation of church and state and feel that religion has no place in politics. I'm an equally staunch believer in the freedom of speech, so this guy can say and preach whatever the heck he wants. I could care less. However, he knows the rules and the law and in my opinion he is doing more than skating on thin ice. I've long been baffled by the fact that churches are allowed tax exempt status. I hope that the IRS does indeed audit this man and tax him and his organization accordingly.

I agree with the poster who said that we all have a responsibility to explore each candidate on our own and as well as we can. Then, we should make an informed decision based upon the things we feel will make this country a better place. And to AnnaWhat... our country should be and is supposed to be run according to our CONSTITUTION, not the bible. There have been plenty of presidents in the past who were spiritual, but fortunately for us they kept that separate from running the country. There are people of many different faiths in this country, as well as people who don't follow a faith at all. All of those individuals deserve equal representation and our constitution, flaws and all does that the best.

A candidate who wears his/her faith on their sleeve and is trying to win on faith alone makes me run screaming in another direction.

Posted by jjmount on January 2, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

all I have to say is that there must be some truth to what Rob is saying to get a reaction like this. Otherwise everyone would know it is false and wouldn't care and make a big fuss over it like all you have.

Posted by freethought on January 2, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Comments - Nicely put.

drumsnwhistles - Also nicley put. I think we need to stop blaming God as well. I don't blame God, as that, for me, would be the same blaming Zeus or my fairy god mother.

keem_s - your comparison is extreme, but yes, that would be democracy, as hard as it is to believe. If a minority group were to ever be targeted in such a way (although I am certain and absolutely hope they never will in this country), I'd expect they'd need to get out of town quick. That's called self-preservation.

Posted by freethought on January 2, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

keem_s - I will amend my statement some if you don't mind terribly. One characteristic of a democracy is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority (got that from Wikipedia), which makes sense. So, both our statements are rendered moot based on that established definition. The problem with your comparison is that you are equating a human embryo or unborn fetus (depending on the stage of development) to a birthed human being. The standing law does not see things your way. Get that changed first. Then, we can make the comparison. You can talk or type until you are blue in the face and/or fingers, calling abortions murder and a crime against humanity, and it won't matter until the majority agrees with you.

Posted by michael on January 2, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Surfmedic1 - We're in Iraq because of this country's dependence upon foreign oil; caused by years of the oil and auto lobbyists having a grip on our reelection-dependent politicians; we are not there because of religious differences between the Sunnis, Kurds or Shia.

I'm so fed up with the evangelical "born-again" christians trying to force their hypocrisy upon a media-driven social consciousness. Are we too lazy, as a voting polulace, to investigate the true character and history of the candidates, and rely less upon the media hype and sound bytes? Until we all recognize that religion and politics should be separate, as did our founding fathers, we'll be proliferating the human race's penchant for intolerance of their neighbor, who might pray to a different God. How MANY, in the history of man, have died in the name of God, or for a religious cause?

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael --

Sadly enough, I do think we live in a sound-bite society that will spend more time reading about Britney Spears' latest legal tussle than analyzing the candidates. That's a loss for the political process in this country. A big one.

Think back to the 'swiftboat' campaign done by the Rove/Bush group in the last election. It was fiction which served its purpose.

What concerns me about the attitude that Rev McCoy has is this: In a culture where people would rather react than research, he has the ability to influence the political landscape and he knows it. So be it.

What I object to is the politicization of faith. The price McCoy pays for his political activism is alienation. One read through these comments shows that, and that alienation means some will not hear the true message of Christ -- having peace, a stable center, and a love for our fellow man.

I can't help wondering how he can trade off the command to love one another for the mandate to elect one another.

(I'm a Christian who believes that politics have absolutely no business in churches. Period...just in case you hadn't figured that out)

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It will surprise most people to learn that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. Nor do any words like them. What the Constitution does say is this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

That's it. There's nothing more. Those words are from the 1st Amendment.

