I am a great admirer of Bishop Robinson, but, in my humble opinion, this was not a good move. It's the sort of thing that can come back and bite. Clergy may and should speak out on issues, but publically endorsing specific candidates is, I believe, a mistake.

June Butler

Partisanship is not a dirty word. We as Christians live in the world (and more than likely are of the world). I've seen much evidence that we've made much difference in public policy taking positions on issues while foregoing involvement in electing representatives to carry out that policy.

If you believe that issues make a difference then, and it would make a difference that you spoke out about them in public policy terms, then you ought not to shy away from identifying candidates that would make a difference on that issue.

Actually, one _my_ issues is single-issue candidates (and single issue clergy, Martin Luther King aside).

I am a very partisan Democrat, but when I was serving in the Pentagon, I took seriously the tradition that those of us who serve in the Pentagon ought not get involved in partisan politics.

It seems to me that the same principle is at stake here. While it will not always be the case, I think that in most cases, a priest can seriously hurt his congregation by taking an active role in politics. We are divided enough on issues of faith, and it seems to me that adding partisan politcs to the mix can only make matters worse.

I am also concerned about the loss of the prophetic voice if the clergy become too aligned with one party or the other. Matin Luther King has moral force because he spoke truth to power, even when those in power were Democrats. He woudl have lost much of that power had he endorsed Johnson in 64.

I feel very much the same -- speaking to issues is fine & appropriate. Speaking to candidate endorsements sends entirely the wrong message. I'm a great admirer of +Gene, but this was a case of bad judgement IMOVHO.

If a movie star does it it's one thing; when the Church does it it's entirely different. For good or bad, real or only perceived, it puts the Church on record as a partisan political entity, which is something we should never be. And that's just ethically speaking -- the legal & PR ramifications are going to be serious & soon.

I do not see what is unethical about endorsing a political candidate. I do see that it causes IRS problems of religious tax exemption, but that, to me, is wrong on two counts. First, that it introduces a penalty on free speech. Second, that we subsidize religion relative to other nonprofits.

I have never seen what is wrong with religious organizations endorsing candidates even as I see that the religious right might be having an effect I personally do not desire. Is this where the PR problem arises?

I am glad the Episcopal Church has taken a stand on gay rights. I am glad to have bishops endorse candidates. I am not glad that a bishop would endorse a candidate because that candidate is closest on a single issue. Bishop Robinson enjoys wide support within the church. In my humble opinion he would enjoy wider support if he showed more interest in other issues.

I was dismayed at Gene's endorsement of a candidate. As a bishop he represents a role as well as being a person with his own ideas. It is one more thing that he has piled on himself and his episcopacy.

Per John C.: "I do not see what is unethical about endorsing a political candidate."

I do see & understand your POV, John; here's where *I'm* coming from on this part --

In an ideal world where everyone was honest & above board (& I am in no way accusing +Gene of being anything but!) there would be no problem. People's opinions would all be recognized as being just that -- their own personal opinion. However we've seen that many people associated with groups that wield influence tend to *abuse* that influence, & sadly those groups often tend to be churches. People looked up to as pastoral leaders have almost unlimited license to manipulate their influence to their own personal agendas, often with disastrous results. Since sauce for the goose must also be sauce for the gander, even the *good* people should be squeaky-clean, which is why it must be unethical for all sides to use their canonical (if you will) influence for (OR against) a particular person. Issues? OK, because issues aren't human targets. When it becomes people, it changes the nature of things.

The above naturally ties in with the other point you mentioned, the political PR aspect. Look at the political mileage to be gained, & the political damage to be dealt, by extremists who will exercise HIGHLY selective ethics as regards their own religious political activity. "Look at these Episcopalians, will you, just LOOK at them! Here they are, telling us WE can't politick from the pulpit to put our own unrighteous dirtbag into office, & look what one of their own bishops does, & a faggot at that! We've got to make sure these liberal queer-lovers OUT of power for our own good or they'll try to kill us all!!"

Yes, I know -- it's en extreme example, but we all know that it *is* no exaggeration -- it's how a lot of people are, & we all know the dangers of fanaticism. That's why we must be as simon-pure as humanly possible, targeting NO individual either positively OR negatively.