political debating/religious debating moms

Natalie - posted on 09/27/2009

Hmm Traci, I don't know. I didn't see anything in the article, was Obama invited to speak, or did he (or his staff) request the opportunity to do the talk? I think that would help to shed some light on the logic of his decision to go to Georgetown in the first place. I do think it's important for all bodies (citizens, businesses, other institutions) to be respectful and welcoming of our elected leader and I think a better compromise could have been reached, but I do not think it was done so that Obama wouldn't be upstaged by God.

"The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they've done for other policy speeches... Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn't high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context."

In fact, after rereading the article, specifically that quote, it seems to me they were trying to be respectful of the symbols by leaving them out of something that they have no part in.

Traci - posted on 09/27/2009

If he's so concerned with seperation of church and state, then why didn't he give his speech in a public university??? That would make more sense if that was the reason, wouldn't it???

Natalie - posted on 09/27/2009

Quoting Traci:

Yeah...it was a symbol, not a statue. Whatever the motives or who they came from, I do find it disturbing, not earth shatteringly so, but still disturbing. How do you have the kahonies to go into a religious institution and ask them to take stuff down??? oh well....

Why? Separation of church and state is constitutional. In addition, Obama was going for consistency in his talks on policy. They were not aske to take anything down, just for cooperation in helping Obama's stage to be uniform. Maybe they are trying to avoid the appearance that he is being endorsed by the Catholic church. As far as I can understand that would be something many Catholics would agree on. The ones who do endorse Obama would probably favor his action to uphold the constitution, so everyone wins!

Traci - posted on 09/27/2009

Yeah...it was a symbol, not a statue. Whatever the motives or who they came from, I do find it disturbing, not earth shatteringly so, but still disturbing. How do you have the kahonies to go into a religious institution and ask them to take stuff down??? oh well....

Dana - posted on 09/27/2009

Quoting Traci:

Georgetown

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-...

Traci, maybe you should read this article again....

Amie - posted on 09/27/2009

That wasn't a statue. That was the symbol IHS covered up behind him. The same symbol was still present at least 26 times throughout the hall.

The reason behind it was his white house STAFF wanted to maintain the same type of image, flags, drapes, etc. It is not stated anywhere that I have found that this came directly from Obama's mouth. If he had been talking about religion I can understand why it'd be disturbing. He was talking policy in his speech at Georgetown though so it makes sense that staff would want him to look presidential and not religious.

Traci - posted on 09/27/2009

Georgetown



http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-...

Dana - posted on 09/27/2009

I'm still curious where the statue was removed from??

Traci - posted on 09/27/2009

Quoting Jeannette:

Quoting Traci:

It's funny...if you go back and look at speeches of so-called "great" presidents, look at the references to God they make in their speeches, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, NEVER happen now. I think it's really sad. If you back through our history as a nation you can see how Judeo Christian beliefs helped to shape our ideals and now we are supposed to hide and be ashamed of our religious past/present/future. Now we have a president that makes them take out statues of Jesus before he speaks at a private college...such a shame.

Religion is part of who some people are, they identify with it, they use it to shape their values and beliefs. There's nothing wrong with a politician mentioning God or the Bible. Just like if there was a politician who was not a believer telling us he was.

To the OP, yes, it is WRONG for a politician to tell people they will burn in hell, I think that's inappropriate and I think it would be political suicide for one to do so, not likely to happen.

The private college didn't have to adhere to President Obama's wishes.  They chose to remove a statue so he would speak there. 

I know, and they were well within their rights to do so.  I just think it's jacked up that he would even ASK them to do that in the first place.  What's the point of that???....he probably just didn't want Jesus showing him up, I guess....

What's the difference between Obama and God???

God doesn't think he's Obama!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Isobel - posted on 09/26/2009

crickets...

Jeannette - posted on 09/26/2009

Quoting Christa:

Here is a quote from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't know what else they would be referring to when they say Creator, that sounds religious to me.

There have also been references to God throughout our history. Many argue that God doesn't mean the Christian God and that may be so, but it references "a God" non the less and that could be nothing else then a religious statement. Religion has been and will always part or our history and government.

