Is there any circumstance where it would be appropriate for a high government official to tell church leaders/pastors something like, "You need to use your positions, and the trust you have with your congregation, to repeat XYZ message from the government."
This has absolutely nothing to do with political party, political philosophy, denomination, or theological position. It's a simple, hypothetical, question. The rational, acceptable answers are either yes or no.
7 comments:
Craig... "You need to use your positions, and the trust you have with your congregation, to repeat XYZ message from the government."
YES, If a gov't was trying to promote an end to racist activity in a community, I could totally support gov't saying, "Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc - people of good faith and good will - USE your voices to stop racist attacks in our neighborhoods..." Because of course, I would.
But, on the other hand:
NO, if a gov't was trying to promote a harmful activity, then I would denounce with great vigor a gov't saying, "Churches, etc, use your voice to condemn and identify and oust the LGBTQ folk or the immigrants in our communities. We need to find them and place them all in jail!" I would condemn such evil actions by a gov't and their attempts to use places of worship to promote their evil.
And on yet another hand, if it didn't matter WHAT the message was, the gov't was saying point blank: "Churches, etc, listen to what WE say and promote what WE want you to promote. Do our bidding!"
I would always be opposed to that.
But all of this is just reasonable and it would really depend on the specifics and context, wouldn't it?
There's a difference between "tell" and "request". I really don't have as much of a problem with the latter as I do with the former, which is clearly in conflict with the Constitution. If the request is regards an issue about which their is definitive proof, to request that a pastor bring it up is no different that having others do it as well...be they school administrators, news media, etc. But it is up to the pastor to decide if the request should be fulfilled, or up to church board members.
Dan,
What a strange response. You seem to be saying that you would absolutely not support government officials telling churches to disseminate a specific message, or support a specific government policy, unless the message/policy was one you agree with. Way to cover all your bases and be decisive. I suspect it doesn't bother you when liberal churches hold campaign events during services or tell their congregations who to vote for either, while you probably were opposed to the "religious right" folks doing that sort of stuff back in the day.
Art,
If you really think about it, is there every really a "request" from the government?
Craig...
"unless the message/policy was one you agree with..."
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the message. It has to do with whether it's factual and helpful.. or if it's NOT factual and/or harmful.
If there is a pandemic and churches are requested to not meet in person because of the potential health harm, I'm fine with it. Or, as happened during World War II, if the state request the population, including churches, to block out their windows so so the and me couldn't see the target buildings, of course I'm supportive of that. If, on the other hand, the state is asking the church to help oppress black people or gay people, I'm absolutely opposed to it. Not because I agree with it, but because it's harmful.
What a strange response That you find this strange. Are you suggesting that the church in England should not have cooperated with government request to blackout their windows?
Craig...
"I suspect it doesn't bother you when liberal churches hold campaign events during services or tell their congregations who to vote for either"
What another odd comment, given that is so stupidly false. of course I don't want her to sell people who devote for. Liberal or otherwise.
"If you really think about it, is there every really a "request" from the government? "
Now that you mention it...
Dan,
Exactly. As long as you personally find the government pushing pastors to spread a message that you personally find appropriate (however you subjectively define it), then you endorse the federal government pressuring pastors to spread that message. What an interesting position.
"Are you suggesting that the church in England should not have cooperated with government request to blackout their windows?"
No.
"given that is so stupidly false."
https://apnews.com/article/north-america-ap-top-news-sc-state-wire-south-carolina-charleston-e3cd6d9a08c94ca59a1a427e6517cfd2
https://www.thecentersquare.com/virginia/democrats-descend-on-churches-in-virginia-in-souls-to-the-polls-campaign-urging-parishioners-to/article_a6a09ace-3356-11ec-a1a9-af215d9d11bd.html
Maybe not.
Campaigning should never be allowed during a religious service, especially by Dem politicians given the "separation of church and state" lie Dems perpetrate and perpetuate ad nauseum. It was the Dem Party which chose to threaten the tax status of congregations should a pastor dare encourage congregants to avoid candidates whose campaign promises includes unChristian proposals, or speak out against office holders who enact or seek to enact unChristian policies.
Post a Comment