Do I understand correctly Brian, someone is using a church list for Romney support? This wouldn't be a mingling of church and state would it? When the United Church of Christ takes a stance, the vigilantes in town want their heads. When Peter Foy and Mitt Romney use the churches, nary a protest is made for these men of God.

Calvary Community used to tell people G.W. Bush would bring back Christian values in America. Look what really happened. The Bush Administration tortured innocent people and is the most perverted regime in our Nations history.

I wouldn't trust those people anymore than Al Qaeda. They are all self-righteous nuts.

As much as I disagree with their choice of candidate, I see nothing wrong with Churches talking about and gathering support for particular politicians. "Separation of church and state" doesn't mean that religious people can't be politically active. Moreover, Christians are explicitly commanded to better society and the world - an intrinsically political calling.

Sorry Owen, I disagree 100%. Churches should not get involved in political debate from the pulpit. What Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. do outside of church is their own business but inside the church is a different matter.

Can you say Theocracy?

Why is it that the Clintons can appear at black churches all over the county, but if a republican gets support from a church it suddenly becomes an issue of seperation of church and state? Once again liberals around here are trying to have it both ways.

With regard to the United Church of Christ, they are harboring an illegal immigrant who is openly defying a legal deportation order issued by a court of law. You cannot compare a church that is openly defying the law with churches who are lawfully engaged in the political process. To do so is disingenuous.

Katie, that's the great thing about McCain, he can bring together people from such different political viewpoints. Welcome to the fold :)

Theocracy would be when people hold positions of power based on their position in clergy, and they rule as if appointed by God. Churches are an important part of civil society, and freedom of speech applies there as much as anywhere else. Congregations often bring together like-minded people who are socially conscious, so it makes sense that they would discuss politics - and particularly how they feel their religion should influence their politics. Religion isn't just something to make us feel good, it's a code that tells us how to live our life.

The United Church of Christ is not breaking the law, if they were, they would have had arrests made. They are not "harboring", they told everyone she was there. If the feds want her for breaking the law where are the feds? Glen Becerra was asking at a Council meeting a few weeks ago the difference between what UCC was doing and what Calvary Church in T.O. was doing. The answer is simple. Calvary was telling people who to vote for in an election. UCC was not saying how to vote in an election, they are simply following the teachings of Jesus Christ as all real Christians should. The most disgusting thing was when Peter Foy said "I support all the protestors outside of UCC." It is documented that the protestors included skin heads and neo-nazi's and Foy did not even try to sererate them from his full support. Why does Peter Foy support skin heads and neo-nazis as a self proclaimed member of the Christian Coalition?!

Bubba babbled : "Once again liberals around here are trying to have it both ways."

Actually, jerk-off I asked why it is OK in one instance and not the other so I wasn't implying your bias perception at all. The only thing "disingenuous" here are your constant liberal baiting post and overuse of the word disingenuous. There isn't an ounce of frankness, candor, or sincerity in you. You are... in a word...disingenuous. Ther are other words too but with all this talk of church and religion, I'd rather not use them

I'm with McCain Owen (that makes me a liberal in Bubba's mind) but I see plenty wrong with Churches using the pulpit to talk about and gather support for particular politicians - Catholics, Evangelicals or otherwise.

The UCC is harboring an illegal immigrant. Just because they do it openly doesn't change the fact that they are harboring a person who is openly violating the law by defying a legal deportation order:

har·bor
1. any place of shelter or refuge: The old inn was a harbor for tired travelers.
2. to give shelter to; offer refuge to: They harbored the refugees who streamed across the borders.

Just because the feds don't want to kick in the doors of a church to enforce the law doesn't mean that the law is not being broken.
And who is the UCC to openly defy our nation's laws and decide immigration policy for the rest of us? There are churches that believe in bigomy, but that doesn't mean that they can practice their beliefs in this country. Individuals in this country cannot do whatever they want and excuse it as following their religious beliefs. We are all subject to the law, even the UCC Church.