Oh good, you know God.  Then you know His love to be unconditional.  Why would anyone vote down gay marriage?  Does it devalue heterosexual marriages?  Will your marriage become meaningless to you if gay people were to get married?

Jeannette - posted on 09/26/2009

Quoting Traci:

It's funny...if you go back and look at speeches of so-called "great" presidents, look at the references to God they make in their speeches, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, NEVER happen now. I think it's really sad. If you back through our history as a nation you can see how Judeo Christian beliefs helped to shape our ideals and now we are supposed to hide and be ashamed of our religious past/present/future. Now we have a president that makes them take out statues of Jesus before he speaks at a private college...such a shame.

Religion is part of who some people are, they identify with it, they use it to shape their values and beliefs. There's nothing wrong with a politician mentioning God or the Bible. Just like if there was a politician who was not a believer telling us he was.

To the OP, yes, it is WRONG for a politician to tell people they will burn in hell, I think that's inappropriate and I think it would be political suicide for one to do so, not likely to happen.

The private college didn't have to adhere to President Obama's wishes.  They chose to remove a statue so he would speak there. 

Dana - posted on 09/26/2009

Quoting Natalie:

Quoting Mary:

"certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If Freedom is an unalienable right, then how can you defend the position that witholds the freedom to marry from a whole group of people?

Good one!

I have a question: can anyone make a legitimate, non-religious argument for keeping homosexual couples from getting married?

WONDERFUL question!

Natalie - posted on 09/26/2009

Quoting Mary:

"certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If Freedom is an unalienable right, then how can you defend the position that witholds the freedom to marry from a whole group of people?

Good one!

I have a question: can anyone make a legitimate, non-religious argument for keeping homosexual couples from getting married?

Amy - posted on 09/26/2009

You may find this shocking...but I have no problem with same sex marriage either. I know I'm a bad conservative...lol. I'm not homosexual, but I feel that a loving caring relationship is just that. I don't believe we should have to deny who we are. I believe in the Christian faith for the most part, I do find it hard to believe God would give people homosexual tenancies if it was totally wrong. I do however believe that we are to practice monogamy, which is why I support Marriage for all who want to be in a life long loving monogamous relationship. Even for those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong in every sense of the word, I feel that you should do as the bible teaches and practice tolerance for those who do not believe, or interperet things differently.

ME - posted on 09/26/2009

"certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."



If Freedom is an unalienable right, then how can you defend the position that witholds the freedom to marry from a whole group of people?

ME - posted on 09/26/2009

Laura...a similar thing happened to my husband and I. I am Catholic, he is an Atheist. My Church refused to marry us, even if we took all of the classes they require for any other couple, and did their marriage counseling, etc. On top of that, they also refused to baptize my son because he is a bastard in their eyes. I finally found a deacon who is also a long time friend of my parents who went against the church and baptized Miles...Anyway, luckily for us, my husband and I are heterosexual, so we could get married by a non-religious person, and still have the legal relationship that makes married life the same for all people whether or not they are married in the church. If my marriage doesn't "harm the institution", I'm not sure how anyone elses could either! No one should have the right to vote my marriage into obscurity, and that should apply to ALL people!

Isobel - posted on 09/25/2009

you have no right to vote on human rights...they should not be up for debate

Isobel - posted on 09/25/2009

America is supposed to take pride in providing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...how interesting that you only care about the "under god" part. I choose to pay attention the the "pursuit of happiness part" how dare you feel that you have a right to vote on whether or not another human being has the right of pursuit of happiness...your forefathers have already granted it, and sorry to get off the thread of abortion but what could be more indicative of the pursuit of happiness than having the right to marry the person you are in love with, gay, interracial, interfaith, etc. My boy boyfriend is part Jewish and I'm pretty sure that your pastor would tell me that it would be a sin to marry him...I would be up in arms if that were made law...don't say it's not the same as gay marriage because it is exactly the same. It is the unlawful denial of human rights based on one faith.

