Separation of church and state in the USA: a modern myth
Sunday, November 16, 2008Posted in: American Politics, Azteclady Speaks, hypocrisy
Fair warning for those who have strong religious beliefs and who identify with any particular organized religion or church: what follows is a rant, and it may be (will likely be) insulting to your sensibilities. Unless you want your blood pressure raised, you would be better off skipping it. Thank you.
And with that out of the way…
Remember the outcry over the mormon church’s financial support to the Proposition 8 campaign in California?
Well, please feel free to spread that outcry to other churches.
It’s not just the mormons trying to make a mockery of their respect of the constitution, when they urge elected officials to perform their service to the public while also bowing to the church’s demand.
Please take a gander at the catholic bishops who are denying communion to public officials—gee, and here I thought that forgiveness was one of the main tenets of christianism.
But lo! Their christian generosity doesn’t end there: they’d rather close their hospitals—and leave people without medical care—than perform legal medical procedures if abortion is legalized.
Gee.
Or let’s check out this other priest, who is standing on his pulpit (metaphorically and probably literally) threatening the faithful with Hell and damnation for not toeing a religious line in their civic lives.
Are these people (bishops, priests, corner preachers) within their rights to air their personal opinions? Yes.
Are they within their right to use their church as a platform for political discourse? Methinks not.
And these two articles are the kind of thing that make me wish that religious organizations (aka churches) who indulge in this behaviour got their tax exemption yanked out from under them.
So to them I say: Congratulations, you are total, complete, and accomplished assholes.
For those paying attention: the lack of capitalization is deliberate.
loonigrrl
November 16
11:50 am
I was raised Catholic, but am Catholic no longer. For many years, I struggled with Catholicism and convinced myself that I believed when, in fact, I did not. Twelve years ago, I walked away from the Catholic church, calmly accepted the fact that I was an atheist, and have never had second thoughts regarding that decision.
My decision wasn’t made out of anger or from disappointment. I merely came to the realization that I simply did not believe. I did not just NOT believe in the catholic precepts, but I did not believe in God.
However, since becoming more self aware, I have become more upset and angry with the Catholic church. This attitude of either you’re with us or you’re against us, frankly pisses me off. You’re either going to heaven or you’re going to hell. You either voted for Obama or you voted for McCain. It’s a religion (like so many) based upon fear and guilt, and I am sick of it.
I know not all Catholics (or Christians) are like this because I know many who aren’t, but I’m sick of the leaders of the Catholic religion preaching this line of rhetoric.
Liz
November 16
3:13 pm
Loongirl said it exactly.
I spent 12 years in parochial school. I am now an atheist. I continue to wonder if the religion hadn’t been “shoved down my throat” I might not have the beliefs I have today.
Jenn
November 16
4:09 pm
It is so easy for churches to alienate people they profess to want to bring in and embrace. I still believe in God but not in “religion”. I don’t look to humans (priests, preachers)or those in churches who want to burden others with their righteous attitudes. It is the flawed people in the churches that alienate people and not God. If someone haves an abortion it is between them and God and if someone is gay who I am I to say what God would thinks. I don’t know his mind and no one else does. I have enough trouble keeping up with my own problems much less who someone sleeps with or what they do in their personal life.
vanessa jaye
November 16
4:41 pm
I read the article about the priest denying communion to his Obama supporting parishioners a few days ago and my eyeballs prettymuch popped out on their stalks outta my freakin head.
I’m with you. Separation of state and church, please.
Tuscan Capo
November 16
4:47 pm
The unfortunate part of it is that institutions of religion have been doing this for centuries. Individuals who feel contentment with their individual perspective of spirituality without feeling the urge to impose it on others have always been seen as the most dangerous enemy. I used to be Catholic but I finally came to the conclusion recently that God and God’s love has nothing to do with organized religious doctrine, and certainly not with intolerant practices. If a mere (and very imperfect) man can open his home to friends who are gay or who practice other religions or who vote on a different party ticket, why the hell wouldn’t God?