Jefferson authorized and attended church services in the Supreme Court chambers and had the Marine Corps Band provide music - So much for "separation of church and state". He also authorized federal monies to go to ministers who worked with the Indians. The clause was meant to keep the state out of the church not the church out of the state.

More than 20 signers of the Declaration of Independence has seminary degrees. Read Washington's farewell address to the Nation. Or take a tour of the capitol and see "federal" monuments giving glory to God.

Churches have just as much right to the political arena as anyone else. I agree with the idea that tax exempt status is no big deal - so what! - Let the churches lose it - So what!

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 2, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So christians should not be involved in politics...the abolistionist should have just shutup and let slavery continue- Martin Luther King Jr. should have kept his mouth shut about civil rights endowed by God and stayed out of an Atlanta prison - Dietrich Boenhoffer should have let Hitler continue without complaining of the killing of Jews...Christians have a moral obligation to be involved in the political process...

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Being involved in the political process individually is absolutely an obligation all of us have, whether we're Christian or not. The issue isn't whether individuals should be involved; it's whether "the church", as a body protected by Constitutional freedoms that other institutions don't receive should engage in the political process.

I couldn't give a whit about whether the Constitution has or doesn't have a church/state provision. This is about what the purpose of churches is and is not. McCoy, by involving his "church" in the political landscape, has made a decision about what master he serves.

When someone can show me where Jesus endorsed a politician I might reconsider. Until then, I think I'll stick to what I believe my purpose and message to be.

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 2, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drumsnwhistles:

John the Baptist came agaist Herod's political actions and Jesus said of him..."of men born of women there is none greater than John (the Baptist). He called us to be the salt of the earth (moral preservative) - He spoke out against the killing of babies by Herod - acknowledge Rome's authority - he was political. The Noatic covenant ordained government for the protection of society. Romans chapter 13 is all about civil authority and being involved. If you don't believe it all why follow any of the bible? If the whole be not true neither is the part - a half truth is a whole lie.

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drumsnwhistles:
HELLO???
The pastor agrees with you...He said he doesn't care about the tax-exempt status. Did you not read that?

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I support the pastor's view:

The Nuremberg documents clearly reveal the heart of Adolf Hitler to be a ruthless man who believed in social Darwinism and had devised plans to completely eliminate Christianity after the Third Reich was firmly established. He wanted to use religion to subvert it for his own political purposes. What should be of concern to every atheist is that Hitler thought he could best succeed if he eliminated the Church's influence on politics. He promised not to persecute Catholics if the Catholic Church agreed to stay out of politics. However, many Protestants could not accept Hitler's claim to be a German Messiah or submit to an absolute allegiance to the German State, and many Protestants and Catholics were put into Concentration Camps along with the Jews for their resistance to the Führer.

Keep up the noble work! You have the "God given" right to do what you do -

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bluestaterevival,

This is probably not the right venue to start down the path of Biblical interpretation. I disagree with your analysis of Jesus' endorsement of John the Baptist (who spoke out against Herod's wife, by the way) being tied to politics. If you read that account in context, you see that John the Baptist very specifically condemned the religious leaders of the day for what he viewed as their sellout to the Roman authorities and worldly, legalistic desires.

I also disagree with you about your interpretation of Romans 13, which essentially calls for compliance with existing authorities by individuals ('submit yourself to authority...) Nowhere does it say "become authority". The admonition calls for individuals to be law-abiders, not rebels. In fact, later on Paul is jailed for trumped-up charges which he can refute because he is a Roman citizen and had certain rights and responsibilities accorded to him as a result.

Again, I reiterate -- my objection is not to INDIVIDUALS exercising their rights to free speech or participating in the political process. My objection is to the use of the INSTITUTION to influence political outcomes.

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quit blaming christians and religion -

The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25.

The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000.

These figures are tragic, But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 150 million people.

Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Keep up the good work pastor.

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tidalwave:

I saw that. I also saw that he walks carefully on the line of guidelines set forth by the IRS for protection of tax-exempt status. By not naming a specific candidate and limiting his remarks to issues, he walks right down the line to maintain tax-exempt status and still be an influencer.

