Dude, Christ relished mortal stink!

Anyway, great stem cell piece, regarding religious angles, featured on KWMU a few days back.

http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=988150

On Friday there were some high school aged looking students standing at Hampton and Chippewa with NO signs. If the pro-vote doesn't get its folks out, the initiative might not pass given how energized the 'NO' folks are. Many of them are very intense.

Don't see many minimum wage signs on the same yards with NO on 2 signs.

The interesting thing here is that Amendment 2 is not a partisan issue. Many big-business Republicans favor it, though for some strange reason (2008 politics?) our governor has become rather silent on his earlier support. And I'm sure a smaller group of Dems oppose it. Just as churches took sides on the slavery debate, there is nothing new, or wrong, here.

How much has Biondi "advocated" against 2 at SLU? Wrighton mailed out a support letter to students and staff, but of course, did not include advocating for a minimum wage increase. Just as a lot of Catholics ignore Church teaching on birth control [the Pill allows fertilization but not implantation], a lot of Catholics will ignore the Church anti-2 lobbying.

Many Catholics will perhaps ignore the anti-lobbying, but I've never in my life seen the Church, as a collective, so adamant and, for the most part, unified over a ballot issue.

E.g., two or three weeks ago during Mass a video was shown advocating a no vote for Amendment 2.

As an aside, what I find interesting is that the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops was apparently successful in reigning in the more zealot of Bishops (e.g., Burke) in that I haven't heard one iota about Catholics needing to refrain from Eucharist if they vote in support of the Amendment. This, despite the Amendment being a narrow agent vs. two years ago when broad and fluid agents (e.g., politicians, e.g., Bush) were getting the 'vote for him or risk Hell' type of endorsement. I have not seen or heard that style of pressure, yet (and thankfully).

Lucas, please consider what you express: "Yes, it is legal for churches to take stands on political issues, but I think it only devalues churches, and drags them down from the rarefied air of the holy to the skid row of politics."

This is not a political issue as such. It is to many a moral issue. Churches and Christians have a mandate to speak the truth to their culture and society. Therefore, they will take positions on this issue whether pro or con. Lucas, it is not a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian issue per se.

This issue is an addition to the state constitution. It is over 2,000 words and is not clear on what exactly it proposes. There are some good arguments on both sides. One highly educated friend (a strong Democrat and once ward committee man) recently said to me: "I read it, and I don't understand anything." My response, "Iif you don't understand it, then don't vote to add it to a constitution." Personally, I would not vote for something I do not understand.

A distinguished Washington Univ. professor came out against it with many sound reasons.

My one and only point in this particular blog is that when it comes to life or death (issues relating to the sacred), churches have a right to take a position and to make it known to the public.

Lucas, back to the title of your posting, "Does God love stem cells?" God loves the human being from the very beginning to the very end of life. The Psalmist David said that God knew him before he was in the womb. Most Christians believe God knew us even before the creation of the earth because He is omniscient (all-knowing); that is a concept and an attribute that we cannot totally comprehend.

Others may disagree, but that's been the position of Christianity from the very beginning, and perhaps of some Orthodox Jews.

Lucas, this is in today's Washington Post: Candidates Hit the Pews In Maryland Homestretch
Black Church Community Deemed 'Exceptionally Important'

By Ovetta Wiggins and Hamil R. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 6, 2006; B01

Democratic Senate candidate Benjamin L. Cardin thanked the "Lord for waking me up," for his wife of 41 years and for the pastor of the Church of the Living God allowing him to worship with his congregation.

Then, when he mentioned his party affiliation, an ovation interrupted his sentence. A couple in the crowd sprang to their feet, and Cardin nearly fell off his. A smile swept across his face.

"I like this place, pastor," Cardin said, turning to the minister.

With black voter turnout crucial in Maryland's U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races, visits to churches in Prince George's County and Baltimore over the past several weeks have become essential in courting African American voters.

"You can't win Prince George's County without the faith-based folks," said the Rev. Paul A. Wells, pastor of New Revival Kingdom Church in Capitol Heights.

But the churches, typically a stronghold for Democratic candidates, are welcoming Republicans, as well.

GOP Senate candidate Michael S. Steele raced to services yesterday at three black churches in Prince George's and one in Silver Spring. "We have a saying in the community: 'Give it to the Lord,' " Steele said, standing outside Hillcrest Baptist Church in Temple Hills.

Inside, he was greeted with warm applause and praise from the Rev. Eric Redmond, who mentioned Steele's support for charter schools and opposition to capital punishment. "I can only imagine the things he could do in a national office," Redmond said.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) stopped by Ark of Safety Christian Church in Upper Marlboro yesterday, where Bishop C. Anthony Muse called him his friend and welcomed him to the pulpit to say a few words. Muse won the Democratic primary for a state Senate seat in District 26.

