Can we say  he is not advocating for the State to adopt or recognize any particular religious practice or tradition. He s arguing for the state to [adopt a policy] which is not religious in nature in anyway whatsoever ?

Absolutely. Though there aren’t really any good secular reasons to ban gay marriage, and, IMO, the minister’s being a bigot and an asshole; but you can say what you’re saying right there. (In short, pretty much what frameone said).

Abstinance only education is also an example of a potentially religiously motivated policy that doesn’t violate separation of church & state. It’s still a bad idea, but it’s technically doesn’t violate this separation (unless, of course, they hand out bibles or something).

Yes, if someone is arguing that Jesus compels us to care for health and welfare of the poorest among us it is attempting to legislate morality, although I can think of any number of secular humanist reasons why such a policy is a good idea.

At the same time, if a minister wants to argue that the Bible forbids granting basic civil liberties to gay people that too is an act of legislating one’s personal morality that isn’t a violation of the separation of church and state, per se.

It’s just politics. The fact that I find such a position abhorrent doesn’t mean a minister can’t advocate it.

What you have yet to show is any example of someone on the left pushing a policy that is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. The right, on the other hand, has made violating the First Amendment a vertiable plank in its platform from school prayer to the Ten Commandments issue.

He s arguing for the state to fund medicare, a policy which is not religious in nature in anyway whatsoever.

Then what’s the significance of suggesting that Jesus would support it? You mean the support of a wandering Jewish preacher who lived 2000 years ago, is important?

Don’t be naive…

What about when a minister gets up and says the Bible says gays shouldn’t be married?

Can we say “he is not advocating for the State to adopt or recognize any particular religious practice or tradition. He s arguing for the state to [adopt a policy] which is not religious in nature in anyway whatsoever”?

You can pose it anyway you want, but the left gets to put religious “muscle” behind their policies, and there’s never an accusation of “violation of the sepation of the church and state.”

How about when the leftist ministers opposed the war in Vietnam? Were they trying to influence policy or not?

You’re wr… wr… wr… wrong!

If a minister argues that Jesus would have protected the poor as a moral justifcation for medicare or food stamps or whatever, he is not advocating for the State to adopt or recognize any particular religious practice or tradition. He’s arguing for the state to fund medicare, a policy which is not religious in nature in anyway whatesoever.

If a minister stands up and argues that the ten commandments should be placed in every courthouse in the land, well, that’s different. That’s advocating for the state to adopt or recognize, in an official capacity, one religious tradition over all others. That’s a violation of the First Amendment because the Ten Commandments are nothing if not a religious symbol.

The fact that you can’t see the difference between the two only proves just how distorted and twisted your world view really is. And why, yes, it is pointless to discuss anything with you because you’re simply too far gone for reason.

I was commenting on one thing, and one thing only: The possible meaning of Ignatz’ statement that left wing clergy can comment on anything they choose, and there is nary a peep about “separation of Church and State,” even though they are trying to influence the state with religious pressure.
But when the right does the exact same thing, there’s talk about the “imminent theocracy”, religion being crammed down people’s throats.

Examples:

Fr. Drinan
Fr. Greeley
Rev. Coffin
Rev. Jackson
Rev. Sharpton

Now go running to your NYT CyberNavigator…

And there we have the glory of conservative “thinking” in a nutshell: “We don’t need no stinking facts! We have our guts!”

You’re right, frameone, the only “evidence” I have is a statement I made. The only “evidence” you have is

But advocating for prayer (any prayer) in school, is.

Riiight.

Separation of Church and State means the State shall not establish, or endorse the establishment of a Church.

If you choose that the Church and the State must be separate on all occassions, for all reasons, then I don’t want to hear from left – wing preachers trying to force their “religion” of Gummint worship down my throat.

sorry guess you missed that line

Actually wacked it is more complicated. churches are tax-exempt, if they then go to be primarily political organizations& it becomes a problem, as the government is essentially  paying them by not charging them taxes like the rest of us.

Talking about apples and oranges. There is nothing wrong with someone campaigning for office speaking in a church.

Oh, and don t forget Al Gore and the Buddhist Temple of Doom in LA& .that nifty little tax-free fundraiser& !

If you want to go there then ….You better talk to your own party leadership about asking for church roles, or churches handing out “voter guides” which conveniently endorse all republican issues, while not specifically mentioning candidate names.

Can you guys put up one post in which you don’t sound like idiots? Case in point:

“So explain why, when the right has a complaint about government policies that infringe on their right to practice their religion… ”

When and where has the government ever imposed a restriction on the free practice of someone’s religion? Got any actual examples of that?

On your point about “left wing religious speakers” would also like to point out any actual example of a left wing religious leader advocating that the government endorse a specific religion or religious tradition?

You see, Frank, prayer in school is a violation of church and state. Advocating for national health care based on religious conviction is not because national health care, in and of itself, does constitute the endorsement of any religious tradition, practice, theology or anything.

And DC, name me a presidential who hasn’t made a speech in a church? It is, as Bushwacked points out, a question of religion and polictics v. church and state. Courting religious voters is not a violation of the separation of church and state. Advocating that the state endorse specific religious practices and traditions is. Can you see the difference?

Oh, and don’t forget Al Gore and the Buddhist Temple of Doom in LA….that nifty little tax-free fundraiser…!

Why is it that when Kerry essentially had a political rally in Church not one peep was heard from the left. If Bush had done the same thing there would have been outrage. The left and right are treated differently where religion is involved.

See previous post.

Why is it that when Kerry essentially had a political rally in Church not one peep was heard from the left. If Bush had done the same thing there would have been outrage. The left and right are treated differently where religion is involved.

You guys are too much. Frank makes some stupid ass statement and Dugger backs it up without question. Do you see why you morons are so consistently wrong so often? It’s the neverending right wing circle jerk.

Frank asserts that the religious left “gets a pass on the separation of church and state.” Does he offer any evidnce? Does he present any actual instance of this? No. As Ignatz points out, all Frank has done is conveniently collapse freedon of speech into the church/state equation to make a wholly ideological and moronic point.

And witness our good friend Jay Tea. Moron that he is, he holds out classic right wing caricatures of Jackson and Sharpton and then asks:

“Then who are the leaders, Oliver? I realize I m not their target audience, but I m curious as to who they are& ”

Well if Jay were so fucking curious, why didn’t he just read the CBS article that started this discussion?

Seven paragraphs in we find this:

“But the left has its own Evangelical leaders, such as the Rev. Tony Campolo.”

Here’s two other other names cited in the article as representatives of this “movement”:

Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches
Rev. Jim Wallis, a Christian activist.

Now is Jay stupid, lazy or both? You tell me. Wait. No you won’t. Because you’re part of the vast right wing circle jerk. You didn’t bother to ask more of Frank or Dugger, so why would you ask more of Jay. Or yourselves for that matter.

all Frank has done is conveniently collapse freedon of speech into the church/state equation
So explain why, when the right has a complaint about government policies that infringe on their right to practice their religion, OR, when they make a statement about the fact that something is sinful, they’re “pushing their religion down our throats”, BUT when left wing religious speakers tell us the government has to do something about “injustice and inequality”, that’s freedom of speech?