Is there anyone among us who cannot figure out that he is endorsing Huckabee without coming out and saying so?

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read:

"I don't care who is elected, but if there's a revival, we're going to get a leader who reflects the heart of the nation," he said.

I'm glad you can read his mind - I however cannot. Here come the mind police!

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tidalwave:

Is there another candidate on the Republican list that is 'faith-based'?

Until Huckabee's emergence, this was a huge problem for the evangelical Christian community. The Republicans were in danger of losing a voter base that delivered the votes they needed.

There is only one faith-based candidate out there right now -- which fits this:

"McCoy said the project, run by a group of leaders who remain anonymous, isn't about endorsing someone but exhorting Christians to bring their faith and biblical teachings to the polls."

And really, why ARE they anonymous? What's the purpose in anonymity? Why heat instead of light?

Posted by game4whtevr on January 2, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

to Michael: you stated in your post "we are in Iraq." I'm guessing that you are in the military and are writing from Iraq. If not you have no business writing "we!" If you had been in Iraq fighting, you would obviously come to a different conclusion. "WE" aren't fighting for oil we are just keeping the enemy at bay. They will bring this war over here EVENTUALLY but until that day comes we have to do all we can as American citizens to keep the battle off of our soil. It is this kind of ignorance that has plagued the media and now many citizens of this great nation. Why is it so bothersome to everyone that a pastor wants to see this nation remain great? I don't see an agenda to "christianize" the populous but rather I see a pastor motivating those who claim to be christians, those he does have influence over. Based on this article it doesn't seem that he is "forcing or ramrodding" his ideas upon anyone. Why the hostility? Did he touch a sensitive nerve in those who claim to be "concerned" with the welfare of this country? I don't see this as a bad thing but because it's not your thing you all seem upset. Reply, I'm game for whatever.

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 2, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drumsnwhistle:

Leadership is influence - The pastor is calling people to live for Christ - in a democratic/republic - that means to vote your convictions. I don't get your gripe? He said he doesn't care about the tax-exempt status and yet he is not breaking the law and you still are uptight. RELAX

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drumsnwhistle:

Maybe they are anonymous because they don't want to take credit for the event - (humility) I don't know their motivations but I guess you do since you can read their minds - Ron Paul - is "faith based" Obama is "faith based" Tancredo was "faith based" - Why don't you just tell us more of what the pastor is "really" saying.

Posted by mtlm on January 2, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Several points to make:

1. Pastor McCoy is advocating that Christians take part in the political process, not backing any one candidate and, therefore, NOT violating any IRS rules. He says "so what" to anyone who tries to threaten or intimidate him on that front. He is not dismissing the rule of law.

2. Tidalwave, great post about the farce of "separation of church and state". It doesn't exist as people have been led to believe today.

3. To those who seek to silence Christians in the political realm, how is this a democracy if you demand the oppression of an entire group of people just because they think differently than you?

4. To those who think that religion is capable of being separated from politics, you are asking us to be hypocrits. How can I believe something and then not take that into consideration when I vote?

5. To Christians who think that they should not be involved in politics, we are called to be "shining lights" in a corrupt world. Don't hide your light!

My religious beliefs should and do influence every aspect of my life from what type of clothing I wear to what type of movies I watch to what words I allow to come out of my mouth. Thus voting for people who will represent my moral views is of even greater importance, rather than less.

James 4:17
"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."

Posted by surfmedic91 on January 2, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

game4whtevr, whether or not Michael is in the military, "WE" are in Iraq. "WE" is the U.S., us as a country. Oh, and "WE" are in Iraq. The conclusion that we're fighting for oil is incorrect and few military personnel would agree with you. That is a view of the media, anti-war politicians, and citizens that don't see all the reasons we are in the Middle East or any other country of the world.

Posted by golfbalz24 on January 2, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a Christian, all of this really bothers me. Some Christians try and force feed there faith on others and does much more to damage their view of Christianity than help it. There needs to be a separation of church and state, but also a lot of what people use to determine what is right and wrong comes from there religious background. The topic of abortion is a perfect example.

