DaveyB, do you think unions and PAC's and businesses should be supporting candidates?? What is the difference between them taking money from their people and supporting causes??

I don't like that either but there's nothing in our constitution that guarantees separation of business and politics... perhaps there should be though.

i think any religious belief...should be separate from church and state. i agree with that 100%. we have too many beleifs in this country to segregate anyone. my dad died believing in this country and freedom for all law abiding citizens...that includes those that he didn't agree with their beliefs

It's why I have such undying respect for our troops no matter what they are doing and whether I agree or not with whatever actions they are involved in.

regardless of what i believe...religiously or otherwise...i'm open minded enough to know that not everyone agrees with me and has their own opinions. but i do find certain things funny about all sides....never mind

There is nothing in our constitution that promises the church cannot have an influence in the state...The constitution protects the church from the intrusion of state...like the King in England did way back when... Congress shall pass no laws hindering the practice of or the free exercise of the chruch...not the Church shall not be involved with the state?? Am I wrong??

Well from wiki-pedia
---------------------
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
---------------------

Courts seem to be following this line on most issues. But some issues have not been broached yet and the church has so much money to throw at legislation that would fight it, it's doubtful that congress would try.

Come now...are you really that simple?

Sorry Lynann, not positive who this is meant for

The running of each institution should be kept separate, and neither should dabble in each others business...but to imply that religous influence can be removed and kept separate from elections and governmental decisions is kinda nieve... There will always be influences, on different sides of the specturm...running each separate is easy, but you cannot remove influences just as you cannot establish a moral value that is agreed upon by all.

Lynn, I am not above any discussion, or simple or complicated discussions...everything is relevent..

First point please read my response, I said I had no problem with them having their influence via their congregation it is direct influence I object to. Also I am not the least bit naive, as I said I know the church has way too much money to stop that.



Again please note the difference between influence and direct influence. And I think it's pretty obvious that the "moral values" being pushed upon everyone is not shared by "all"

I agree with you on that daveyB, but there are some who look down their noses at people that don't share their belief...I may not agree with everyone elses ideals, but I believe they have a right to them and do not think less of anyone because of them..I will debate and discuss ideas with those that have differing views then my own, that is what is great about America...

You can't discuss gay marriage with out bring up marriage to animals. So please don't tell me how willing you are to discuss differing beliefs.

Well I'm glad we have found something that we definitely agree on.

boo...IMO he was just giving many examples

Sorry Rose there is no way to justify using it in the same paragraph and expecting me to believe it's just an example..

boo...i guess i understand it only because i have used examples as well as extremes just to include things and make a point

I apoligize to you boo, but I was using examples..because there is a push to make animals equal to a human being..which I don't think is good... I believe in taking care of them, but they are not humans..extremes are always used to make points, but it was not my intention to do anything but make and example.80 years ago, many things we do today would never have been talked about much less have a place in our governmental decisions..they may have exsisted, but were not talked about...Gay marriage was not talked about, on the forefront of passing laws about it, because people ideals have changed..who knows what the future holds..what is outrageous today will be acceptable tommorrow...either way..

The best part about all this; the Youtube parody videos

Churches have access to enormous financial resources that most individuals do not have.

So, when they become involved the even playing feild disappears. These are not just concerned citizens voicing their concerns.

In the prop 8 fiasco churches aired ads full of lies that insinuated things to come if gay marriage were legalized that were untrue as well.

One of the biggest lies? That if gay marriage was legalized churches would be forced to marry gays. The ads propagated this lie.

If churches want to engage in these sorts of campaigns they become political organizations. Political organizations that are tremendously powerful that do not have to tell the truth, reveal their sponsors or even have a dog in the fight. Big money came to CA from all over the country, lied, appealed to peoples fears based on lies and won.

It's despicable.

I have no issues with Christians, Muslims, Wicans...whomever participating in politics...but on an even playing field.