Well, Hon, the title of “Jesus” underneath a portrait of a 17th century author’s false rendition of what a first century Semitic carpenter looked like doesn’t violate the separation clause either, regardless of WHO ordered such portrait placed.

But don’t tell that to the proprietor of this blog. He doesn’t believe it.

And, while I am at it, and no disrespect to Joe, just because I agree on one point in a thread, don’t put words or thoughts into my mouth.

Black liberal clergy and white conservative clergy are treated differently by the media, period. That’s the only point I was making. If you aren’t aware of this you’ve been asleep. What this has to do with the question at hand regarding destroyed police files I have not the slightest idea.

Regarding the different media treatment, I don’t really care; I am not whining about it; but the media double standard or difference in treatment is there.

The double standard is there also as far as churches being used to promote candidates. That’s a no no that is way tolerated in left leaning churches. It is less a church/state issue as much as an IRS issue (maybe those are the same issues, maybe not). At our church we won’t come close to even seeming to endorse anyone, but not because we’re afraid of “jack booted IRS agents” knocking down the door; we just don’t think that is the job of the church to tell or manipulate people as to how how they should vote.

I will say as a Reverend, that being a Reverend (in my personal opinion based on observation and not documentary evidence or scientific research) is much less a political obstacle for a more politically liberal black clergyman than for a conservative white clergyman. I don’t think this is a racial thing so much as a political one, and maybe a little bit a theological one.

The funny thing is for me, as a theological conservative, I don’t like wrapping up God and flag and think the church would be better off if it did less of it.

But I do wonder, and you can do an Einsteinian mind game on this, would a bunch of conservative white “reverends” get as much press for political issues of concern to them if they held a press conference?

Sue, no, the pulpit forum is not made up of clergy from all faiths. And use of the word “pulpit” along with lots of “reverends” or whatever hanging around does lend a churchy/religious aspect to the matter even if they’re talking about the price of eggs. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong to do - just means it does carry a religious “prophetic” nuance.

I just paused and read Joe’s piece again. These issues being discussed are important and interesting but I am just not not sure you guys are reading him right. In my field we would say a little isogesis rather than exegesis is going on. But I’ve had a long day and it may all look different in the morning, as things often do.

Its most apparent that the point here is that local government officals are giving a presentation within the confinds and forum of a church. Therefore it suggests that those involved have received the Papal blessing. This presentation can be given at numerous other locations in non-religious facilities, ahhhhh but would it have the same impact! The Pulpit Forum aka Communist Workers Party are prostituting the church as a religious domain in an effort to give the presentation more bang for thier buck, and bleeding heart Liberals, seemingly like you, let this happen.

When Dr. Joe and his commenters denounce calling women presidential candidates (and all other women) “cunts,” then I’ll be able to re-respect what he says. Not until then. Goose. Gander.