AztecLady
November 16
4:54 pm
Tuscan Capo, it’s been done by all religions for centuries, agreed–but the point is, the USofA was founded on the principle of separation of church and state by people who had been paying the price of not having it.
Yet we look around us today and see anything *but* that separation.
The poor constitution is being raped from all directions–organized religion, executive power, interest groups…
Teddypig
November 16
4:55 pm
Did Jesus not kick the merchants out of the Temple rather violently?
I get the feeling these freaks are selling hate to the congregation but would suddenly disappear from the pulpit if no personal financial or political power gain was involved.
Maybe it is time for Churches of any sect to swear poverty and humility with all funds going to charity and none used to even run the building then see who would still want to lead them or even follow.
Tuscan Capo
November 16
5:35 pm
Teddypig said, “Maybe it is time for Churches of any sect to swear poverty and humility with all funds going to charity and none used to even run the building then see who would still want to lead them or even follow.”
I like that idea.
Azteclady, the US may have been officially founded on those principles, but that was mainly good press to rouse colonists to separate from England. We have to remember that there was already peoples living here when the Puritans arrived. There was very little in the way of tolerance shown to natives by the Puritans and even less demonstrated by the American government as time progressed. And you’re right, the Constitution is being ripped apart; but there is a chilling irony when you consider that the Puritan legacy of, “In God We Trust” was stamped in the blood of millions slaughtered, displaced and deprived of basic human rights. The myth of separation of Church and State is as old as the nation itself.
Emmy
November 16
5:38 pm
I disagree with the fact that people are being denied communion because of who they voted for. That’s more than a little ridiculous. Also retarded are church officials forcing their doctrine on public officials.
But…public officials are voted in and can be voted out. If their proposals didn’t reflect the majority of their constituent’s views, they wouldn’t be brought to the floor for a vote in the first place. Everybody wants to be re-elected.
I was raised Roman Catholic and was forced to attend mass every Sunday…all the way up until my mom gave up pretending to be straight and hooked up with another woman. That ended the church-going rather quickly, thank God *g*.
There is, in fact, a petition to remove the tax-exempt status of the LDS church for their part in the Prop 8 mess. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-church-of-latter-day-saints-the-mormons
Throwmearope
November 16
7:43 pm
If the catholics (I agree about lack of capitals, AL) lost their tax exempt status, it would go a long way to fixing our 10 trillion dollar deficit. If you preach politics from your pulpit, then pay taxes. If you want separation of church and state to maintain your tax exempt status, STFU.
Raised crazy Baptist, like that nutbag,Huckawannabee, and gave up church for Lent years ago.
Teddypig
November 16
9:11 pm
Found on usenet…
“You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.”
AztecLady
November 16
9:20 pm
I guess I should have made clear that I have nothing against the religion itself–any religion. What irks me beyond the telling are the religious organizations and their representatives.
K. Z. Snow
November 16
9:35 pm
I tackled this issue in the best book, yet most miserable failure, of my writing career. Most people really don’t want to confront the dangerous intolerance and hypocrisies built into organized religion. It makes them squirm.
Marianne McA
November 17
12:12 am
I can’t resist.
So, for arguments sake, I voluntarily join an organisation that believes I should stand on my left foot singing ‘Old MacDonald’ between three and four every Friday in a month beginning with J.
Part of the practice of this organisation is that believers share a Mars bar every Tuesday lunchtime,
I then vote for a man who wants to ban ‘Old MacDonald’.
My fellow believers stop sharing their Mars Bar with me.
And your problem is?
That is – if my fellow MarsBarrers were to physically stop me from going the polls – denying me my rights, you could get excited. But if they deny me something that is only meaningful within the confines of a belief system you don’t accept – how can you be outraged?
People within the religion, yes, I see why they might be horrified. But for those outside, doesn’t the consenting adults rule apply?
(I don’t know about the tax exemption – I can’t offhand think why churches should be exempt from tax, except perhaps in their charitable work.)
