Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Gozer when a religious organization is confronted by a proposed or current law that is offensive to their religious beliefs they should have every right to support political action against said laws. The separation of church and State shouldn't mean that any aspect of life that the State involves itself in must be off limits to the church.
|
Obvious moving of the goalposts from your stance at the time.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=193
It would have been polite to address my argument instead of moving on to your usual brand of canting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
In the one case you cite the church and State were separated by a free vote of the people of California. That is a pretty reasonable separation and is in line with what the Framers envisioned.
|
The church and state were separated by a vote on state law that was heavily influenced by the church?
You lost me.
Without addressing the constitutionality of it, I personally don't object to the church's right to influence state law; I encourage prosthelytizing.
But that logic seems tortured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Again the Framers concern was the forming of a state church like the one in England. The fact that the Mormon church got charged is an example of a bad application of the law. They should have taken the case to the Supreme court.
|
Save the Danbury Baptists lecture for another thread.
The church was charged by the "fair political practices committee" for continuing to lie about it's political support after already admitting it had lied; luckily for them churches are immune from audits.
You asked for a church that has been improperly influencing the government, I was reminding you of one that I had posted in May.
You're moving that goalpost too with the Supreme Court comment. What criteria will you deem acceptable?