Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
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.
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.
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? |
In brief, I was wrong in the other thread. I wasn't aware that they had broken any laws. They as you have shown did break the law. I do however question the constitutionality of the law. They weren't influencing government but, rather people. They should have the right to influence people's opinion and especially on something like marriage. Marriage is sacrament in at least one christian denomination and it has a special religious and eternal significance in Mormonism.
The christian sect I belong to wouldn't collectively involve themselves in a political vote because of what it sees the purpose of the church to be. It would and does encourage personal involvement in politics. I've never heard the Pastor publically endorse a candidate or party but, he certainly has a public view on marriage, abortion, ect.