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

However...if you don't like the gay people in Islam example (not really fair to only talk about Islam in this case anyway)...Hinduism leaves poor people out of it's moral community; they are not equal and do not have to be treated as such. Islam leaves women out of it's moral community; they are not equal and do not have to be treated as such. (Catholocism does this to a certain extent as well, but luckily it is not a state religion)... Because both of these are state religions (of sorts) their values are imposed on people who do not share them. It would be tragic if anything similar happened in the US...I would not want my children raised in a society that taught them hatred or limited their freedom of thought!

Amy - posted on 09/25/2009

Okay, I didn't read all the posts, but I did want to comment on how/why religion and politics usually go hand in hand (whether we like it or not).
Our country is run by people, normal day to day people. They make decisions just like the rest of us. Those decisions are usually based upon beliefs (even when their are facts, everyone comes up with their own belief of the matter). Beliefs are typically a direct result from religion (or non-religion) views introduced through one's upbringing. This tends to affect the person in the decision making business, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
On another note... I truly believe in freedom of religion (or lack there of). I am a spiritual person with a Christian based faith, but I'm not going to shove it down anyones throat. If you want to debate or compare, I am totally interested, and not to change minds or anything crazy like that. All I can do is tell you, "hey, I love God and he Loves me, and my faith tells me that he loves you too" and if you tell me "hey I don't believe in God" then it's left at that. I just don't get why people have a problem with me displaying my faith and calling it offensive if I decide to put a manger up in my yard for Christmas. I would not complain about your display if you had a Pentagram or other "pagan" runes displayed in your yard...That is freedom, aye?

I apologize for the length, I may have also lost my original point somewhere in there..LMAO Damn I need sleep!

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

Islam does not include gay people in their moral community in much the same way that Nazi Germany didn't include Jewish people in their moral community. They are concidered immoral and therefore irrelevant. The pres. of Iran has been quoted as saying that there are no Islamic Gays (meaning they are unacceptable). If they have no moral value, they must not be human; since most people would agree that all HUMANS are created equal.

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

Traci...here's our president talking about God...maybe you can relate...of course, if we can't take his word for it...I guess we shouldn't take ANYONE'S word on their personal beliefs...



Obama on being a Christian:







"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."(1)

Dana - posted on 09/25/2009

Traci, when did President Obama have them remove a statue of Jesus before he spoke?

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

I'm pretty sure that MOST societies, contemporary as well as historical have an argument against the random killing of other human beings. I don't think all of them require the bible for support. My point above was that we DO legislate morality all of the time, and that is OK...as long as it does not come from a SINGLE religion, because then we are instituting a state religion. Universal laws we agree on: "all humans are created equal" and equally deserve the "right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness"...the problem is that many religious idiologies have a slightly more narrow definition of Humans (because gay people aren't included) like Islam for example; and, some people have a different definition of "life" (christians for example). When we take the specific definition of a single religion, and leave out everyone elses opinions, then we ARE legislating religion, plain and simple.

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

I don't think that everyone's opinions should count equally. Some people think that genocide is ok, some people think that femal genital mutilation is ok, some people think that segregation is ok, and all of those OPINIONS were/are based on their religious beliefs. Do you think those opinions should count equally? I sure as shit hope not...In my first post (three from the top) I described Natural Law Theory and it's historical relevance. I didn't say that I exactly subscribe to it, but I did say that I see it's benefit as long as it remains Natural Law Theory and doesn't degrade into Cultural Relativism, or Religious Tyranny/Divine Command Theory. I said I think it's fine (particularly given US history) that we continue to allow our universal moral values to determin our policies, both at home and abroad. That doesn't mean that we need to throw the seperation of church and state overboard...it's a very useful principle, and one that protects US citizens from the religious tyranny that has happened in other nations.

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

O PLEASE...I wasn't "giving you a lecture"...I was pointing out facts. I wasn't telling you what my deepest most powerful beliefs are...there is a difference...In a debate, or a discussion, it is perfectly acceptable to be aware of certain facts and share them with others without claiming any personal connection to those facts. People do it all of the time.