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that those in support of this have so much difficulty reading simple text?

There's nothing wrong with individuals participating actively and vocally in the political process.

There is something wrong with churches and institutions participating in it. It's inconsistent with the role of churches.

The fact is that Project Renewal is a non-profit organization which has an obligation to act in accordance with their stated non-profit purpose. When they fully fund seminars for pastors where one candidate is invited to speak alongside Newt Gingrich, they're using a non-profit organization as a political organization without having to comply with the same rules as everyone else.

Here's a question for you all defending this -- would you have similar support for Scientology writing a book that did everything but endorse their "chosen candidate" (whoever that would be) and calling for their members to do so?

Remember, Scientology is recognized as a religion here in the US. So...would you?

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drumsnwhistle:

The article stated that all candidates had been invited and only Huckabee responded.

RELAX

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

None of the other candidates could find their invitations. Strange, that.

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeah I forgot you read minds..

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I didn't read any minds. Just read the paper. Not this article, or this paper. But yes, only one invitation reached its intended recipient.

You haven't answered my question. Do you support Scientologists engaging as an institution in political activism?

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Answer: Yes regarding scientology.

I did follow-up on the article: McCain was the only candidate from whose organization I could get confirmation that they had been invited.

Next...

Posted by mtlm on January 2, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drumsnwhistles,

Why do you think that church leaders trying to lead their congregations is wrong? What then is their purpose?

Also, yes I would definitely support the right of any religion's leaders to encourage their followers to practice their faith, whatever it may be, in all areas of their life.

Posted by mtlm on January 2, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, it occurs to me that the other candidates probably tossed their invites. Who keeps an invite for which they didn't RSVP or didn't plan on attending?

Posted by themaxwellclan on January 2, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go again....another Internet board with lots of postings by people complaining about the U.S. Government, George Bush, the war in Iraq, and Christians.....utilizing our right to "freedom of speech," as we gripe & moan via our fancy computers while sipping our cappuccinos inside our comfortable homes.

As for me, I'm grateful to live in a country where I can still exercise my right to vote and where suicide bombers don't make daily attacks.

Maybe some of you should go try living in a third world country for awhile and learn how to count your blessings.

Remember too...if you don't like this country, the planes do go in both directions.

Posted by BeaHappi on January 2, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

themaxwellclan...amen to that!

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tidalwave,

In that case, we'll have to agree to disagree. I have as strong an objection to Scientology using their institutional presence to influence politics as I do Christianity. It's good to know that differing opinions can peacefully co-exist.

Posted by tidalwave on January 2, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

drumsnwhistle:

We have found a point we agree on. :)

Happy New Year and God Bless

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 2, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mtlm,

What if "following my faith" means accepting people as they are instead of judging them. What if following my faith means I take the commandment not to kill as seriously as I take the commandment to love my neighbor (not only my christian neighbor but my gay neighbor and my lesbian neighbor and my misogynist drug-abusing neighbor) as myself?

What if my faith says "value families and help them stay together" but that faith-based candidate supports deporting immigrants?

Most importantly, is the mission of christianity to legislate morality or live morally?

When politics become an agenda item for the church, it's not about teaching members to practice their faith; it's about making sure their faith is on the legislative agenda for the next four years.

Posted by game4whtevr on January 2, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Awesome! That is what separates us from many other nations; peaceful resolution. I am so glad that a simple debate is not followed up with riots, car bombs and death threats. The fact remains that we are a blessed nation. Christian and non-Christian alike. Enjoy it!

Posted by Face on January 2, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it is fantastic to be in a country with freedom of religion. Any religious leader should be able to say what they want within reason (No "Fire" in a crowded theater). They can preach their beliefs, no problem. The only issue is Tax Exempt status which should obviously be pulled. It is not illegal for this man of the cloth to tell his flock how to vote, it just automatically voids his churches Tax Exempt status. Why? Because of 'separation of church and state'. A church cannot be assisted by the Federal government to espouse a particular brand of political affiliation and activism. The Federal government simply says you are no longer Tax Exempt. If this is, as the church indicates, not a problem. Then everything is just fine, once they are Tax Exempt, they can pursue any political purpose they desire without any federal entanglements.