Matthew 22:21: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s".

There is a clear distinction between Jesus' religious teachings which are seperate from earthly political activity. Jesus did not encourage his followers to break secular laws or to revolt against state governments. On the contrary, it commands us to respect state authority.

Romans 13:1 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.�

Everyone should comply with the law, however if a law is unjust we should work and pray to change the law. The UCC is not following the law and they are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ by openly defying the law.

Yes, let's ask ourselves "What would Jesus do?" Would he stone Mary Magdelane because the law required? Or would he exercise civil disobedience and start a movement of change?

Should the Jews who revolted in a German ghetto in WWII instead have prayed for a change in the law?

Should Bush have declared a National Day of Prayer instead of declaring war in Iraq? I wish to God he had.

No, Bubba - you cannot have it both ways.

We are not talking about the extermination of Jews, so making the comparison to the harboring of an illegal immigrant at the UCC is dishonest. There are many ways a church can compassionately assist illegal immigrant families without breaking the law.

Second, the attempted stoning of the woman in the bible (who is never referred to as Mary Magdelene) was not consistent with God's law, which is why Jesus intervened. Those that were attempting to stone her were not fit to judge her because of their own sin, and they were hypocritical by attempting to stone the woman involved the the affair but not the man.

You obviously know nothing on this subject so please stop lecturing the rest of us on what Jesus would do because you clearly have no understanding of Jesus or Christianity.

"Jesus did not encourage his followers to break secular laws or to revolt against state governments. On the contrary, it commands us to respect state authority."

Your quote not mine - then you tell me that he "broke the secular law" because it was not God's law. So you contradict yourself with 4" of web blog space.

The comparisons have to do with secular laws - just and unjust. Jesus practiced what is today known as civil disobedience. As did Rosa Parks, as did the Jews - as they all should have. (Oops - that Rosa reference may be too "liberal" for you).

Please refrain from telling those us who disagree with your narrow perception of Christianity and government that they know nothing of Christianity or government. No Bubba - we DISAGREE with your perception of Christianity and government. I know its hard for you to comprehend the concept of religious free will, American freedom of speech and the democratic process. I spent 16 years studying Christianity and I have learned to recognize all too well when someone is manipulating the words of Jesus, or any religious leader (yes you may read that as Muhammad) to back up their own vision of the world.

But please do tell - what would you and Jesus do to "show compassion to illegal immigrants breaking the law?" Does God's law require them to go home?

Perhaps you also support rewriting the Constitution with your version of God's law? Just asking...

I think you are being dishonest. If you disagree with UCC "politically" just say so. But your own feeble insecurity inspires you to procalim the self-righteous accusation - "they are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ."

That is more akin to the hypocritical Pharisees parading in the streets (or the Internet Highway).

You are the one who keeps trying to bring Jesus into a political discussion, not me. And it is hard to believe that you spent 16 years studying christianity since you display a complete ignorance of scripture. If you want to discuss politics then discuss politics, but don't drag Jesus into the discussion to try and score cheap political points, especially when it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

Holy cats, Amen, your hostility is oozing from your pores. And you spent 16 years studying Christianity? I thought it all started with how you treated your fellow beings - be they liberal or conservative. Maybe you should pose this question to yourself - How would Jesus treat his fellow bloggers?

I am unclear on a couple of issues. Bubba you quoted scripture as saying:

“Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.�

This would appear to back up the theory of the Divine Right of Kings. Do you really think Christians are obliged to not struggle against governments that oppress them because God has empowered their leaders?

I am not trying to be rude but that seems odd, so please explain.

Also, wasn't Jesus arguing for the law to be broken by not stoning the woman? Although this story loses power when we realize that the ancient Jews didn't have a separation between divine and secular law much.

"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God."

Can you name the book without looking it up?

Since you and your lap dog Mongo missed it - I'll review for you.

