Seperation of Church and State?

[Love_Spell_6]

I wonder why seperation of church and state doesn't apply to stuff like this?? I guess when the goal is in one's interest...they turn their heads to the issue Whats funny to me is that a lot of black people will down Bush for not going to black churches and pandering like Kerry does...as if Kerry really cares about black people and our plight...we have to care about ourselves and do what we have to do for our own community...not fall down and bow to the first candidate that comes to our churches...ONLY AROUND ELECTION TIME!


October 10, 2004, 8:04 PM EDT
Kerry campaigns in Fla. with Sharpton, Jackson

MIAMI -- The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton set aside their rivalry yesterday and appeared jointly at a church to exhort blacks to vote for Democrat John Kerry, who cast his own election as a continuation of the nation's civil rights struggle.

With polls showing blacks support Kerry overwhelmingly, Jackson and Sharpton urged about 300 parishioners at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church to be sure to vote, warning against efforts to keep blacks from the polls on Nov. 2.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...-top-headlines

[AlphaXi4983]

no, there is no longer a separation of church and state. and this cannot be blamed on one candidate or the other, both major parties are responsible for this (i dont know enough about the minor parties to include/exclude them). both sides constantly bring religion into political debates in an effort to draw voters to them. it seems almost to be more a thing of convenience than actual belief though. i think this has been most notable during this election campaign becuase of the many controversial topics, but it has been present for some time now. regardless, it is absolutely rediculous that religion is allowed to be brought into politics the way it has been. i am not here to state my religion or to bash any religion, but in a state that is as religiously diverse as the united states, one religion should not be more influential over laws and policies than any other. the only way to accomplish this is for politicians to re-visit the constitution and pay close attention to the part about religion and the state.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by AlphaXi4983
no, there is no longer a separation of church and state. and this cannot be blamed on one candidate or the other, both major parties are responsible for this (i dont know enough about the minor parties to include/exclude them). both sides constantly bring religion into political debates in an effort to draw voters to them. it seems almost to be more a thing of convenience than actual belief though. i think this has been most notable during this election campaign becuase of the many controversial topics, but it has been present for some time now. regardless, it is absolutely rediculous that religion is allowed to be brought into politics the way it has been. i am not here to state my religion or to bash any religion, but in a state that is as religiously diverse as the united states, one religion should not be more influential over laws and policies than any other. the only way to accomplish this is for politicians to re-visit the constitution and pay close attention to the part about religion and the state.

I agree with you...but if you're going to use religion to bolster your sides argument..then don't criticize the other side for doing the same thing. Don't go into churches...but say you don't want to get into the religiousity of gay marriage because of seperation of church and state...and vice versa. This does happen on both sides of the aisle..I just wish the candidates would be real.

[DeltAlum]

Seems to me that there is a pretty big difference between two ministers -- albeit highly politically active ones -- campaigning for a person or party and a party itself (through phone banks, etc) attempting to use religious organizations to forward it's causes and candidates. Apparantely both sides have done the latter.

However, it seems to me that in neither case is there a Constitutional issue, because political parties aren't the government per se.

If a sitting government official uses her/his influence to try to shape the course of a religion -- or shape the course of the government because of his/her religious beliefs, that's another matter.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
However, it seems to me that in neither case is there a Constitutional issue, because political parties aren't the government per se.

If a sitting government official uses her/his influence to try to shape the course of a religion -- or shape the course of the government because of his/her religious beliefs, that's another matter.

Agreed. The church/state issue, in my opinion, has more to do with things like prayer in public schools and issues of that sort.

As a non-Christian, I wish politicians would keep their religious views quiet. You don't have to be Christian to be President -- religious views have nothing to do with one's ability to govern the country, and although Christians might be the majority in this country, it's the President's job to work for ALL Americans.

[adduncan]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
However, it seems to me that in neither case is there a Constitutional issue, because political parties aren't the government per se.

It's a little more than that. Kerry and these two "ministers" were campaigning in a church, during church services.

If those "ministers" are taking tax exemptions for religious organizations (the churches themselves are, no doubt) then it's a major IRS violation that could get their tax-exempt status yanked.

If a Republican were campaigning from a pulpit, there would be a major outcry over the tax exempt status. But it's a Democrat, w/ Al "I Believe Tawana Brawley" Sharpton and Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson. We'll see if anyone bothers....

--add

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by adduncan
It's a little more than that. Kerry and these two "ministers" were campaigning in a church, during church services.

If those "ministers" are taking tax exemptions for religious organizations (the churches themselves are, no doubt) then it's a major IRS violation that could get their tax-exempt status yanked.

If a Republican were campaigning from a pulpit, there would be a major outcry over the tax exempt status. But it's a Democrat, w/ Al "I Believe Tawana Brawley" Sharpton and Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson. We'll see if anyone bothers....

--add

EXACTLY!

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Agreed. The church/state issue, in my opinion, has more to do with things like prayer in public schools and issues of that sort.

As a non-Christian, I wish politicians would keep their religious views quiet. You don't have to be Christian to be President -- religious views have nothing to do with one's ability to govern the country, and although Christians might be the majority in this country, it's the President's job to work for ALL Americans.

We probably have similar, if not downright identical, views in this situation.

Besides, Bush isn't innocent of stumping in churches either. It's a big constituency, and candidates have done that for quite some time. As long as they don't bring the pulpit into the Oval Office, I could give two rats' asses where they stump.

[Taualumna]

I think no matter how people want to separate chuch and state, people also have to admit that many countries were founded on (Judeo-)Christian principles and it would be difficult to rid that because it is just so ingrained (engrained?) into the culture.

[chideltjen]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
We probably have similar, if not downright identical, views in this situation.

Besides, Bush isn't innocent of stumping in churches either. It's a big constituency, and candidates have done that for quite some time. As long as they don't bring the pulpit into the Oval Office, I could give two rats' asses where they stump.

Co-sign.

[Xylochick216]

I was surprised to hear about Kerry campaigning at church, but like it was said earlier, that's not necessarily a violation. As long as the preachers weren't endorsing him, I'm fine with it.

Now Jerry Falwell using his church newsletter to endorse Bush was a clear violation. Good ol' Jerry just had a huge conference here teaching politicians how to use their tax-exempt status to endorse candidates and get around the gov't. Now THAT pisses me off.

[adduncan]

Originally posted by Xylochick216
As long as the preachers weren't endorsing him, I'm fine with it.

But they were endorsing him......

--add

ETA:
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...-top-headlines

"The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton set aside their rivalry yesterday and appeared jointly at a church to exhort blacks to vote for Democrat John Kerry , who cast his own election as a continuation of the nation's civil rights struggle." (emphasis added)

So the question is, are Democratic supporters as angry at this as they are at Falwell, et al?

[FHwku]

i don't think the church/clergy/preachers are promoting unification of church & state. any church has a set of values and beliefs that they are trying to make sure is represented.

[Xylochick216]

I don't think any preachers should be endorsing candidates, period. While I am 100% for Kerry, I don't think he should have had endorsement from these men. I just hate it when people use religion as a vehicle for candidates. Imagine how the people at that church who are pro-Bush felt, just as people at a pro-Kerry church would feel if someone in an authoritative position at their church were endorsing Kerry. As dumb as it sounds, when someone with influence in a church endorses a candidate, I think people in the church may feel as if their views are wrong and they should vote the way the church is influencing them. To me, that is horrible. I'm glad I go to a church where I am allowed to think for myself and I do not have to defend myself for voting the way I do.

[valkyrie]

I'm not angry about anyone endorsing anyone. Why should it bother me? I'll vote according to my beliefs, and that has nothing to do with anyone else.