AztecLady
November 17
12:24 am
Marianne, I believe your example simplifies the matter to the point where it has nothing to do with what churches are doing in the US. And part of the separation of church and state, if I got it right (people who know better, edumacate me, please), if that *as religious organizations* they won’t take part on the *civic* life of the country. That’s why they are tax exempt.
Threatening congregations with *religious* consequences for *civic* decisions… sounds like crossing the line for me.
Oh, and I’m catholic–or at least brought up that way. Non-practicing since I don’t believe the organization of the catholic church represents the God I believe in.
Mary Winter
November 17
12:49 am
I am a very spiritual person, though I believe more in a “universe” than a single deity per se. I am also aware that as a flag-waving pagan, I’m not exactly in the majority. (I have a don’t ask – don’t tell policy about my religion. You don’t ask me if I’m a witch, and I won’t tell you.)
However, this sickens me. My father’s church told him that since I turned away from his faith, he shouldn’t have anything to do with me. Luckily, his common sense and love for his only child overruled that crappy dogma. And I am so thankful every day for his decision, because in spite of our stark religious differences, my dad and I had a wonderful relationship. I’ve been to many churches over the years. I was young enough that all I remember of the catholic church was sit, stand, kneel and I was just short enough that it was a PITA to get on and off the pews. I went to Mormon sunday school (I have mormon relatives) and have been to the temple in Navoo, Illinois many times (the public part.) I can still sing some of the songs.
I’ve been to enough churches and read enough versions of the bible that I know Jesus says that we should love our neighbor like ourselves, and I can’t remember the exact quote, but it basically said the one who is the farthest from your faith needs the most love. (I believe he aimed this last comment at the Romans.)
Interesing that the very men who claim to preach these things don’t actually follow them. It sickens me, and it’s a very good thing I believe in Karma.
Kaycee
November 17
1:32 am
I can’t/don’t/won’t claim to be an athesist. But I am (all about being) an agnostic.
Ebony
November 17
1:40 am
Interesting post and comments. It doesn’t bother me to read different point of views because I’m secure in my faith. I am a Christian and worship God not man. Each person should know God for themselves and they won’t fall prey to people who teach false doctrines. They will be lead by the spirit to do or say certain things and not follow behind someone just because of their title. God gives us all free will and each decision we make is ours to make–not someone else’s.
delta dupree
November 17
3:49 am
seems to me the catholic churches have “other” problems and worries they should concentrate on.
joanne
November 17
5:32 am
What some (not ALL, I’d like to emphasize) in the American RC hierarchy will end up with – if they succeed on this hairbrained path – is to have NO Roman Catholics holding high public office in the USA. The RC Church is the single largest religious denomination in the country. Do they really want to make is so that there will never be a Catholic POTUS? They should be careful what they wish for. Catholics chose Obama by 9 percentage points, so obviously most aren’t listening.
I just saw this: Diocese Repudiates SC Priest Who Said Catholic Obama Supporters Need Penance Before Communion
“………….But in an unusual move, Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, SC, has issued a statement and video repudiating Father Newman.
“This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena,” wrote Msgr. Laughlin. “The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/diocese-repudia.html
joanne
November 17
5:38 am
Also from Monsignor Laughlin’s public statement:
“Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.
“The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church. We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child.”
joanne
November 17
6:32 am
Here’s the video of the statement:
http://docnotes.catholic-doc.org/statement/
Emmy
November 17
7:45 am
~We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy~
Once you start that ‘influencing policy’ part, the line between church and state dissolves, as does the line between the church and the IRS. Pony up those taxes, please.
Marianne McA
November 17
9:02 am
I know it was a simplification – but it’s hard to make a subtle argument in a comment.
As I said, I don’t see the argument for tax exemption.
In the on-line discussions I’m reading at the moment, ‘freedom of religion’ seems to be treated as a specialised subset of ‘freedom of speech’: that is, people are free to believe what they like, and talk about it, but when their beliefs entail action, other people find that problematic.
