Why Evangelicals and Catholic Bishops Support New START

Rice, Kissinger, Schultz, the Pope — a bunch of pinko leftists! Only Kyl and Romney have the grit to stand up to the Soviet Bloc.

Haven’t they ever heard of the separation of Church and State?

No, lol, I think this was a good thing.

This is not simply a matter for politics, but is really a conversation that has to be infused with a sense of moral seriousness,”

Precisely why it galls me to have ratification characterized as “a victory for Obama” in the press. Republicans can get away with holding trhe interest of the country hostage because everyone’s too busy pretending that it’s some kind of effing game. Sometimes there are things that transcend partisanship. If 9-11 taught us anything that should have been it.

Damn, judging from title, I thought lovely Amy Sullivan was back from maternity leave. Oh well, zzzzzzz….

Since the right wing is incapable of rational thought, but does pay attention to their right wing religious base, this is very good news indeed.

Thanks for this important update about what evangelicals think about START. I look forward to a lively post about the Rosicrucian take on the South Korea trade agreement and, of course, to QE2: A Jewish Perspective.

I should amend my good news comment as meaning good news for the issue of START ratification, but I guess also sad for the issue of separation of church and state.

Snark aside this does matter. A large portion of the population takes guidance from these groups, what they say may not matter to you but it matters to some, this should further help undermine the opposition to the treaty, or at least remove some of the excuses.

How does one get punished for a crime against God? Wouldn’t He do it himself?

Why is this bad news for the separation of church and state? Religion and churches are, in the US at least, a significant part of civil society. What they say matters to a lot of people. They are not discriminating against anyone and they are not the state. Church establishments are allowed to have their own opinion, even if it relates to the actions of the state. Denying them these right would be an infringement on the separation of church and state, especially as it is stated in the constitution.

What GivenUp said, although if the R’s won’t ratify START then let’s just pay off Ernst Blofeld to dispose of everyone’s arsenals, no treaty needed…
.

.
Interesting that this film was made in ’71 before the ‘80’s Star Wars™ research really took off.

…probably get reincarnated as Christine O’Donnell (forever failed in politics, ridiculed over witchcraft, and forbidden to masturbate) or Sarah Palin’s kids (‘nuff said, that must really suck).

Separation, Schmeparation. Denying communion to pro-choice politicians during election season is one thing…Preventing nuclear proliferation (or curbing climate change) should be something that all people regardless of faith or political persuasion can agree upon.

I agree. This isn’t really them forcing their religion on the populace through laws. This is them, trying to convince their own followers that a treaty they didn’t even come up with is a good idea. More power to them.
·
It should be said, though, that if religion is the only means to the proper end, that is a poor reflection on our society as a whole. There are better arguments than “Because God Said So”

God looks at all that and says to Himself, “oh my Lucifer.”

Gum, Formerly,
.
The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. “Separation of Church and State” is found nowhere, nor implied, in the Constitution. Even if it were, religious groups holding a public press conference stating their positions on an issue is no different than you posting here on this blog. Free speech and all that, I know, pesky. Go bury your hatchets somewhere else.

Why don’t you read what I actually wrote and infer the meaning of my first post. You know take in those context clues English teachers talk about in primary education.

It should be said, though, that if religion is the only means to the proper end, that is a poor reflection on our society as a whole.
.
Or on people in general.
.
If a person has to rely on the threat of punishment (such as the denial of grace or getting stabbed by pitchforks in a pit of fire) as a means of coercing him/herself into doing right and good acts, then it doesn’t say much about that person.

And for the rest of you who think that this is perfectly acceptable, where are those sentiments when the USCCB comes out publicly against something you support? Then of course, you too scream about the fictional “Separation of Church and State.” Hypocrisy and hyberole abounds.

Gum,
.
Haven’t they ever heard of the separation of Church and State?
.
You fall under the penumbra of my second point, it would appear. You backtracked from the anti-religious stance because you actually agree with them on this piont.

*point….

Has anyone debated this in public?
.

.
oh wait…

Or, maybe,

*wink* No, lol, I think this was a good thing.

means I was being sarcastic from the get go.
·
The government should not pass laws solely because of religious motivation. That’s my only real concern with religion and politics. If you honestly can’t come up with a better argument than “because god said so” I’ve got to question whether a law indeeds needs passed.
·
In this case, there are thousands of reasons for this to pass. Because god said so, as an addition doesn’t tip the scales for me, but for some people it will. In this case, it does benefit everyone so I’m not opposed, but if it were the only argument it wouldn’t be enough for me.
·
How’s that?

“Separation of Church and State” is found nowhere, nor implied, in the Constitution.
.
That’s a cop-out, and you know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
.
(Exiled, if you want to argue with us, please do so nicely. I don’t trash the Catholic Church as others have here. Aim your rants at them please; I’m not going to deal with your invective again.)

The simple fact that “Pro-life” equals “Anti-war” is one of the most amazing things that no one seems to talk about.

But it’s actually quite simple.

The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.
.
Still not seeing anything about press conferences. In any case, if you go back to our previous discussion, I apologized for coming down on you so hard. Today I haven’t mentioned you at all. Let your grudge go.

