( - promoted by jczacher)
Religious intolerance is a hot topic and if you hold to the accepted rules of engagement in political campaigning, a church pulpit is supposed to be off limits. We live in a country where seperation of church and state is taken to extremes. Even to the point where local governments, school boards, and other non-federal agencies have denied the traditional prayer before an activity. Nativity scenes have been removed from public property because in the minds of the governing authorities, such a scene promotes a certain religious viewpoint. The Ten Commandments cannot be publicly displayed in most cities, government offices, etc. anymore.
But, now we read about growing instances when a local government will go out of its way to accomodate Muslims and their practice of faith. Some cities are planning to construct foot bath accomodations for Muslims. I guess as long as it is not connected to the Christian faith, it is acceptable.
But, back to the subject of politicians in pulpits. Obama attended a church service and spoke to the congregation on Sunday. He called for a heaven on earth, unity, and all of the appropriate passages utilized by a politician to drum up support among the faithful.
My question is simple. What gives a politician the right to go into an African American church on Sunday morning, have access to the pulpit and deliver a "sermon" if you will and not be held accountable? If the same venue were to be used in a predominantly caucasian church and if the politician happened to be a Republican, you can rest assured that the outcry from the media would be loud, long, and persistent.
If we are to be a country where separation of church and state is the norm and if churches enjoying a tax free status violate or abuse the privilige, shouldn't the church in question lose this generous status? Much like the faith based initiative from the Bush administration, I felt this was a move crossing the fine line of separation. |
