"I'm not sure I support church directories being given to political parties. But, I don't see any difference between this and the Democrats getting the rolls from Big Unions and swapping donor lists with NPR."
The difference is that the conjoining of the state and religion historically, in almost all instances, has resulted in oppression of the people. There is thousands of years of history to support this position, long before the Christians came along.
However that is what we are currently seeing in our politics today, which is something the founders were strongly against and for the historical reasons, I have cited above.
Which is why the founders incorporated it into our Constitution is that they understood that such an event would be the destruction of the republic. Unfortunately the Republican party has been hijacked in recent years by religious zealots, also know as fundamentalists, who would like nothing more than for the rest of us to forget that truth.
The FFs and our Constitution prohibits a national religion...that's it.They never said anything at all about not involving religious peoples on politics.
Much later on,laws were passed,to prohibit politicking, BY CANDIDATES,in churches and temples;however,the Dems have totally IGNORED this for as long as it's been around.Papa Joe Kennedy spread so much "walking around money",in Southern black churches and did so so OPENLY,that EVERYONE knew about it at the time.And Catholic churches had sermon after sermon preaching how everyone just HAD to vote for that JFK.
algore "preached" (gave political harangues,sounding like REVEREND LEROY,from the old Flip Wilson T.V. show)at so many black churches,that he imagined that he WAS A "reverend",in 2000.
Getting a list,is far different from any and all of that and in noway has anything at all to do with a "THEOCRACY"!
And as an aside,up until rather recently,there was written into law,that political office holders had to be Protestant.Sooooooooooooooo...have we always lived in a theocracy,then?
Perhaps you would feel more at home in the Party that despises Christians.
Your posts make it clear that you share their hatred.
What ARE you talking about? Where in our Constitution does it say political parties can't write to people who belong to certain churches? I think you are reading a lot more into the very few words that the Constitution has in it that ONLY pertain to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT not ESTABLISHING a religion.
The concept of which you speak, "separation of Church and state," has been interpreted into our Constitution by recent Supreme Court opinions.
What the founding fathers "incorporated" in the Constitution was a prohibition on Congress from either establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise of any religion.
Would you please tell me exactly how a political party asking private citizens for a list of their club members violates those prohibitions?
Please note that:
- Parties are neither the Congress nor the State,
- Asking is not forcing, and
- Private citizens are... well, private citizens.
On the topic of historical perspective, please also explain how the 2 most devastating tyrannies in history, nazism and communism exhibited no ties between state and religion.
If you believe that churches should not get involved with political parties that's fine, but please stop finding hidden meanings in the Establishment clause. They are not there!!!
Not a fundamentalist - not even a member of a church - but if churches aren't going to come down on the side of what's right, who will?
You seem to think people have to be protected with yet another regulation and are too helpless to just "say no" if they are solicited and don't wish to contribute/participate.
That's a very liberal attitude.
"The difference is that the conjoining of the state and religion historically, in almost all instances, has resulted in oppression of the people. There is thousands of years of history to support this position, long before the Christians came along."
Can you explain how access to a mailing list is state establishment of religion?