When is a violation of Sep. of Church/State not a violation?

To the Editor:

Elisabeth Meinecke reports in the 05/17/2010 Human Events, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is telling Catholic bishops who want her to pass immigration reform that they must speak out in favor of the reform in their churches. "'The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’” Pelosi, who is Catholic herself, said Thursday at the Catholic Community Conference. “And I say, ‘But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit.’”

When is it not a violation of the separation of church and state to push a political agenda from pulpits? Evidently, when liberals want it done. (One wonders if any of these churches will be threatened with the loss of its tax exemption.)


Pastor Terry K. Hagedorn
Calvary Baptist Church
PO Box 282 Reedsville, WV
Ph. 304-864-3870
http://mountainmanna.com

"Pointing Mountaineers to Mount Calvary."

Keli,

It is pure Machiavellianism. They use religion as it suits their needs, and when it doesn't, they condemn the mixing of religion and politics, and too many people fall for it.

Churches can be involved in advocating for or against political issues as little or as much as they care to be. It is only when they become partisan advocates that they risk their tax-exempt status.

Government, on the other hand, is prohibited by the Constitution from being an advocate for or against religion.

I think that both of you, Keli and Sheik Ben, understand this all very well. And I think that you are being less than candid in suggesting that it is so arbitrary and deceitful.

As to Pelosi, if you don't like her, then don't vote for her.

ziggy wrote:Churches can be involved in advocating for or against political issues as little or as much as they care to be. It is only when they become partisan advocates that they risk their tax-exempt status.

Government, on the other hand, is prohibited by the Constitution from being an advocate for or against religion.

I think that both of you, Keli and Sheik Ben, understand this all very well. And I think that you are being less than candid in suggesting that it is so arbitrary and deceitful.

As to Pelosi, if you don't like her, then don't vote for her.

Ziggy,
Should I check with Nanzi to see if I can speak in favor of the Arizona Law--which only enforces the federal law. (Oh yes, I have and will vote against Nanzi and this whole regime. Thank you for the suggestion though.)

ziggy wrote: Government, on the other hand, is prohibited by the Constitution from being an advocate for or against religion.

Like a man I once worked with, you are quite good at quoting law and more amazingly sometimes you are even correct. Anyways, on another thread it was pointed out how laws seem to pertain to some and not others. I believe the discussion was about your fool president speaking at a high school graduation. Now that being said, if what you say is so, then isn't the government in violation of its own mandates when congress opens with a prayer. Just courious.

Ziggy,

So do you think it is not mixing "church with politics" when Christian churches call for the abolition of abortion? Most of your fellow travellers surely do, and that is an issue position. If you are an exception to that trend, you are just that, an exception.

As to "less than candid" and "deceitful," I suggest you obtain better coffee, dear Zig.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote: Government, on the other hand, is prohibited by the Constitution from being an advocate for or against religion.

Like a man I once worked with, you are quite good at quoting law and more amazingly sometimes you are even correct.

You really think so? I am not so sure.

Anyways, on another thread it was pointed out how laws seem to pertain to some and not others. I believe the discussion was about your fool president speaking at a high school graduation.

He is just as much your "fool president" as he is mine.

Now that being said, if what you say is so, then isn't the government in violation of its own mandates when congress opens with a prayer. Just courious.

Congress is almost always in "violation" of its own mandates. As to this specific question, (1) It might depend on the nature of the "prayer", and (2) whether or not the "prayer" is imposed as law upon the rest of us. As far as I know, it isn't. Like most everything else Congress does- including prescribing the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance- it is all about political image / political correctness, not some undercurrent of establishing religion as an official act.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

So do you think it is not mixing "church with politics" when Christian churches call for the abolition of abortion? Most of your fellow travellers surely do, and that is an issue position. If you are an exception to that trend, you are just that, an exception.

Sure, it is mixing church with politics. And there is no prohibition in mixing church with politics as relates to issue advocacy. The civil rights movement, the "anti-abortion" and the "pro-choice" movements, and the anti-war movement(s) were / are all well establsihed in certain churches, for example. And as far as I know those are not a problem for anyone. It is only when issue advocacy becomes candidate advocacy and /or political party advocacy that a problem exists- and then only as relates to a church's tax exempt status.

As to "less than candid" and "deceitful," I suggest you obtain better coffee, dear Zig.

I will offer a toast to better coffee any day.