Originally Posted By RoadTrip Wow. That is all I can say. Wow. No separation of Church and State here!! By the way... the Pastor clearly violated IRS guidelines governing the church's tax-exempt status. YouTube tells all... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ4wtwcrybM&mode=related&search" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =SJ4wtwcrybM&mode=related&search</a>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn You'd think that he'd be able to find someplace that would be more in tune with his own philosophies. But he's not interested in that. It's more about being a troll to other people than about anything else.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Wow. That is all I can say. Wow.<< Having spent many, many years in evangelical churches, I did not find anything all that "wowish" about the speech delivered here. The term "fool for Christ" is well known in most Christian communities. It derives from a couple of scriptures in Corinthians. I Corinthians 3:18-19: Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. I Corinthians 4:10: We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ... Among the saints, being a "fool for Christ" meant that one's devotion verged on insanity, at least in the eyes of the world. The rest of the speech follows fairly comfortable themes for those who understand the language. >>By the way... the Pastor clearly violated IRS guidelines governing the church's tax-exempt status.<< Based on the YouTube clip, I would disagree. There's not enough information. This clip is dated Oct. 14, 2006, a Saturday. It is impossible to know if this is part of a candidate forum, or a regular service. Regardless, if all candidates had been invited, there is only a slight chance of IRS intervention. The candidate essentially offers a sermon, without a blatantly political component to the message. The minister who follows urges the flock to register to vote, then reminds them to vote for candidates rather than by party. There is no clear instruction or endorsement. (It certainly is implied, though.) I feel that it is unwise for a church to engage in this type of activity. I am turned off, if not to say offended, by candidates who use spiritual language as part of a political campaign. But, based on what is presented here, I doubt it could be successfully prosecuted.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I should have given more detail. It was not a candidate's forum but part of the regular church services over the weekend. She was the only politician to speak. The minister gave his personal endorsement: <<"We can't publicly endorse as a church and would not for any candidate," Hammond said. "But I can tell you personally that I'm going to vote for Michele Bachmann.">> From what I've read he can't give a personal endorsement any more than he could make an official proclamation, and was clearly over the line. His only defense was lack of knowledge of the laws, which may get him off on moral grounds but I'm not so sure on legal. I had no problem with the "Fool for Christ" comments... heck, I'm a fool for Disney World. It just makes a catchy headline, don't you think? ;-) My wows were more because of the fact that this seems to blatantly cross the line in a very close contest. Who knows... maybe she was aware of it and WANTED to cross the line for the publicity. At any rate, I was amazed it would happen. StarTribune article: <a href="http://www.startribune.com/10120/story/749053.html" target="_blank">http://www.startribune.com/101 20/story/749053.html</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug Either this minister is completely disingenuous or a maroon. This was at a scheduled service (four services held over two days), did not include both candidates, and was capped with the minister's "personal" endorsement. Walks like a duck... quacks like a duck... it be a duck!
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I'm trying to find confirmation of this, but apparently the minister doesn't even live in her district. Thankfully, I don't live in her district. I don't think Trippy does either.
