Should a Minister Run for Political Office?

[tkelly1986]

The real question is whether the "minister" or "pastor" is qualified to be an elected official. They may be able to spread the word of God, but what about public policy do they understand? Let alone making good policy? We have too few people with advanced degrees in economics, public policy, public administration and dare I say law degrees....The city council seems to be a place where underqualified crooks go to get a paycheck and rob the city coffers....Very few good on there

[Onthe405]

The real question is whether the "minister" or "pastor" is qualified to be an elected official. They may be able to spread the word of God, but what about public policy do they understand? Let alone making good policy? We have too few people with advanced degrees in economics, public policy, public administration and dare I say law degrees

Knowledge and understanding of both theology and public policy don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. There is an all-too-common misconception otherwise---much like the perpetual "someone can't be both physically attractive and intelligent at the same time" and "religion and science can't co-exist" myths.

Sen John Danforth [[MO) was both an ordained, practicing Episcopal priest and a sitting Senator. He holds degrees from both seminary and Yale law. The structure of the ECUSA is such that [[unless they are a Rector or Dean) a priest can say Eucharist when their schedule permits, without other substantial responsibilities to the parish as a whole. During his entire service as MO Attorney General, US Senator, and UN Ambassador, Danforth continued to perform his duties as a priest at Christ Church Cathedral in St Louis, and still does.

I have no idea whether any of this applies to Spivey’s particular situation, but it is a cautionary consideration against making sweeping generalizations about how people earn their living outside of the sphere of their public service.

[R8RBOB]

Short answer: HELL NO

Long answer: This country used to be believe in the separation of church and state. Some people believed that they didn't want the nation being under the thumb of religious zealots like some of our fellow Muslim nations.

That said, having a father, a reverend, a minister, a nun, a bishop running for public office is bad, bad, bad. Having a voice that is on the side of "GOD" beyond the council chamber would be the wrong move for Detroit.

[Onthe405]

Short answer: HELL NO

Long answer: This country used to be believe in the separation of church and state. Some people believed that they didn't want the nation being under the thumb of religious zealots like some of our fellow Muslim nations.

That said, having a father, a reverend, a minister, a nun, a bishop running for public office is bad, bad, bad. Having a voice that is on the side of "GOD" beyond the council chamber would be the wrong move for Detroit.

R8RBOB, I respect your opinion, but my own view is that this a generalization based on self-serving individuals who harbor a political agenda cloaked in the name of religion....and, yes, there a lot of them and they are particularly noisy and out on the forefront of the media. However, not every ordained or deeply religious person is a zealot or disrespectful of the separation of church and state guaranteed by the Constitution. Actually, quite the opposite.

IMO, each person should be evaluated on their own suitability to serve office, religiosity neither a detriment nor a virtue. The reason I brought up Sen Danforth in the previous post is that he has written a thoughtful book, "Faith & Politics" addressing this particular subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...4/feature.html

[R8RBOB]

R8RBOB, I respect your opinion, but my own view is that this a generalization based on self-serving individuals who harbor a political agenda cloaked in the name of religion....and, yes, there a lot of them and they are particularly noisy and out on the forefront of the media. However, not every ordained or deeply religious person is a zealot or disrespectful of the separation of church and state guaranteed by the Constitution. Actually, quite the opposite.

IMO, each person should be evaluated on their own suitability to serve office, religiosity neither a detriment nor a virtue. The reason I brought up Sen Danforth in the previous post is that he has written a thoughtful book, "Faith & Politics" addressing this particular subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...4/feature.html

I was on the 405 heading to San Diego six years ago when I experience LA traffic during rush hour. Never again.

I am in agremeet with you. I suppose my long answer was not long enough. Your explanation was what I was attempt to channel but I didn't have the right words at the time. I'm not trying to paint all men and women of GOD with the same dirty brush. I just would not want someone from the church attempting to instill their agenda in council chambers. The attempt to reign in the strip bars is a church driven action. Imagine if they one or two of their own were in council. We may see agendas that are church-based instead of population-based.

[Locke09]

I was on the 405 heading to San Diego six years ago when I experience LA traffic during rush hour. Never again.

I am in agremeet with you. I suppose my long answer was not long enough. Your explanation was what I was attempt to channel but I didn't have the right words at the time. I'm not trying to paint all men and women of GOD with the same dirty brush. I just would not want someone from the church attempting to instill their agenda in council chambers. The attempt to reign in the strip bars is a church driven action. Imagine if they one or two of their own were in council. We may see agendas that are church-based instead of population-based.

I guess I see it from a different angle. I'm not so concerned with the men and women of God tainting the council. I'm concerned with the council tainting them. The Christian bible, which I assume Spivey subscribes to, does not support the same person pulling double duty as a priest/minister and king/politician. Serve on community-oriented committees. Speak "truth" to those in power. Lead community coalitions. Etc. But be a politican? I just can't wrap my mind around that. Maybe I'm just close-minded

[Bobl]

NO
A one word reply would suffice, but there is a ten character minimum!

[BirdWoman]

Short answer: HELL NO

Long answer: This country used to be believe in the separation of church and state. Some people believed that they didn't want the nation being under the thumb of religious zealots like some of our fellow Muslim nations.

That said, having a father, a reverend, a minister, a nun, a bishop running for public office is bad, bad, bad. Having a voice that is on the side of "GOD" beyond the council chamber would be the wrong move for Detroit.

Uh... Amen!

[Locke09]

For those who express concern about separation of church and state:

How do you draw the line between a person's right to attempt to influence their world to function in the manner they believe it should function, and the fear that a special interest group will control things to the detriment of others? I really believe everyone has that right to attempt influence [[not control, but influence). If they didn't, nothing would ever change for the better or worse. Plus, when you don't give people that right, they will eventually try to take it by force anyway, hence the American Revolution.

So, on one hand, I'm the kind of person who believes you should try to shape your "world". I have a problem with people who sit back and let the world change around them without trying to influence the direction of that change. On the other hand, if I'm honest, I only get really worried when others try to shape it differently from the way I want it shaped and I believe they have the power to accomplish it. Is that somewhat hypocritical of me? Or self-serving, as we humans tend to be?

I'm not being facetious. This is the conflict I have in my mind. I want to shape my world. How can I begrudge others that same desire?