I questioned the unequal treatment for liberal and conservatives who utilize the church for "political" purposes. I commented on the separation of church and state. I then criticized you for your overused "liberal rant. Are you with me so far?

Now look closely Bubba - YOU then quoted scripture (twice). That would amount to "bringing Jesus into a political discussion."

The quote from Matthew was from Jesus, was it not? At least that's what us poor "liberal" Christians were taught.

Since you did, I inquired of you a number of questions as to what the "right" thing to do would be. I pointed out that because one does not necessarily interpret Christianity (or government) the way you interpret it, does not mean they don't know what they are talking about. It means they disagree with your perspective.

If you can unwrap yourself from the Good Book for a few moments and answer the questions below, perhaps I might understand that perspective better.

I promise to be good and not use the word Pharisee again if you try not to accuse someone who sees life from a different point of view than yours as being a "liberal who doesn't know what he is talking about."

I am truly interested in learning what would you and Jesus do to "show compassion to illegal immigrants breaking the law?"

and...

Do you support rewriting the Constitution with your version of God's law?

Thank you John Locke for the insightful post above. You do know what you are talking about.

Wow, I'd say it's about time we cut this lunatic off. Whatever you do, Bubs, don't respond. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll go away...

Mr. Amen, do you really think that any conservative on this blog is in favor of rewriting the constitution to support a theocracy? You may want to believe that, but there isn't a single person I know (myself included) who holds such a view. If that is your perception of conservatives then you are blinded by your own bias.

It was you, nobody and Not Foy who brought topics like separation of church and state, christian values, the Christian Coalition and Jesus Christ into a political discussion. I was just responding to those earlier posts. Funny how many liberals like to accuse conservatives of mixing politics and religion, yet it often seems the other way around. I guess your name says it all. Anyway, I'm done debating religion with you since you are clearly using it as bait for other purposes.

In answer to John Locke, the quote you gave is almost certainly from the Torah (the first five Books of Moses). I'm going to guess the Book of Leviticus, but I'm not good enough to know the exact verse. I think you pose some interesting questions, though I would prefer to continue the discussion in a different thread since this one is already going downhill fast. Hold that thought.

Yes, Bubba I was preached to about changing the constitution to "God's Law" by a couple of fairly well-known faces in this town. I don't consider them conservatives. I consider Ronald Reagan a conservative. I consider them lunatics who give those of us who believe in God a bad name. They also informed me the world would end in the next 10 years. (At the rate we're going that might not have been such a stretch, but I digress.)

Now, that we have settled that there are religious extremists in our midst, and they don't always speak Arabic -

HEY - you used that liberal word again. Shame on you. It's such a dirty word and yet you keep saying it. Am I a lib- ... L-word because I like McCain? Is he now considered liberal?

My point was that libs and conservatives both use the churches. (Take a close look - I am agreeing with you here.)
And I'm saying I don't like it.
(You missed that too.)

I'm trying simplify so lap dog can get through the bigger words and I might get an actual response from you to a real question.

You made an interesting statement above so I'll ask you again:

What should churches do to "show compassion to illegal immigrants breaking the law?"

This is my second comment of this thread. Bubba Kidd many people dislike and disagree with you. You're arguing with someone else.

Owen, go ask McCain a campaign finance question in public and get fired and talk to me later.

The Republicans plan to take over the United States using religious zealots. Sound familiar? In my opinion, Calvary Community is one of the examples of how things can go wrong. I believe they have moved away from Jesus and are now concentrating on power for themselves. I think that's wrong.

That's not anti-Christian. That's anti-false prophet.

If Bubba Kidd is Dean I promise you won't be winning any other elections so save your money and enjoy it while you can.

Mr.nobody, saying that many people dislike and disagree with me is stating the obvious. One could say the same thing about you and many others around here. There are also individuals who like me and even agree with me, including, dare I say, a few liberals. All of which proves nothing really.