Posted by DoctorDude on January 2, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why I am a Christian: Proverbs 5:19 Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

I think that ends this debate right now, I'm caucusing for Kucinich! Bless you all!

Posted by ironwoman on January 2, 2008 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is nothing wrong with what this Pastor is doing. Freedom of Speech. It shouldn't bother anyone. Like he says, "so what".

Posted by dcsfancy on January 2, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We really need to see the bigger picture about how we need to get back our country. If you have time please check out this movie on the web. It is eye opening. The middle class is going to be gone if we don't stand up for what is right in America. www.zeitgeistmovie.com Vote for Democracy not Big Business

Posted by bombero42 on January 2, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "wall of separation" is not in the constitution, but that is what was intended. Read Jefferson's "Danbury" letter written in 1802.
Trying to use Jefferson as an example of someone who wanted Christianity in the government is laughable. Here are some Jefferson quotes on Christianity---

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

Posted by uknow1 on January 2, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So great to read how rcamcho encourages free speech! No one has been attacked in any of the above posts. It is a dialogue plain and simple, and that is what I enlisted in the military to protect; our right to free speech. Not the right to be lorded over by bible thumpers, which is no attack either as I have fundamentalist friends who refer to themselves as such, though thin-skinned, know-nothings will argue that it is. What are you afraid of, the truth? I think we know the answer to that. If you're offended by this, the shoe must fit.

Posted by freethought on January 2, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tidalwave - You mentioned that Hitler was an atheist. This is incorrect. He was a staunch Catholic. Read his bio sometime. His religious convictions were a large part of the movement to "perfect" the entire planet. You also seemed to have left out the numerous "crusades" that left countless tens of millions dead (the largest victims were Hindus during the 11th to the 16th century at the hands of Muslims - over 80 million). You can go to http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/no... for a detailed list. People kill for many different reasons - religion being just one of them, but it seems to have been a pretty convincing reason during our species' bloody history.

Posted by Vhoytec on January 3, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

a.r, you always have a 'nail-on-the-head' way with words.

Posted by Face on January 3, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No forum posting is complete without someone throwing a white race-baiting sentence that is not supported by fact. Thanks for not letting me down adam.roland

Posted by Faralon on January 3, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoa! Let’s back the truck of hot steaming vicious vitriol up about a mile.

It’s obvious from the critical messages posted here none of you know McCoy or have a clue about his ideas. McCoy is an incredibly kind, affable, generous and intelligent man who understand both our national history and current law. But it’s clear by the comments posted here reacting against McCoy that the writers are aware of neither.

Why is it that everyone EXCEPT Christians can have a voice in speaking on current issues? Where is the much touted tolerance that is supposed to suffuse our culture? I guess it’s only for those who agree with those who think like those who write so caustically against those who bring a faith-based rationale to their positions.

It’s been interesting to me for a while now that the liberty these “harshers” pretend they are defending is withheld from anyone they disagree with, and most pointedly, with Christians.

Last time I checked, the year was 2008, not 1984. Hello Orwell!

Posted by BeaHappi on January 3, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The most important thing, in my mind, is that everyone be as informed as possibly and get out there and VOTE!!

Of course you're going to favor a candidate whose beliefs, ideals, and practices are similar to your own...or at least support your beliefs.

United we stand, divided we fall. The best thing we can do for ourselves and for our country is to take the time to get to know the candidates and what they stand for, in whatever way you can. And then make an informed decision to the best of your ability.

We are Americans first people...Americans first.