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

I prefer this (A form of Natural Law):



Anon: (taken from the Native American Indian Traditional Code of Ethics): 8. All the races and tribes in the world are like the different colored flowers of one meadow. All are beautiful. As children of the Creator they must all be respected. (Inter-Tribal Times, 1994-OCT)



To This:

Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University: "The Bible itself is intolerant, and true followers of God's word should be as well."



...so, while Natural Law theory is theoretically questionable, it is preferable to other ways of thinking...

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

Sorry...I should have "the man who's writings are the basis of the MODERN Roman Catholic Church".

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

Quoting Christa:

Mary, you are free to think I'm wrong as I'm free to think you are wrong, but because my opinion comes from religion does not ULITMATLY mean that I am wrong. Just because some polic sci class you took says that universal/moral ethics that you feel trumps everything else doesn't make it so. Who do you think made up those "universal/moral ethics standards"? A human, isn't that your whole argument against the bible? Why does some other human/group of humans who have made these "standards" that get regurgitated in some classroom somewhere make them any more valid or relevant then the "standards" written by some human/group of humans that gets regurgitated in some church somewhere? It doesn't! All are just opinions on what's best for all people. Therefore if my "standards" don't count neither do yours.

St. Thomas Aquinas "made them up"...you know, the man who's writings are the basis of the Roman Catholic Church. It's called Natural Law Theory...very interesting stuff...and it's not just something I heard in a poli-sci class; it's something I understand very well, both historically and theoretically...I didn't attack you personally, you don't need to attack me either.

This thread was about religion and politics, all I did was point out the problems (cross-culturally) with involving a single religion in a nations political decisions and ideals. I didn't attack or only point out the flaws in Christianity, I pointed out flaws in having Hinduism, Islam, OR Christianity as a STATE RELIGION. As far as I understand your point of view, you are not arguing in favor of having any of those as the US state religion. I was talking about facts Christa...about our country, legally and morally, in comparison to other countries...I didn't say  that I believe in Natural Law Theory, I said it is what our country is historically BASED ON, and I pointed out some of the benefits of that. That's it...the personal attacks of people on this forum have gotten out of control...I certainly expect better from an administrator!

Traci - posted on 09/25/2009

It's funny...if you go back and look at speeches of so-called "great" presidents, look at the references to God they make in their speeches, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, NEVER happen now. I think it's really sad. If you back through our history as a nation you can see how Judeo Christian beliefs helped to shape our ideals and now we are supposed to hide and be ashamed of our religious past/present/future. Now we have a president that makes them take out statues of Jesus before he speaks at a private college...such a shame.



Religion is part of who some people are, they identify with it, they use it to shape their values and beliefs. There's nothing wrong with a politician mentioning God or the Bible. Just like if there was a politician who was not a believer telling us he was.



To the OP, yes, it is WRONG for a politician to tell people they will burn in hell, I think that's inappropriate and I think it would be political suicide for one to do so, not likely to happen.

Rebecca - posted on 09/25/2009

I can only speak for myself, not all Christians but I put God first in my life so for me it's about my relationship with Him not religion. So God plays a major part in all my decisions, including political. While I will say that many of the politicians on BOTH sides are only playing politics and will say or do whatever it takes to move up the ladder and better themselves at the expense of us and our Country. As far as the churches go there are many churches I am sure who are not run the way God would intend. I would stay far away from a church like that. Also, I condemn no one. I was simply stating in previous posts my beliefs, I have the power to condemn no one. I also would not wish anyone to be condemned to Hell. We may disagree on many things but I certainly do not wish you any harm. What I believe and what you do may differ greatly but I mean no ill will towards you. Also, I also believe in Freedom of religion and I certainly do not think we should have a Universal religion.

ME - posted on 09/25/2009

" think it's easy for someone who disagrees with a person's opinion that has religious support to say "well religion has no place in politics" or "separation of church and state". It's an easy way to try and dismiss someone you don't agree with. A religious person's opinion has equal value as a non-religious person's in a political debate as long as they are just supporting their values and not forcing people to convert."