Fair enough.

Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
.
God’s not a liberal, Mr Dirks.

I don’t disagree with the base of what you say, and did agree with this particular church position. The sad part to me is that religion, not secular logic, affects congressional votes and public policy.

I was surprised to read this story because I thought the Council of Bishops was a partisan organization like the Catholic League or MoveOn. It is nice to see them looking to moral principles here, rather than overlooking them in order to participate in partisan culture wars.

Exiled, I replied to GivenUp above before seeing the ongoing discussion. To place my reply more conspicuously:
.
5.3
I don’t disagree with the base of what you say, and did agree with this particular church position. The sad part to me is that religion, not secular logic, affects congressional votes and public policy.
.
My objection doesn’t have to do with church positions, it has to do with those positions and theology being of prime import and influence in our supposedly secular government.

There I can agree with you, though it is working for good in this case. II is however not a church state separation thing, just a case of too many religious people allowing their religion to do the thinking for them.

This is one of the reasons I have not entirely given up hope on the catholic church. Yes they have their scandals, some quite serious. However they do attempt to be consistent in their pro-life positions, something many who call themselves Christians could stand to think about.

That’s a cop-out, and you know it.
.
Far from it, Grape, far from it. It’s not in the Constitution, on that we can all agree. However, the Everson case says that the Establishment Clause essentially places a wall between church and state. To what extent? The Everson case cites numerous examples, all of which are stipulations that would have to be enacted by legislation anyway. So, in reality, even though Everson uses the language “separation between church and state,” in its application it merely specifies in more detail governmental actions that are prohibited. Everson’s most influential repercussion is expanding the Establishment Clause to the state level, which should have been a foregone conclusion. Hardly controversial.
.
Yet, despite all this, we still see masses of Americans who take “separation of church and state” at its most literal interpretation. Essentially, it is often discussed positively in terms of religious suppression, as opposed to governmental limitation. People see it as something that can be used to shut down religious expression, or to limit the participation of religious groups in the issues facing our society, neither or which come anywhere close to what the Establishment Clause alludes to or what Everson specifically speaks to. So, what we’re stuck with is millions of moronic Americans who regurgitate these talking-points having been baited into flying the banner of “separation and church and state,” the interpretation of which has been put through tortuous labyrinthine reasoning to satisfy their opprobrious handlers.

While I am a Christian the CHURCHES keep putting their noses where they DON’T BELONG .. both of these churches have been LOSING their members because of doing so.. and will continue to do so.. I don’t feel they are INTELLIGENT enough to put forth a intelligent argument as to why this treaty SHOULD be passed and I hope that it is NOT.. It’s another EMERGENCY that has to be passed.. it’ has NOT been read by our so called (and I use the word loosely) representatives..BTW I quit attending church when the leaders of such THINK they can SPIN the Bible like our Politicians SPIN the Constitution.. as near as I can tell BOTH are useless at protecting this country..

Far from it, Grape, far from it. It’s not in the Constitution, on that we can all agree.
.
Well, neither are the words “Freedom of Religion”, nor “freedom of the followers of religions to do whatever they want”.
.
However, the Everson case says that the Establishment Clause essentially places a wall between church and state. To what extent?
.
And, unfortunately, that’s been a foggy area. Courts have had to rely on their interpretations of the Founders’ intent in drawing the line between religiously-motivated free speech (which this advocacy coming from the National Association of Evangelicals and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops is) and religiously-motivated interference in the process of determining a person’s qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
.
That last part is in the Constitution, by-the-way, and also furthers the argument that the Founders’ intent was to form a secular government.
.
Yet, despite all this, we still see masses of Americans who take “separation of church and state” at its most literal interpretation.
.
There are good reasons for that, you know.
.
Essentially, it is often discussed positively in terms of religious suppression, as opposed to governmental limitation.
.
Perhaps it is because governmental regulation of our religious lives has not been a large issue.
.
People see it as something that can be used to shut down religious expression, or to limit the participation of religious groups in the issues facing our society
.
And from my perspective, people see it as a means of limiting the intrusion of religious groups into our civil and personal lives.
.
So, what we’re stuck with is millions of moronic Americans who regurgitate these talking-points…
.
So, what we’re stuck with is millions of moronic Americans who regurgitate these talking-points having been baited into flying the banner of “Freedom of Religion”, the interpretation of which has been put through tortuous labyrinthine reasoning to satisfy their opprobrious handlers.

Why voting this treaty is not recommendable?
1. It’s far outdated treaty, by more than 300plus days, by decades, it’s a cold war comedy play, at the best.
2. More important, it kills the acquired instinct of productive labor, in the foreign policy diplomacy first of all, and in any other peaceful human activity as well.
3. By voting this treaty you vote for the mental obesity of the past, you vote against the future, which would be able to solve any problem through collective mind.
Please, don’t suppress the shoots of the hope, don’t vote, allow the State Department finding and mobilizing the strength and the power of this century – the collective mind, against childish plays with nukes.
If a nation wishes peaceful life, they cut their nukes unilaterally, through the call of reason. If they dream about world supremacy, ceding to them would be reckless.

+ life is better sanctified in a well protected and defended home, it’s obvious