Posted by Ulster on January 3, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not advocate for a religion-minded leader? Religion is the biggest business in the world…and it’s tax free. They'd have an "in." I have no issue with anyone’s beliefs, but to solely use religion to determine who the best person for the job is absurd. I’m sure some christians will be able to find a verse from their book or short stories to make an argument for it, which is fine, but let’s stay focused on helping the country as a whole, based on the ideals it was founded on. As a side note, I would have no issue with religious facilities paying their share of taxes…it would be used to help god’s children.

Posted by Lefty_Whitaker on January 3, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Our Country should be governed by an individual who is capable of quality leadership based on the Constitution of the United States and our Bill of Rights of the People. Someone who has decision making skills based on what is best for the People & their safety, the environment, and the stability & growth of the Country while maintaining the integrity of said Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is our Country and it’s people’s responsibility to come to the aid of our allies based on the promises to uphold and support the United Nations Agreement.

It is a Quality and Successful Leader who can achieve this without degrading or condemning the Country it represents or it’s people’s quality of life and opportunities while doing so. It is a Quality Leader who can share it's achievements and methods of success to the World in hopes to United the PEOPLE and end all Wars. It is a Quality Leader who has the ability to determine when intervening with other Countries Politics is necessary based on the Decisions agreed upon by the United Nations, and when or when not to apply Deadly Force.

If the leader of our Country happens to be a man/woman of FAITH, so be it, so long as their faith is what guides them only on an individual and personal level, and does not flow over to, or interfere with their responsibilities to the People, or effect their decision making and leadership of our Country or interfere with or denigrate our Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Show me someone who fits these qualifications, and I’ll vote for him/her.

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 3, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Faralon,

If you read anything I wrote, you know I have no objection to any individual expressing their own opinions about politics, the political direction of the country, or specific issues. I have no personal opinion toward or away from Rev. McCoy -- I'm sure he believes he's doing the right thing and in the right way. It's not personal.

If Rev. McCoy were standing on a street corner brandishing a sign that said "vote Huckabee", I'd wave and wish him well in his efforts.

When that action transfers to the institution that he pastors and he calls his church members to action, I object.

There is a difference. No one is denying individual Christians the right to participate in politics. Lord knows they participate strongly right now, but that doesn't mean it should be done in a church.

Political implications aside, it's a distraction (in my opinion) from what the true goal and mission of the church should be, as I stated in a previous comment.

Posted by drumsnwhistles on January 3, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BeaHappi,

I agree with you, which is why I was astounded tonight to read the account of a Huckabee supporter celebrating his Iowa win. When she was asked by the reporter what her main election issues were, she was extremely articulate on the topics of health care and illegal immigration.

Amazingly, she had no idea what Huckabee's stance on those issues was. This is a obviously intelligent, involved woman who took the time and trouble to attend a caucus tonight, yet could not identify her own candidate's stance on her key issues.

That is the heart of my objection to pulpit calls for faith-based voting. Ignore the issues, assume agreement, and vote because you've been admonished to.

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 3, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

60% evangelical turnout in Iowa up from 38% in 2004!!!

The pastor's effort seems to be working.

Posted by tidalwave on January 3, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leadership is influence.
I agree the influence is working...
Christians active in the political arena is a return to our historical roots as a nation.
Contend for those things that move you - way to go pastor

Posted by tidalwave on January 3, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

uknow1, adam.roland, freethought, bombero42...

This must REALLY chap your your hide. Christians having an influence in politics...60% turnout in Iowa tonight - COOL!

Posted by tidalwave on January 3, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Billy Graham once said, “Bad politicians are elected by good people who don’t vote.”

Posted by tidalwave on January 4, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

adam.roland:
there coming to take me away haha
there coming to take me away haha
blame it on whitey...
"WHATEVER"

Posted by CaptainAmerica on January 4, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This church should lose their tax status now!!!!!

Posted by keem_s on January 4, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freethought, I don't think I can convince you unborn babies are human anymore than I can convince a Nazi that Jews are human.

Posted by tidalwave on January 4, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well stated keem_s!!!
Hey Doc
It aint gonna happen...

