The fundamental idea that politics and religion should not intersect or overlap is flawed. It sounds great in theory; however, in reality I would suspect that most people do not divide their worldview into secular and sacred. For better or for worse, the marriage of politics and religion will not be undermined by political correctness or even the laws governing the seperation of church and state.
We as a society must be mature enough to realize that although we all come to the table of brotherhood, we all do not sit on the same side. All Christians, Muslims, and Jews did not come to the table of America via the same journey, parentage, cultural perspectives, or starting points. Naturally we will not all share the same views on social or political issues. How someone understands his or her faith and how a person uses his or her vote are part of a total picture of how we as a collective people create our world views. The IRS should not seek to antogonize churches for participating in the democratic process. Yes, the church is an institution that is a community of faith, but the church is also an institution that is a community of concerned citizens who usually share the same or simular values and worldviews.
What people vote for or against is usually an extension of what they believe on a sacred level.
Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with like-minded people who happen to belong to the same institution discussing and exercising their right to vote for or endorse a particular candidate.
2007-01-29 10:35:11 · 6 answers · asked by Andre L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Pete for the Supreme Court! If only we could vote.
2007-01-30 11:55:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Runner is among the millions who still don't get it. The First Amendment states only that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Clear enough. The Federal Congress cannot pass a law mandating any religion, nor pass a law proscribing the practice of any. It does not say anything about what "the people" can or cannot do, nor where they can or cannot do it. To take the position that reciting a prayer in a public school - being supported by tax dollars - is a violation for that reason, is a stretch. If you're a Hindu, Buddhist, or Universalist-Unitarian, don't participate. You're not being forced to. In fact, the prohibition of such is a violation of the second part: "... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is also very hypocritical. Congress opens its sessions with a prayer, a relief of Moses holding the Ten Commandments adorns the Supreme Court building, and all branches of our military services have chaplins. These practices are accepted as not in violation, and for a simple reason - they are not. The concept of the separation of church and state is borrowed from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Society of Danbury, CT. He used that term, but if the complete text is read, it is obvious that he did not mean it as currently interpreted. This interpretation was originated by the ACLU, founded by one Roger Baldwin, an avowed communist, in its continuing efforts to tear down our culture. The first case was brought in Texas by an Atheist whose daughter was "offended" by the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in her school. But this practice was not mandated by Congress; it was a free choice by local citizens. Runner, in her reference to the ills of certain religious beliefs past and present, misses the point that modern, enlightened religions are not tools of the state used to incite the populace to xenophobic wrath. And in America, even before the ACLU was around, it never was. Hope this helps. Feel free to incorporate. By the way, good essay!
2007-01-29 20:43:54 · answer #2 · answered by Pete 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree. Religion and politics will always mix no matter what any law says. And that's fine. It's been going on in the US since it's inception. But these extremely large evangelical or fundementalist Churches are as much PACs (Political Action Commitees) as religious institutions and they make as much money as some foturne 500 companies. And ALL PACs pay taxes in America and so should the Evangelical/Fundementalists Churches because they have become MUCH more than just Churches.
2007-01-29 19:52:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Although we will never full separate church and state, we should try. Religion does not belong in politics. In the some areas, they cannot even fathom the idea of politics without religion, and so people are being killed for their religious beliefs. This is the way it was in the Middle Ages, too; they were being persecuted for their beliefs. In the US we have the right to freedom of religion, whether we choose to practice a religion or not. Our government should not be regulated by religion.
2007-01-29 19:00:53 · answer #4 · answered by runner08 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What laws governing the separation of church and state? There are no laws regarding that. That's just a phrase that Satanic people use to persecute Christian political activity. The legal or constitutional justification for separation of church and state is a mythical fantasy of Satanic proportions.
The final authority is God. What does God have to say on the subject of civic responsibility? Does he say we should cover our heads and murmur about? Or does he say to make the most of every opportunity and let your light shine?
Personallly, it would be impossible for me to care less what Satanic people think about Christians being pro-active in politics. I'm a Christian and I'm extremely active and there's next to nothing Satanic/secularists can do to stop me.
2007-01-29 19:37:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
your so right.
2007-01-30 01:44:42 · answer #6 · answered by thevillageidiotxxxx 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