So what I’m arguing, I think, is that the right to Freedom of Religion is curtailed enough without people from outside a religion lambasting people within for the way they worship.
And you’re arguing, I think, that it’s fair enough to lambast, because the church is meddling outside it’s remit – but that’s a hard argument for a religious person to accept.
Because where do you draw the line? Churches here were hugely involved in the Make Poverty History campaign – a campaign which desired specific political outcomes. I don’t see that as inappropriate. Why should churches be apolitical?
My gut feeling is that if Catholics feel the church is behaving inappropriately in refusing them communion, it’s up to them to fight that fight, or leave the church. Essentially, I think it’s inappropriate for a priest to refuse to give communion to someone because of how they voted. But I’m not Catholic. And I would think it just as inappropriate for a secular government to dictate to the church who should receive communion.
Teddypig
November 17
9:46 am
Churches here were hugely involved in the Make Poverty History campaign – a campaign which desired specific political outcomes. I don’t see that as inappropriate. Why should churches be apolitical?
Because their money is not going to Make Poverty History it is going into political leveraging.
Californians Against Hate released figures Tuesday showing that $17.67 million was contributed by 59,000 Mormon families since August to groups like Yes on 8. Contributions in support of Prop. 8 total $22.88 million. Additionally, the group reports that Mormons have contributed $6.9 million to pass a a similar law, Proposition 102, in Arizona…
That is millions of dollars in several states proven to have not gone to a single homeless or the hungry person.
We have not tracked or even talked about any other political campaign either. If this is was how a charity was spending it’s money I would shut them down for fraud.
AztecLady
November 17
12:54 pm
Again, I would appreciate some education from those who do know, but my understanding is that the tax exemption is precisely because those monies should be used to benefit the needy. Pouring millions into political campaigns–specifically the Yes on Prop8 campaign–do not help the needy, directly nor indirectly.
sallahdog
November 17
1:31 pm
Churches have actually had their tax exemptions challenged for taking strong political stands before,and using their pulpit to bully their flock into voting for a particular candidate (I do believe they are within their rights to preach against a concept,like abortion, but they aren’t supposed to give directly, church funds for a particular candidate or measure). I know that in my church, the pastor (who was obviously voting republican) didn’t mention names, but made it clear who he thought was the Godly choice… I respectfully disagreed and voted how I wished, because I have a feeling that if Jesus came back today, he would be called a bleeding heart liberal… lol…
As far as the churches pouring money into Prop 8, here is how it worked, from what I understand (and I don’t agree with Prop 8 by the way, much to some of my fellow church going brethrens chagrin)… The churches themselves didn’t give the money, they had their flock give money directly to the campaign… Thereby not messing with their tax exempt status…
As much as I disagree with much of what members of my church espouse on political beliefs, I try to remember this. When Jesus was asked which of the laws or biblical teachings was the MOST important one, the rule that was above all the others, it was . Love one another, as he loved us…
which is why I don’t support discrimination, and will never support it… My logic can not wrap itself around a concept that says that murderers can enter the pearly gates, but two people whos only sin is that they loved each other can’t.. And so, in this, I put it down to human prejudice and try to look at the bigger picture..
Teddypig
November 17
3:38 pm
I seriously disagree.
If you direct your congregation to vote, issue directives on which measures and people to vote for, and direct congregation contributions to those certain measures and people you may not have your name on the actual check but you still are engaging as a primary political fund raiser and organizer.
I mean if we start messing that legal terminology around just for a church then we are going to have real fun with other lobbyist groups.
Persephone Green
November 17
7:22 pm
By law, religious groups are allowed to argue for or against political ideologies but NOT for/against political parties or candidates.
There are three kinds of Americans in the separation of church and state debate:
1. Those who believe in making political decisions based on the pros and cons of former and current policies and for ‘the good of the country,’ which includes both the majorities and the minorities. If someone wants to do something that other people don’t like but the action doesn’t affect the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of the rest of the people in a reasonable way, then we allow that person to do it and others to choose not to do it.
