Separation of Church and State?

Very good point! Seeing as any Immigration reform would have to be signed into law, and "Congress shall pass no law..." etc, it would appear at first glance she's on very, very thin ice...if she's not knee deep already.

The other case is very similar. The money for the food being supplied is budgeted...federal budgets are handled by congress...budgets are signed into law. If the money (budget0 (law) supports prayer exclusive to a single faith, then it crosses the line set for congress.

The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion. I figure anyone who passes a law that restricts that freedom is probably, ultimately unconstitutional. But the government is prohibited from advancing any religion, too. That means that it can't do anything to prohibit the individual from practicing, but it also can't do anything to encourage the individual to practice.

This is a very thin line. I think the founders of our country and those who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be surprised to see some aspects of it.

Just as an example, if you carry the Georgia example to its logical conclusion, it would be illegal for anyone to drive their car to church, since the streets are built with government money. You couldn't worship IN the church, because the water and sewer are supplied through the government.

I grew up in a church that makes most fundamentalists look radically liberal, but it supported the prohibition of prayer in schools. That one's not hard to figure out. I can't see any place for a group prayer at a football game, graduation...or, for that matter, at the opening of Congress.

For a long time, the schools, colleges, and universities operated by this denomination refused all government aid, from school lunch aid to college loans to even GI Bill funds. That stance was eventually dropped on funds that went directly to the students, without passing through any form of holding by the schools. Their fear, of course, was the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules. They wanted to be able to accept or reject what students they felt they needed to, and hire and fire what staff they felt they needed to.

Freedom From Religion is a concept for the feeble-minded, I think. If your personal rejection of religion isn't strong enough to stand up to occasionally hearing someone pray or seeing a cross or reading the ten commandments, then you haven't really rejected it and it still has some pull on you.

To put it in other words, I don't have to argue with every Harley rider about how much I dislike his motorcycle. I know in my heart what his psychological and intellectual weakness is that caused him to buy it. I'll just go on my way and not buy one, in spite of the heavy advertising budget of Harley Davidson.

I agree - I can see if she's, what, annoyed if the hierarchy is coming to Congress saying to work on immigration (which I believe they are), yet not communicating that to their congregations.

Having said that, I really loathe any denomination savying 'hey, to be a good whatever, you should vote for whomever'. But, a lot of the congregations of all types pay lip service to their sect's theology yet feel, and vote, a different way (e.g., the Church opposes the death penalty, yet a lot of Catholics personally support it - go figure).

I think this was a misstep on Pelosi's part.

Actually, Republicans HAVE done this...they called it "Faith Based Initiatives".

Actually, that's not the logical conclusion. The government built the roads for everyone, not for any particular church. Wiccas can drive to Coven and Yule just as freely, so the roads aren't exclusive to any religion. And anyone that pays utilities have use of them, regardless of faith, so there is no promoting any particular faith there either. The key lies in "all or none".

Actually, that's an interesting presentation as it can be completely reversed. But instead of dwelling on that, a question. When extremists refer to the entire US as "the great Satan", and call every other religion, to include Christianity, "infidels" and "unbelievers", does that bother you at all? And why?

Doesn't bother me a bit because an "extremist" by my definition has no credibility whatsoever. I don't give a flying fig what they say or do as long as they say or do it in their space, and not mine.

Ah, so as long as it's where you can't hear it, (i.e. not in your space) it doesn't bother you.

And where is the Pious Pelosi on the subject of abortion and embryonic stem cell research as it relates to her Catholic religion? Can she spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ? She's got a lot of nerve telling the Church what they should preach from the pulpit.

No, because I already said that they have no credibility in my mind. There is absolutely nothing I could say or do to change the mind of an extremist. There will always be those that are extreme in one way or another. I have far more important things to worry about than to be concerned about something I can't control.

Actually, lots of Catholics have issues with Church doctrine on abortion and stem cell research - among other conflicts .

Only to the extent it prompts anyone to actual action.

But just to be clear, I oppose calling anyone a name, especially such emotionally charged ones. I was taught very early that as soon as someone trots out the name-calling, they know in their heart they have lost the argument.

I don't think any church should tell their parishioners what they should think, regardless if its political or not. I'm not in favor of indoctrination, and so many people take what they hear from the clergy as gospel. I'm all for people being educated and informed on issues - on ALL sides of the issues - but church is not the platform for ideas of that sort.

On the other hand, if all they're preaching is a "love thy neighbor, even if he is illegal" kind of message - no harm in that.

I think you're right about this, but probably not in the way you mean. I think guys like Jefferson and Paine would be shocked and saddened over our national motto, especially in light of the circumstances that it came to be.

No, as Mike pointed out, that slippery slope argument doesn't work. If the government is telling certain denominations that they can't use the roads, then you have a problem, but they're free for everyone to use so they're not encouraging one religion over another. If they agree to hook up sewer lines or build a road to a Catholic church, but deny the same request to a Protestant church, then there's a problem.

There are bad apples in every group, but most of the people I know who belong to groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation don't want all religion banned, just government sponsored religion. So they don't object to, say, their neighbor building a ten-foot-tall cross in his back yard, but they would object to the local government building a ten-foot-high cross in front of the courthouse.

As for the OP, while tacky, I don't see anything there that expressly violates the separation of church and state. She's not promoting the Catholic church, she's asking them to take sides in a political issue. The problem, as *I* see it, is that the Catholic church (or any other religion) is taking a stance on a political issue. Whenever a pastor, imam, or priest stands in front of a congregation and says, "You should vote for..." or "You should write your congressman about..." he's speaking for the church and not as a private citizen. When that happens, I think that they should get a nice little letter from the IRS threatening to pull the church's tax-exempt status if they keep it up.