"People often get into this 'Who is Republican or Democrat?' " Muse told the congregation. "When you are in the house of the Lord, there is no Democrat or Republican, no black or white."

Pastors exhorted their congregations to cast ballots tomorrow but were careful not to declare support for individual candidates, lest they run afoul of rules for nonprofit organizations.

"I think I'd get in major trouble if I made an endorsement," Bishop Adam J. Richardson Jr. told the several hundred worshipers at Ebenezer AME Church in Fort Washington yesterday. "But I think I can say, 'I wish you well.' "

Before him stood Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martin O'Malley and his running mate, Prince George's Del. Anthony G. Brown, as well as Democratic attorney general hopeful Douglas F. Gansler from Montgomery County.

Two hours later, Cardin and his wife, Myrna, were at Ebenezer, clapping and praying to the rousing drumbeat of the gospel hymns, along with Democratic comptroller candidate Peter Franchot and U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski.

Black churches have always played a pivotal role in politics, registering and organizing voters and providing a venue for politicians to reach hundreds of people at a time.

"The black church is exceptionally important to our get-out-the-vote efforts," said David Paulson, spokesman for the state Democratic Party. "We're talking about an impetus that reaches tens of thousands of people and the tentacles that reach even further out into the community."

This year's hotly contested race for U.S. Senate has been fought more intensely in black churches, where Steele, in part because he is African American, said he sees an opportunity to pick up Democratic voters.

"I have a relationship with a number of pastors, and I've asked them for help," Steele said during a recent interview.

Last week, a group of conservative black ministers, led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, endorsed Steele.

"From my perspective, we have been taken for granted by the Democrats, because so many times we don't get to tell what our issues are. We are told what we are going to vote on or what we stand for," said the Rev. Jim Thompson, who joined Jackson in the endorsement.

Thompson said the group is most concerned about values. "It is not so much Democrat or Republican, but our Christian values."

Steele said he has used his visits to churches to "pause and pray."

"I've been to church on some Sundays where the minister doesn't even say I'm there," said Steele, a former Catholic seminary student. "For me, it's just going to church."

Although Steele has received endorsements from some clergy as well as some of Prince George's Democratic political leaders, he has yet to win over ministers from some of the county's largest African American congregations.

The Rev. Grainger Browning, Ebenezer's pastor, said although Steele is an attractive candidate, Browning is more concerned about who controls Congress. "This is the most critical election that we have faced in a very long time, and the issues are much larger than one man and his ethnic identity," he said.

Now, are you still disturbed by a few signs regarding an issue that is non-partisan?

Helen-

First, nothing is non-partisan. Secondly, you and I both know that the black church is a different case altogether. I have mentioned in the past how it makes me uncomfortable sitting in church (African-American) and having a preacher or reverend give his defacto blessing of a candidate, or having a candidate speak in the church without having his/her opponent speaking at the same time as well.

But, not having the time to go into an essay about slavery, civil rights and the role of the black church, I will just say that though I understand the historical significance of that practice (close marriage of church and politics in the black community) I certainly don't think it should be going on unless extraordinary measures warrant it, and the next time it happens, I will say something to the pastor. But in any case, that's inside the church. These signs are outside the church.

I really shouldn't have to do a double-take to see if the structure I just passed with a large "Vote yes or vote no on xyz issue" sign(s) was a Union hall, a church,or the McCaskill campaign headquarters.

In my opinion, a church and its grounds are, in a word, hallowed. Throwing up signs about issues on the ballot un-hallows them as other churches will take a different stand and put up different signs. Since no church has a heavenly decree that it is more moral than the next church, it drags down the whole notion of churches being above the political fray. They can't both speak for God, right??

Thanks
Lucas

Lucas, I have to disagree. "Nothing is non-partisan?" There are many issues in life that are not party politics. You may think no church has a heavenly decree, but most churches feel God's Word is a heavenly decree, which is why they take part in an issue that deals with a moral, spiritual topic. Many ministers preached against slavery because it was a moral issue. My own particular church does not post a sign and never gives place to candidates or parties, but I understand why some churches do.

For years the Catholic churhes have posted signs, "God is pro-Life." That is a theological issue. Taking stem cells from embryos (the first phase of human and animal life for that matter) and extinguishing their lives is very much a theological issue. Hence, churches have a right to express their interpretation and concern about the matter. There are Republicans that are pro and con on this issue, as well as Democrats. It is not a platform of either party. It is not "just" a political issue, which it may appear to be simply because it is on a ballot.

Smoking is not a political issue or taxing it. A pre-emptive war is not a political issue to most; it is a moral issue one way or the other.

Life comes under theology and doctrine. Hence, it is an ecclesiastical matter.

In my opinion, union halls should not take a position on this issue because their membership varies on its convictions.