2. Those who believe they are right and can never be wrong because their god said so. The will of the majorities and the minorities are irrelevant; God does not recognize their right to exert free will (it’s hypocrisy at its best here with evangelicals, because free will is a basic tenet of their path to salvation, but I digress). In their view, simply abstaining from personally objecionable behior is not sufficient. Some of these people believe that their god’s kingdom must be restored on earth before he can return; some believe they are sinning in allowing others to sin without actively trying to stop them; a few are unapologetically vocal in their disregard for other people’s human rights, much less civil rights, and think that the Founding Fathers wrote a flawless document that needs no amendments for the rest of time. Because obviously, a bunch of cisgendered, heterosexual, wealthy, white, slave-owning, landlord men whose counterparts counterparts have been in power since the Dark Ages can do no wrong!!!!!1!11
Jefferson had a few choice words to say about such assumptions, but I won’t bore everybody with excessive logic.
Nearly all of the aforementioned people believe that by allowing objectionable actions to occur in this country, they are officially ‘condoning’ such actions whether those actions affect them or not, which is an unacceptable state of being to them as religious people.
3. Those who don’t care enough about the rights of minority groups until they are in the minority, by which time it is usually too late.
I think these people are the ones who need the biggest wake-up call.
We have a long way to go to drag this country into the twenty-first century by its heels. Fortunately, Americans in my age group are on the whole less ignorant and narrow-minded than those who came before us. One can only hope that the rightists and dominionists continue to gather around the Sarah Palins of the conservative party. They certainly have control of the GOP/Republican party’s strongholds of think tanks, congressional seats and media spokespeople as it stands right now. If they continue to shift to the right, they will continually see their ranks diminish in power and influence as the zealots age and pass, their ideas will die out, and America will move forward without them.
Full disclosure: I’m a non-denominational Christian progressive. I’d rather be considered an agnostic than be associated with some of the people who call themselves ‘christians’ in this country, even though the term isn’t entirely accurate for my beliefs.
sallahdog
November 17
8:59 pm
If you direct your congregation to vote, issue directives on which measures and people to vote for, and direct congregation contributions to those certain measures and people you may not have your name on the actual check but you still are engaging as a primary political fund raiser and organizer.
The thing is Teddy, I don’t think thats the way they did it (realize I am not from California or even close and my particular church didn’t get into this measure)…
They probably preached about “keeping the sanctity of marriage” (i know, I think its bs also) and then told their parishioners that if they also felt that it was a good cause, to “help” in the struggle…
Frankly it isn’t a lot different than someone from Planned Parenthood(tax exempt) telling its supporters which of a set of candidates supports or is against them (you have a realize that to many religions they feel that gays are trying to chip away at their religious foundation, while I personally believe that we ALL deserve basic human rights, if a freakin murderer on death row can get married I don’t see why everyone else that wants to can’t)…
Teddypig
November 17
9:57 pm
They probably preached about “keeping the sanctity of marriage” (i know, I think its bs also) and then told their parishioners that if they also felt that it was a good cause, to “help” in the struggle…
Um no, read this guy he is a Mormon please note…
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10798657
Where he says…
“Are you a member or not? Do you want gays to get married in the temple? Please follow the brotheren’s [sic] council [sic] on Proposition 8. This is a important gospel principal [sic].” G., e-mail.
and where he mentions…
“Were you listening in church when the letter was read from the First Presidency about supporting proposition eight?” R.Y., e-mail.
I am pretty damn comfortable in accusing them of political organizing from the pulpit. The Catholics were just as bad.
Time for some IRS lovin.
AztecLady
November 17
10:02 pm
Many churches, big and small, use their charity works to claim tax exemptions while violating the conditions of such exemptions. I agree with TeddyPig–and I hope it catches up with them with a vengeance.