I'm sorry, but I don't think that a person's opinion (whether religious or not) has equal value with everyone else. Some people are just wrong. In some Christian and Muslim countries Female Genital Mutilation is believed to make women more moral, in some communities it is believed that those who are of a different income level don't have equal moral or political value and can be treated badly (think of the Caste system in India). In some countries race or religious beliefs have caused people to be left out of their country's moral community (think South Africa, or Palestinians, or many others). I don't think that these opinions have equal value to those of people who want to treat everyone with respect and dignity and include everyone in the moral community. In much the same way, I don't think that the LGBT population should be left out of the moral and political community of the US, but they are because of religious beliefs. This is just wrong, in the same way that violence and discrimination are wrong wherever they occur. Universal moral/ethical beliefs state that all people are created equal under the law, and that individuals deserve respect. As I've said elsewhere, there is no reason to leave morality out of our political decisions, but basing those decisions on ONE RELIGION'S opinions or teachings is problematic in many ways, and it IS why we have seperation of church and state in this country. That is not a copout, it is a way to protect people from religious tyrrany, and some of us need to be protected!

Alison - posted on 09/24/2009

I think it's unrealistic to expect everyone to put their personal beliefs to one side when it comes to politics. All voters want to be represented and will align themselves with the candidate who most closely represents their view. Something as big as religion cannot be left out of politics when so many members of the public identify with it.



Having siad all that, I personally take what politicians say with a big bag of salt. It really annoys me when some Christian groups back certain candidates. Since when did any religion tell people to vote one way or another? It's one of the many reasons why I don't watch the God channels. It's also the reason why I am forced to switch off my favorite Christian radio station at certain times of the day.



I really love the biblical messages on BBN, but I can't sit through the political rants. Some of these issues are a matter of personal liberty and I'll form my own opinions on them because the bible says I can. I don't need a broadcaster implying that I'm less of a Christian because I don't share the same political view.

Jeannette - posted on 09/24/2009

I would think that if any person has a belief system, it influences their decisions. I don't understand what you mean by "quoting religious books" and politics, but I haven't read through everything here.

I think people are quoting their religious doctrine when talking about why they believe what they believe. I believe some people have a misunderstanding of their chosen doctrine as well.

I don't understand how God comes into it either. I will have to read on to see what these posters are talking about.

Dana - posted on 09/24/2009

So, finally I have time to sit down and say how I feel.



I live in the US where pretty much everyone knows of the seperation of church and state. So here, yes it is wrong to involve religion with government. My religious beliefs are seperate from my country. I feel if everyone loves their country then they should respect how it was set up. I understand how it is hard for people to put aside their religious beliefs but, I think as a citizen it is all of our duty to respect and uphold the constitution.

Dana - posted on 09/24/2009

Quoting Christa:

Quoting Theresa:

I hate the fact that religion has become "political" and vice versa. All I hear from church members is that I can't be a "real" christian if I believe in gay marriage and abortion. During the election, my church really became divided because ultimately if you were a "democrat" you were frowned upon! There was a big push to get McCain elected. Every other sunday, some conservative "preacher" or politican preached about how we were going to hell, if we didn't change our sinful ways (Obama was the highway to hell)! Well, I believe in god and I believe everyone has their own personal relationship with him! He constantly reveals himself to them and guides them or convicts them on "their path". I don't believe god wants us to "force' or "condemn" people. Having said all of that, after the election, my pastor left the church. Found out all the "guest preachers" were making sizable donations to the church! That's what it all boils down to, right? I wonder how many people were affected negatively as a result of these sermons, just so the church could get a new "rec" room!

I've heard of churches doing things like that, but I've never attended one.  I definitely don't agree with that at all.  It's one thing to preach a message that could relate to a current political issue, but it is quite another to flat out tell a congregation who to vote for.  I would pick a different church if I were you, in fact I'm pretty sure they can loose their tax exempt status for such behavior.

Yes, Christa they are supposed to but it isn't always followed up upon.  This happened alot for George Bush's 2nd term. 