I post on this blog to express my opinions, not to win a popularity contest. It should be self-evident by now that I could care less if certain individuals around here don't want to hear what I have to say. Besides, how interesting would these threads be anyway if it was just a bunch of liberals sitting around agreeing with themselves. If you don't like it, don't read it or respond to it I say. Calling me names or telling me you don't like me is not going to hurt my feelings or prevent me from participating. Bipartisanship is not accomplished by debating ideas with people you agree with, it is about debating ideas with people you don't agree with.

As to all of this ongoing speculation about my identity, I will say this. Some people call me the space cowboy. Some call me the gangster of love. Some people call me Maurice. Cause I speak of the puppetuse of love. People talk about me, baby. Say I'm doing you wrong, doing you wrong. Well, don't you worry baby. Cause I'm right here, right here, right here, right here at home.

Amen, since you have studied christianity for 16 years I'm sure you can come up with lots of your own creative ideas on how to help illegal immigrant families without breaking the law. People of faith do it all the time. Good luck.

Fact, Bubba Kidd is only a Christian when it agrees with his far right wacko opinion of the moment. If he was a real Christian he would be with the Christians inside the UCC instead of supporting the hatemongers, neo-nazis and skinheads outside the church. The bible tells us though in the final days that true Christians will have their faith tested and false Christians will turn against God and his true followers.

We would have to call Larry Craig to confirm if Bubba Kidd is the "Gangster of Love" as he claimed in his post above.

More liberal gay baiting? I would think that you "enlightened" liberals would be above such a thing.

Bubba, you say you want to share your opinions. So far that amounts to calling people liberals - name calling as you like to say - so you really have nothing to share.

Somebody tries to engage you in an intelligent discussion but there can be no intelligent discussion with you because you can't even follow-up on your own statement.

You were fond of bashing Dantona supporters for THEM not speaking for him on HIS positions on issues. But somebody asks you directly for your own opinion on something and you turn into Johnny One Note - liberal - liberal- liberal. You hide behind that word. You hide behind the Bible. You hide behind your asinine name.

You are still the little kid who never fit in on the playground - and you keep coming back for more. You love to play the victim - happy as a pig in shit I tell you. Happy as a pig in shit. And full of it as well... and your little dog too.

If definition of "intelligent discussion" by the local lefties is gay baiting and cheap name-calling then I'll pass.

Ignore them BK. BK is not Dean.

Dean is inarticulate and can't stand up to a debate.

Lefty-Lefty-Lefty

Happy as a pig in shit Happy as a pig in shit.

I wish you would pass. Give the blog and the community a break.

I think the issue of churches endorsing candidates is NOT one related to separation of church & state but one of tax exempt status. NO tax exempt organization is allowed to endorse or attack a candidate for office. They can have candidates speak at their places of business/worship, they can get involved in political issues if they're not for/against a candidate, they can do mailings on political issues, etc. They just can't endorse or oppose a candidate.

On a related issue: I cant recall hearing(though I'm not saying it hasn't happened) of any conservative church group being investigated by the IRS for violating its tax exempt status by endorsing/opposing a candidate but I have heard of at least three cases in the past four years of liberal churches being investigated for political activism, though their "crime" was to attack Bush's war policies, not his candidacy.

"Theocracy would be when people hold positions of power based on their position in clergy, and they rule as if appointed by God"

Rommney?LDS? Just one of the reasons he won't get my vote.

Romney's religion does not bother me at all. His empty suit - "plug in conservative buzz words here and change it tomorrow if necessary" does.

That last question of tonite's debate...

Both avoided answering whether or not they'd run with the other on the same ticket but what do you think the voters would have reacted if Clinton said something to the effect, "I would be honored to have Obama as my running mate!"

Would it have made Obama seem petty,in comparison? Would it have given Clinton a bump?

Oh, I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker, I get my lovin' on the run......C'mon, Dean & Amen, sing it with me...