Kat
November 17
11:19 pm
I don’t have a problem with political activism from church groups, but I do draw the line at some of the examples that have been cited here. I think organised religion has a valid political role to play, but I also think that this is often abused when it becomes attached to dogma rather than a real desire to create better outcomes for the disadvantaged. So I don’t think it’s cut and dried. For example, if a church/sect/whatever were to spend money on lobbying for universal health care, there would probably be less outrage because most people would see that as a positive initiative.
The funding issue is something else again. Not really clear on the particulars of how it works in the US.
Oh, and a nitpick. Uncapitalised “catholic” is actually positive and, in fact, inclusive. Oh, the irony.
sallahdog
November 17
11:20 pm
I know that my church (since its quickly becoming a mega church and has a lot of exposure because of that) is very careful to skirt this particular issue… Even refusing to host a fundraiser for a particular candidate because it could open doors to questions…
I am not an apologist for a church going “rogue” and frankly agree that if they were blatant, they should get smacked for it…
Lord knows I was annoyed by the political talk by our pastor (and he kept it general) during the election cycle… I even told him that I respected his opinion, but hoped he respected mine when I thought he was wrong… We agreed to disagree…
dew
November 18
12:27 am
I am probably wrong, but my understanding of the “separation of church and state” is that churches have no control over policy. A few power-hungry knuckleheads don’t have “direct” power over any policy; they’re trying to coerce their church members to vote how they feel is best. That’s not the same as having control over policy; it’s about the same as a media mogul playing more beneficial ads for their chosen politician.
This country is supposedly a free country, which means power-hungry knuckleheads are supposed to be free to pull their shenanigans, but then again, their church members are free to choose another church if they’re not brain-washed.
I believe in God, but think many religions are mostly fronts for money and power scams, with a few hallelujahs thrown in here and there to convince the gullible they’re not embezzling the donations.
I haven’t studied Catholicism a lot, but it’s my understanding that they forbid priests from marrying so they wouldn’t leave their families any wealth they had as a private citizen, because I asked a disgruntled Catholic about it once, and they said there was NOTHING in the bible about priests not being married. I bet they didn’t want their families influencing them either.
When the Catholic Church had real power, I think they acted the same as if it was Sharia law, without the prophet Muhammad. But now days, it seems many Christians are threatened by Islam and Sharia since some of their followers commit mass murder, claiming they’re supporting their “god”. And many “non-terrorist” Muslims seem to think they can turn their head the other way while singing La La La while the terrorists commit mass murder in the name of their “god”.
If Christian priests and ministers want to influence politics, directly or indirectly, they might want to rethink that, because as long as their “people” are in the majority, then their way of believing/thinking rules. But look at how many other faiths are immigrating to many Westernized “Christian” countries, and a lot of those immigrants are popping out babies like Pez dispensers.
If the majority religion influences politics, what’s going to happen once the religious/cultural percentages of the people shift? That’s right! Christianity (Protestant) might no longer be the majority religion, then a different religion (Catholic, Islam) will be in majority and influence politics and public policy.
So it’s my belief that Christian leaders should back the hell down from trying to establish precedence for majority religions playing as back-seat politicians.
PS: There’s no preview option, so I can’t check as easily to see if I rambled.
joanne
November 18
1:32 am
“This country is supposedly a free country, which means power-hungry knuckleheads are supposed to be free to pull their shenanigans, but then again, their church members are free to choose another church if they’re not brain-washed.”
But not with taxpayer money. If they want to engage in “shenanigans” they should forfeit their tax exemption.
This tax exemption for churches should end.
Ebony
November 18
2:49 am
We’re so fortunate to be in this country because we do have freedom of religion and freedom of choice and most importantly, no matter what country you stay in God has given us free will.
I don’t think tax exemptions for church should end. Churches do a lot of good work in the community and although some people might not agree with what the church stands for, it is in no way affecting the great service that churches do all over this country and the world.
Here’s something to think about—everyone seems to be strong on their conviction about their cause—so why can’t members of churches stand up for what they believe in? It’s natural for people to be upset that someone doesn’t agree with their way of thinking, but there’s no reason for violence or words of hate to be slung.