Dana - posted on 09/24/2009

Quoting Theresa:

I hate the fact that religion has become "political" and vice versa. All I hear from church members is that I can't be a "real" christian if I believe in gay marriage and abortion. During the election, my church really became divided because ultimately if you were a "democrat" you were frowned upon! There was a big push to get McCain elected. Every other sunday, some conservative "preacher" or politican preached about how we were going to hell, if we didn't change our sinful ways (Obama was the highway to hell)! Well, I believe in god and I believe everyone has their own personal relationship with him! He constantly reveals himself to them and guides them or convicts them on "their path". I don't believe god wants us to "force' or "condemn" people. Having said all of that, after the election, my pastor left the church. Found out all the "guest preachers" were making sizable donations to the church! That's what it all boils down to, right? I wonder how many people were affected negatively as a result of these sermons, just so the church could get a new "rec" room!

I don't have time to say what I want yet, but will be back. 

I just had to take the time to comment on this.  I find it so annoying that alot of churches did/still do this.  I feel that if they are going to then they'd better start paying taxes too!  It's ridiculous!

ME - posted on 09/24/2009

Interesting that you ask this question as I will be teaching a similar topic to my ethics students next week. There is some argument about the existence (or not) of a civil religion in the United States (the source of fanatical nationalism at it's worst, and of very generous charity to poor nations at it's best). We, contrary to popular belief, are not a nation built on Christian/Judeo principles, but one built on the principles of Natural Law. This means that it is understood that there is an Objective Moral Truth independent of religion...that is, there is a right and wrong that doesn't require one to believe in God in order to recognize it. This becomes obvious, of course, when we look at cultures where spiritual philosophy exists without a belief in a personal god, such as Buddhism. So...in the States, we believe that there is a moral right and wrong that can be carried out by our citizens and our government through such programs as welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc. NOW...the problem arises when this Natural Law morality is no longer what informs our policy and political decisions, and instead our citizenry begins to idolize the Nation itself (which devolves into a sort of cutural relativism complete with colonialism and marginalization of groups that don't conform). OR when our nations leaders begin to suggest that God somehow favors America and it's people and has commanded us to do certain things (like GWBush with the Iraq war and the war on "terror"). This is a form of divine command theory, which is also a form of relativism because it states that there is no GOOD independent of God's will; therefore, statements that claim that "X is Good" mean only "X is commanded by God". SO...I don't think there is anything wrong with combining morality and politics, especially if that means you are treating all creatures and all people with respect, if you are thinking about the outcomes (long and short term) of your actions, if you are treating others with honesty, etc....the problems arise when you begin to combine a SINGLE religion with the political outlook, goals, and ideals of a nation (see almost any nation with a sanctioned state religion). This is why we have separation of Church and State in the US...

Natalie - posted on 09/24/2009

I totally agree with you that politics and religion have no business mixing with each other. Unfortunately, many people's politics are heavily influenced by their religious or spiritual beliefs, so it would take a lot to take religion out of the equation. I do think that in debate, we should refrain from using our religious beliefs (particularly those about the eternal souls of others) as a point. We should never imply that someone else is going to suffer at the hands of god because of their beliefs. We don't know and it's not our place to judge.

Theresa - posted on 09/24/2009

I hate the fact that religion has become "political" and vice versa. All I hear from church members is that I can't be a "real" christian if I believe in gay marriage and abortion. During the election, my church really became divided because ultimately if you were a "democrat" you were frowned upon! There was a big push to get McCain elected. Every other sunday, some conservative "preacher" or politican preached about how we were going to hell, if we didn't change our sinful ways (Obama was the highway to hell)! Well, I believe in god and I believe everyone has their own personal relationship with him! He constantly reveals himself to them and guides them or convicts them on "their path". I don't believe god wants us to "force' or "condemn" people. Having said all of that, after the election, my pastor left the church. Found out all the "guest preachers" were making sizable donations to the church! That's what it all boils down to, right? I wonder how many people were affected negatively as a result of these sermons, just so the church could get a new "rec" room!