Actually, I interpret this part just a little bit differently. The 2nd (1st...oops) Amendment is directed at Congress, and by later Amendments to state governments. It doesn't, in any way or form that I can see, restrict anything said by either private citizens or Churches as organizations. People have been voting their conscience and their faith for as long as votes have been cast, and I'd fully expect them to keep doing it that way, if for no other reason than to be honest with themselves. As long as they aren't taking campaign money from anyone, I see no problems there.

This 2nd Amendment? What does this have to do with religion?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Gettin' my 'mendments mixed up.

Must be all that "guns n' bibles" talk.

The problem is that if churches (or synagogues, mosques, temples, or whatever) start endorsing politicians, then they have some degree of power over said politicians. For example, if the RCC endorses Nancy Pelosi, what happens when the local bishop calls her up and says "If you vote in favor of embryonic stem cell research, we'll endorse your opponent next time?" Now you potentially have millions of people voting for a candidate, not because of what they think about the issues, but because their church tells them that they need to or else imperil their mortal souls. And, of course, the churches that would have the power to do that would be the larger, wealthier churches - the RCC, the Mormon church, Scientology, etc. By contrast, the independent church down the street would have almost no say and the government would effectively be favoring one religion over another by enacting laws that they favor. So a prohibition on religious organizations taking an active role in politics actually helps protect those same religious organizations from being treated unfairly by those same politicians.

That's been going on for decades, at all levels of government. That's where everything from Blue Laws to Prohibition to school dress codes come from.

And it started before we were ever a country. For being seekers of religious freedom, the Puritans were mighty controlling of each other and others.

Most states still have a few vestiges of it. But here in Texas, it's boiled down to just car and RV dealers. They have to close either Saturday or Sunday.

IIRC I don't believe the Constitution or the Amendments specifically used the term, "separation of church and state." And it's interesting that those that scream this phrase the loudest and want "In God We Trust" removed from coin and currency and complain about a public display of a Christmas tree or the Ten Commandments, don't scream and complain when a minister endorses a political candidate from the pulpit. Seems like a double standard to me! And endorsing a particular political candidate and encouraging your parishioners to do the same can jeopardize the tax exempt status of religious organizations under the IRS rules governing 501(c)3 non-profit organizations.

It doesn't look like a double standard to me. Instead, it looks like they may actually understand the Constitution. And just from what I've seen, most of those that argue the constitutionality of such things know it's wording, and where "separation of church and state" was actually mentioned.

(FTR, "public display" and "public property" are 2 different things. A Church can put their trees and rocks at all 4 walls and the roof of their own property, and no one will mind...except maybe the neighbors )

Please enlighten me! Please quote exactly where "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution or the Amendments or even the Declaration of Independence.

And people do continually complain about public displays of Christian symbols. The cross in the Mohave desert is a good example. When the high court upheld the right for the cross to stay, vandals stole it. And every holiday season there are complaints of "Christmas" trees in public buildings, and even the annual ritual of lighting the National Christmas Tree is in danger.

Now I really have no problem with removing Christian symbols from government buildings, but a Christmas tree isn't a Christian symbol, and "Christmas" is a national holiday any way you look at it.

But if you want to literally abide by "separation of church and state," then it must go both ways, and no priest, minister or religious practitioner should have the right to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit if they want to keep their tax exempt status. You can't have it both ways. Read the tax code.

Can you please provide proof of this statement?

It isn't. When I said where it is "actually mentioned", that is exactly what I meant. It was in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

Ah, but we are mixing up "in public" and "belonging to the public" yet again. Public property, or Government property, belongs to everyone, of every faith. They cannot be used constitutionally to promote the symbols of one faith, and deny the others.

Now, IN public, citizens and religious institutions can put up whatever displays they desire, on their OWN property. I would imagine they could even rent private property to put up displays, as long as they were in agreement with the property owners.

I was pleasantly surprised in the Mojave cross case. The court actually upheld the cross remaining for the right reasons. They didn't make anything religious of it, but upheld it for the very reason the men who ORIGINALLY put it up did so...to honor their fallen.

We completely agree on this one. But as I recall, both the National Christmas tree AND the National Holiday tree (different trees, BTW) were reaffirmed last Christmas.

That's not what the Bill of Rights says. All the restrictions are placed on the Government. It doesn't impose any restrictions whatsoever on citizens, even preachers. A minister can say whatever he wants, and it may cause scandal, cause violence, or be a hate-mail magnet, but he/she can still say it. Now, if the church's congregation were to become politically active and say, do a door-to-door for a particular candidate, that would probably cross the line...but they could still do it, it's just that their church may then fall into the "pay to play" category under the tax code.

For many, many years Churches stayed out of politics, but it wasn't because they had too. It's because many of the clergy felt that the church dealing with political matters was merely meddling in mortal affairs, and not the place of the church. But, they've never been forbidden from doing so, if they felt it their place.

Every year some person or group wants to end the tradition. Just wait until November. They will pop up once more.

Proof please?

Proof of what? That there are people who protest every year over Christmas in the White House? Christmas decorations at the Capitol? Honestly you would have to be living in a vacuum not to be aware of the war against Christmas!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a

Like I said. Wait until Nov. and the protests will start again. Happens every year, but it's such old mundane repetitive news, that it doesn't get much press attention.

Just google "war against christmas" and you'll have lots of proof!