AztecLady
November 18
3:07 am
Someone who knows for sure really should clear it up, but this is–again–what I understand:
One of the conditions, if not the main one, for churches to be tax exempt is that they stay away from politics. The churches break that rule, why should they retain their tax exempt status?
Play by the rules if you want to reap the benefits *shrug*
Kat
November 18
4:26 am
AztecLady, this might help clear it up. It gives examples on what may be considered excessive lobbying or political campaigning.
Angelia Sparrow
November 18
4:31 am
The reason the Mormons have been targeted, and not say, the Knights of Columbus ($500,000 contributued to Yes on 8 ) is because of the sheer VOLUME of money.
Over $20 million was directly donated by Mormons. Members of the Mormon church also gave of their time and talents to produce and air professionally-done TV ads, to canvass the streets and to take people to the polling places.
Also, the Mormons are based in Utah. This is one state interfering in a different state’s election process. I’m not a fan of States’ Rights, since I think we should be one nation and not 50 small ones loosely held together, but this is a direct violation of it.
The $500,000 from the KofC looks paltry next to the Mormon efforts. Since they were the largest single group working for Prop 8, (and because Mormon elders have revelations much quicker than Rome changes its mind) and because they don’t want the publicity, that’s exactly why we’re doing this.
West
November 19
1:04 am
The separation of Church and State is meant not only to keep churches from influencing policy (which is a total joke), but also to keep politics from influencing churches. That’s all fine and dandy, if it were truly practiced. But it’s obvious from these current issues that it’s not really happening. Politicians all over the country try to fight gay marriage, attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, try to force abstinence-only sex ed in schools. These generally stem from religious beliefs.
The separation needs to go even further. Religion should have no place in politics. If a senator or a congressman, or even the President wishes to believe that abortion, homosexuality or anything along those lines is wrong, in the privacy of their own home or church, that’s fine. I can’t change their mind. They are entitled to that belief. But they don’t have the right to make that decision for others. Their religion has no place in making laws that govern their country. Gay marriage harms no one (as opposed to banning it, which harms those couples who wish to show their love the same way straight couples do). Abortion involves no one other than the mother/parents, who are making the best decision for themselves (*note- I do not believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control, and should be only a last resort). If parents believe that sex before marriage is wrong, they have the right to teach their children this, just as those children have the right to decide which is best for them. But using religion as a basis for such laws effectively forces those religious beliefs on others. Don’t like gays? Don’t be friends with them. Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one. But don’t make that decision for anyone else.
Oh- and as for the belief that churches don’t tell their parishioners how to vote, there was a quote from one of the major churches (can’t remember which one) saying how disappointed they were when Obama was elected, stating “They had tried to keep their flocks in line”. What am I supposed to take from that, other than they told their parishioners who to vote for?
Jen
November 19
8:14 am
There’s documentation of memos from Mormon elders specifically targeting states like California in efforts to get civil rights for gays overturned. And they did it with bald-faced lies. They came right out and told people that without Prop 8 in place, their churches would be forced to marry gays–which is a flat-out lie. No civic law can force a religious entity to perform a religious sacrament. As a correlation, no civic law can nullify the sanctity of a religious rite–so outlawing gay marriage legally *specifically* does not prevent *my* temple (or any temple, circle, church, or religious org) from conducting religious rites to marry *anyone.* So Epic Fail on that one for the nutbaggers, because there are still churches out there that welcome folks for the religious rite. The nutbaggers won the secular and lost the spiritual. And there are a lot of us working and praying to get this overturned.
The Mormons should lose their tax-exempt status. This was a concerted, organized effort to legislate, and they crawled into bed with the Catholics to do it, too. Look how many millions they spent on busing the faithful across state lines to knock on doors, and how much they spent on radio ads, on hollywood spots, on plastic yard signs, on robo-calls. Look how much money there is *to* spend, because Jesus is not just a redeemer, but a revenue stream, too.
Think of all the food that could have bought for hungry people. Instead, it was all wasted on making sure Chuck and Larry could never feed each other wedding cake.