08/14/2004: "More on progressive partisans"

Chuck Currie responded to my post on progressive partisans by quoting a portion of what I wrote and then appending the following:

(Update: I meant to add some evidence to help illustrate my point. As a church leader, I would never tell my congregation how to vote in a partisan political race�though I would offer how I might vote. The religious right doesn�t see a distinction. Take what Jerry Fallwell [sic] told CNN yesterday:

...come election day, November 2, I will be casting my vote with my family and 24,000 members of Thomas Road Church, I hope, doing the same.

Churches can take stands on issues, but they shouldn�t be endorsing candidates.)

OK, let me get this straight. Chuck can tell his congregation who he might be voting for (I suspect, based on the content of his blog, that it just might be John Kerry�but that's only a guess). Jerry Falwell, however, may not do so, nor may he hope that the members of his church will do likewise, because that constitutes an endorsement. Sounds like a bit of a double standard to me.

Of course Chuck's right that churches shouldn't make partisan political endorsements, but when a congregation and its leadership is so clearly identified with a given ideological position�whether it's Glide Memorial United Methodist in San Francisco on the left, or Thomas Road Baptist in Lynchburg on the right�it borders on the ridiculous to think that people can't guess their political preferences.

Oh, and by the way, there was a lot more to my post to which Chuck didn't respond. I'll be interested in seeing whether he'll address the left-wing connections of various mainline folks before continuing to point the finger at right-wingers.

And while I'm thinking about it, let me add that the remarks above shouldn't be construed to be in any way an endorsement of Jerry Falwell, who has done more than most to bring Christianity into general disrepute in America over the last 25 years, and who I wish would just quietly retire to Tierra del Fuego.