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 4, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great point keem_s.
It will surprise most people to learn that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. Nor do any words like them. What the Constitution does say is this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

That's it. There's nothing more. Those words are from the 1st Amendment.

Jefferson authorized and attended church services in the Supreme Court chambers and had the Marine Corps Band provide music - So much for "separation of church and state". He also authorized federal monies to go to ministers who worked with the Indians. The clause was meant to keep the state out of the church not the church out of the state.

More than 20 signers of the Declaration of Independence has seminary degrees. Read Washington's farewell address to the Nation. Or take a tour of the capitol and see "federal" monuments giving glory to God.

Churches have just as much right to the political arena as anyone else. I agree with the idea that tax exempt status is no big deal - so what! - Let the churches lose it - So what!

However Doc - It aint gonna happen.

Posted by themaxwellclan on January 5, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope that everyone who has an "opinion" here intends to vote on February 5th.

Posted by del on January 5, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bluestaterevival, you state:

"Churches have just as much right to the political arena as anyone else."

So by that logic and using the term Churches, you are including Temples, Synagogues & Mosques; If one of these other "churches" obtained enough political power to change the laws so 'we' had to follow 'their" dogmas, you would not complain and all would be right with the world?

Posted by Vhoytec on January 5, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

adam.roland, The opinions of others do not identify you. You know much about history and have no fear saying so...as it is, so it is - judging not.

Keem_s...deep, but maybe too much for this blog...but excellent anyway...you are definitely on track. No doubt you've got a brilliant life.

Me? An observer...but have a hankering' to optimalize.

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 5, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

del:
yes!

Posted by del on January 5, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bluestaterevival,

Excuse me if I seem to think you do not understand the FULL implications of the scenario I suggested.

An extreme example: A law is passed that all women must wear their Burkas while in public.

You would abide by that?

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 6, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

del:

I fully understand what you mean and thus I would NEVER advocate the removal of ideas from public debate because I am afraid of them - let the people decide...democracy! - Just because you are afraid of something you outlaw it. I happen to enjoy our democratic /republic and thus I support the free exchange of ideas - I also believe the American people would never embrace such a stand against women. No fear del.

Posted by tidalwave on January 6, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey del,

why not bring in the thought police and the SS and silence those who disagree with your position and we can all be NAZIS.

Posted by del on January 6, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not recall stating my position. I was asking hypothetical questions that I think have been misunderstood. But that is okay, it is difficult to have rational, logical discussion in this type of situation (comment board) and misunderstandings abound.

As to my position, I do not want any church or religion telling me how/what to think, who to vote for, what I/we can do with our own bodies or how I should live my life. Religions/churches are just another word for control and I view them as the ultimate thought police. BUT I would NEVER think of denying another their right to worship in the manner of their liking and live their life as they wish. That is part of my Libertarianism.

There is a big difference between a democratic republic and a theocracy.

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 6, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

del:
nobody is espousing a theocracy - not even the pastor. Your ideals are not created in a vacuum you are influenced by someone or something. These folks are influenced by Jesus Christ - They are not telling you what to do they are simply participating in the voting process - you too are controlled by someone or something...such as Libertarianism.

Posted by bluestaterevival on January 6, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

del:
check out his website:http://expelledthemovie.com/p...

Posted by whalevideo1 on January 6, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW! It is about time let JESUS TAKE HIS PLACE AND ONCE MORE GAIN CONTROL. I stand with pastor mccoy and say so what about tax exempt. Who is our faith in god or tax exempt when it all comes down and God does come back at least he can answer I have fought the good fight and stood my ground. I am not ashamed let christians stand up where are they only cowards will fall at this time. lets make a staTEMENT. LET JESUS TAKE CONTROL ONCE AGAIN AND OLD SLEWFOOT AND THE WORLD. WORLD TAKE THE BACK SEAT. GO PASTOR WERE BEHIND YOU.

Posted by KS on July 1, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCoy is an angry extremist. Just sit through one of his services and you will see that for yourself. His "so-what" attitude shows in everything he does.