Cycloptichorn wrote:I believe that the founders of our country thought religion was so dangerous, that despite the fact that they themselves were religious, they went far out of their way to eliminate the link between our Govt' and churches.
Church and religion have always had a special ability to control the weak minded, and influence the strong minded. Eternal salvation is dangerous stuff to be messing in with politics.
I don't like it when Dems stump in churches, either. Find me some links of the Dems doing this kind of activity and I'll knock them the same way.
To compare churches to unions, celebrities, and environmentalists is just ridiculous, and you know it....
Cycloptichorn
I know no such thing, and your posting does little to explain why it might be.
The First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Of course if the quid pro quo flowing from the request for membership lists was to establish Christianity as the official religion of the US, it would be outrageous, but we all know that is not remotely possible.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that suggests that groups established on the basis of their religious convictions cannot participate in the political processes of the nation.
They may not be entitled to a tax free status, but that is a different issue. (Although it may be a actor in the refusal of the Southern Baptists to accomodate the administration)
As long as the quid pro quo flowing from a relationship between a political party and a religious group doesn't constitute the establishment of religion or prohibits the free exercise thereof, how does it run afoul of the constitution?
Church groups seek political influence on the issue of abortion. So do Womens' Rights Groups. Why is one position more dangerous than the other?
I'm fairly certain that my opposition to a State created or sponsored religion is as strong as anyone else's, and I am not a member of any organized religious group. I fully appreciate how, throughout history, religious groups have been responsible for heinous acts, but I also fully appreciate how they have been responsible for courageous and charitable acts and have provided their members with great comfort and inspiration.
I suppose we can argue over this until the cows come home, but I don't think the Founders saw religion, by itself, dangerous, but rather as part of a combination with the State. The distinction may or may not be subtle, but it nevertheless is real.
What I am taking issue with is the apparent reflexive negative response to religion, and the apparent presumption that individuals organized around religious principles are inherently more dangerous that individuals organized around political principles.
I am also taking issue with the notion that there can only be one interpretation of the First Amendment and if one doesn't agree with that one interpretation, one "doesn't get it," whatever the hell "is" is.