Mormon church enters Calif. gay marriage fight

Separation of church and state at its finest.

This is another red herring non-issue to clog the election year airways with a goal to keep our eye off the ball on more pressing problems. Maybe we'll get more mileage out of hot topic issues like flag burning, school prayer, Ten Commandment postings on county courthouse lawns, or if a husband raising his voice over a maxed out credit card statement constitutes domestic violence? On the other hand it may be about a sagging economy, a never-ending Iraq war (Eurasia vs. Oceania), and where surviving a heart attack/cancer without adequate insurance leaves you bankrupt? Maybe this time it should be about seeing the forest through the trees?

Think About It wrote:

Separation of church and state at its finest.

Churches are under no First Amendment restrictions when it comes to speaking out on issues. Citizens do not forfeit their free speech rights at the sanctuary door. The only restriction is that churches may not become part of the "political machinery" and work officially for (or against) specific candidates. If you're looking to find breaches in the "wall of separation", this isn't it.

Civil union yes, marriage NO!

human too wrote:

<quoted text>
Churches are under no First Amendment restrictions when it comes to speaking out on issues. Citizens do not forfeit their free speech rights at the sanctuary door. The only restriction is that churches may not become part of the "political machinery" and work officially for (or against) specific candidates. If you're looking to find breaches in the "wall of separation", this isn't it.

Yes you are right even though I don't agree with what they are advocating.

Btw, the First Amendment is a restriction on what government can do, not anybody else.

Matt, your second sentence is perhaps the most overlooked (and critical) element in the whole church/state debate. I appreciate that you "get it". When Jefferson coined the term "wall of separation", it was to reassure a minority religious group that they had no reason to fear arrest, confiscation of property, exile, or other government persecution for their beliefs. The modern attempt to use the "establishment clause" as a weapon (to intimidate religious people into silence on social issues) is a 180* perversion of its original intent.

I'll take Thomas Jefferson over Joseph Smith ANY DAY!

We legislate from the Constitution, not from the Bible. Simple. The Mormons can say whatever they want to. We don't have to listen.

Finally, a reason not to slam my door in their face.

Good I'm glad the Mormons are doing something about this, hopefully others will follow !!

human too wrote:

<quoted text>
Churches are under no First Amendment restrictions when it comes to speaking out on issues. The only restriction is that churches may not become part of the "political machinery" and work officially for (or against) specific candidates. If you're looking to find breaches in the "wall of separation", this isn't it.

That's fine- now give up that tax exemption that STIPULATES churches will NOT be a political tool.
Preachers will NOT speak on political issues from the pulpit or they are breaking the law.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Matt -- York PA wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes you are right even though I don't agree with what they are advocating.
Btw, the First Amendment is a restriction on what government can do, not anybody else.

What about the IRS??????

diduKnow wrote:

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF GOD?
===
IF GOD LEAVES MESSAGES / SIGNS FOR US TO READ.
===
DO SUPPOSE 852 FIRES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WAS A SIGN OF HIS DISAPPROAVAL OF GAY MARRIAGES?
===
JESUS DIES FOR THAT OUR SINS MAYBE FORGIVEN. IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO CHANGE YOUR WAYS BEFORE THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT ARRIVES!!!!!!!!!!
*=========LAST WORDS==========
SIN TODAY~DIE TOMMOROW * DIE TODAY~LIVE FOREVER
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS MESSAGE IT'S CLEAR YO DONOT UNDERSTAND GODS WORD WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. SEEK FORGIVENESS BEFORE THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT ARRIVES.

Please keep posting.
You make it easy to point out the idiocy of your belief system.
I bet real christians would PAY you to shut up, lol.

Ace wrote:

<quoted text>
That's fine- now give up that tax exemption that STIPULATES churches will NOT be a political tool.
Preachers will NOT speak on political issues from the pulpit or they are breaking the law.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.

The church has the right to make a stand on an issue especially one they believe a moral one and publicly announce it. The people are the political tool

Ace wrote:

<quoted text>
That's fine- now give up that tax exemption that STIPULATES churches will NOT be a political tool.
Preachers will NOT speak on political issues from the pulpit or they are breaking the law.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.

It is my understanding that religious institutions cannot come out publicly and state that they are for one candidate, or party, over the other. However, they can make a stance on issues that have a moral element to it: abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc. They've done it since the founding of this country. Like it or not, religious institutions will always have a voice in our national politics. It is an inheritance that Europe gave us when we were founded.

Some observations about tax-exempt status-- First, any church that would alter its message to save a few bucks is a church not worth listening to. Second, the parishioners would find a way to increase their giving to cover the tax obligation, plus continue the church's ministry and outreach. Third, removal of tax-exempt status may just free up the churches to roll up their sleeves and get much more deeply involved in advocating for specific candidates. In other words, removal of tax-exempt status may not have the desired effect. In any case, we are not afraid of the possibility.

Ace wrote:

<quoted text>
Please keep posting.
You make it easy to point out the idiocy of your belief system.
I bet real christians would PAY you to shut up, lol.

Maybe it's Poe's Law and he forgot the wink smiley.

human too wrote:

Matt, your second sentence is perhaps the most overlooked (and critical) element in the whole church/state debate. I appreciate that you "get it". When Jefferson coined the term "wall of separation", it was to reassure a minority religious group that they had no reason to fear arrest, confiscation of property, exile, or other government persecution for their beliefs. The modern attempt to use the "establishment clause" as a weapon (to intimidate religious people into silence on social issues) is a 180* perversion of its original intent.

No one is saying that religous people have to be silent about social issues. They can speak out and say that they are against homosexuality or against abortion. However, when they try to create laws solely based on their religious views, they are crossing the line. That is prohibited by the judicial system's interpretation of the establishment clause.

You can say you are against homosexuality for religious reasons and shout it at the top of your lungs, that is your right, and it includes the right to live your OWN life according to those beliefs. It does NOT include forcing others to live their lives according to those beliefs.

human too wrote:

Some observations about tax-exempt status-- First, any church that would alter its message to save a few bucks is a church not worth listening to. Second, the parishioners would find a way to increase their giving to cover the tax obligation, plus continue the church's ministry and outreach. Third, removal of tax-exempt status may just free up the churches to roll up their sleeves and get much more deeply involved in advocating for specific candidates. In other words, removal of tax-exempt status may not have the desired effect. In any case, we are not afraid of the possibility.

Great! I'm in favor of all churches giving up their tax exempt status. Let's get it done!

I had to look up the Poe's Law reference. Very apt.

I am torn on this issue. While I believe there is a seperation of church and state, I believe that the onus is really on the part of the state. It cannot establish and it cannot deny. However, there is no way to truly seperate on issues of morality. Many of us were raised in a church of one sort or another, and even if we have left that religion, many of the basic beliefs are still there. Now, I am not a practicing christian, but I do still hold many of the beliefs on morality that I learned in church in my youth. I am in favor of Gay Marriage, but I can fully understand how someone of the christian faith can be against it. We have an obligation as citizens, gay or straight, to proclaim what we believe and think, and so do the people on the other side of the argument. We make our arguments and then we go to the polls and we vote on this matter or any other, and wait to see how it turns out. No system is perfect, as we as citizens are not perfect. But, in the end, we can only hope that right will be done.