Catholic Bishops Set Political Agenda

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops developed guidelines for voting in the next elections stating that open discussion was needed and that decisions have an impact on the whole. This is certainly very true. If Catholics (or members of any other religion) ignore a candidate’s pro abortion stance in favor of other attributes then they should not be surprised when the candidate, if elected, pushes for abortion rights and will not listen to those asking for it to be abolished. They should not be surprised when the candidate, if elected, nominates judges who are pro abortion and these adherents to religion should not cry because their acts allowed it to happen. Does this mean people from a religion should march in lock step and vote in one particular way? Certainly not, but it does mean that the choices we make have repercussions and as a group, the people should be willing to accept those if they vote for a certain person. The Catholic Bishops did not mention any candidate by name and did not endorse anyone. They merely decided upon a platform. This is no different than any other group (like the teacher’s union or the young college Democrats) deciding upon a platform. They do not force their members to vote a certain way but they put out a platform they believe is best for them.

There are those who would look at the Catholic Bishops and what they are doing and condemn them. The uniformed or under educated would say that the country was set up based on separation of church and state for a reason and that the Catholic Bishops are violating that. The problem with this line of thinking is that it is wrong on many levels.

First of all, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. I defy anyone to find those words in the Constitution. The Constitution states that the government may not establish a religion and they may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does not say that the two should be separated, only that government may not establish a national religion. That is why the display of the Koran, the Ten Commandments, a Crucifix, or the Star of David in federal buildings does not violate the Constitution. Government is not establishing any religion but it is allowing the free expression (or exercise) thereof. Those are the people’s buildings, after all. If the government allowed only the display of one religion’s items, then there would be a problem.

The words separation of church and state were taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists when they expressed concerns that in their state religion was seen as a privilege or favor granted by the state. Jefferson did not address the state issue but addressed establishment on the national level when he wrote; ‘I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.’ He meant that the words of the Constitution provided a wall that protects religion from government. His words have been misused to push the secularist agenda as advanced by the Communist organization, the ACLU.

The second issue is that the Catholic Bishops violated no rules even if we accept that there is such a thing as separation of church and state. The First Amendment is designed to keep government out of religion not the other way around. Religious groups are free to discuss politics, support positions or candidates and they are free to push for those items that they believe to be in the best interest of their beliefs. The church is not restricted by the Constitution, the government is. The church has freedom under the First Amendment while the government does not. Therefore, the various religions around the country are FREE to decide how what agenda they want to push. Their members do not have to follow those guidelines and are free to vote as they wish, just as with the teacher’s unions or young Democrats mentioned above. Even if the Church told its members that they had to vote a certain way it would not violate the Constitution. Once again, it prohibits the government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Church is not the government and is free to tell its members how they should vote and what they may be involved in and still remain a member of the church.

This is no different than the right to free speech. The government is not allowed to restrict your free speech but others may. Your work can tell you what you are and are not allowed to discuss and it can fire you for using profanity or discussing what you have been told not to. You can be told not to say certain things in a church, a school, a store or anywhere else because it is not the government keeping you from speaking. In the case of the church, it is they and not the government that is making the decisions so nothing is violated.

People belong to various religions for a number of reasons. Those religions are free to tell their people the best way to vote. Jews overwhelmingly support Democrats (even though the Democrats screw them and ignore Israel) and there is nothing wrong with it. If all the Muslims decided they wanted to vote for Hillary then that would be their right and it does not violate the Constitution.

I know this was lengthy but it is important to combat ignorance if we want to have a better society.

Source:
My Way News

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

8 Responses to “Catholic Bishops Set Political Agenda”

  1. King Groundhog says:

    Let the humanistic, immigration-loving RCC talk all it wants.
    Tax it is all we ask. That’s not to much to ask for a bunch of ‘preverts’.

    Is it?

  2. Big Dog says:

    Their criminal activity is one thing and should certainly be addressed. I would think taxing any religious entity would open a Pandora’s box…

  3. Big Dog says:

    The important thing to remember is that they have a right to guide their “flock.”

  4. Adam says:

    Who have you seen speaking out against what the Bishops did?

    I think what they did is much better than the handful of cases of Protestant pastors or church leaders telling the congregations who they should vote for in the last few cycles. I haven’t seen many people say this is just absolutely wrong but I have seen people suggest that these churches are crossing the line and risking their tax status for going to far and almost becoming a political machine.

    I think people place a lot of trust and faith in their church leaders, so anything that motivates them to get involved in politics on that level is a good thing.

    Sad thing is that there is an idea that if you’re Christian you need to vote Republican because they’re pro-life and blah blah. Sometimes people just have bigger fish (or tofu) to fry when it comes to political issues and faith.

  5. Big Dog says:

    I think there are many people who believe that you should vote for an anti abortion candidate, regardless of party. I believe it is an important issue but it needs to be considered with all the others that are out there.

    As far as it goes, Christian organizations seem divided in who they support but will vote republican if abortion is their biggest concern.

    There might be bigger fish to fry but we have murdered 40 million children and are ensuring that our species will not have enough people to sufficiently repopulate.

    This does not bode well for the Democrats with all the little libs being sucked out of the womb…

  6. Adam says:

    I’m pretty much anti-death all around (death penalty, abortion, animals, ect.), but maybe that’s 40 million less people with the chance to die of some medical complication that could have been treated better with preventative care if only that had the means to get it…

  7. Big Dog says:

    Maybe, though I doubt it. I have worked in health care for quite some time and have never seen someone denied care. There are health clinics and preventive check ups cost no more than an annual cell phone bill (actually quite a bit less) and certainly less than a pack a day cigarette habit.

    Ignoring the fact that we all die, the mortality rate here is quite low so there would be relatively few people who would get a disease that was caused by lack of preventative care. Actually, come to think of it, a wellness check up is cheaper than an abortion.

    Think about it, if it costs $200 then it is only $200 a year and people can generally afford that if they have their priorities right. Since the really poor have access to government programs already (there are 10 million people eligible who have not even signed up) they would be covered and the people above that can afford their own.

    Using this logic though, we should kill people when they retire so they do not get sick and cost us money. Of we should kill retards, Down’s babies, those born without limbs, because they are a burden and might not get the care they need.

    Join the military, free health care for the family.

  8. cannedguds says:

    It is always said that the state is separated from religion but as you can see, a lot of religious sectors especially the Catholics seems to be intervening at anything on the political side of the fence. There must be a reason for it. Do you think they’re doing this because the political sector is intervening with the Laws of God? Take for example, abortion. it’s always been a mortal sin to kill someone and abortion is killing someone! another example, in a minor context, in the medical field. Guys with man boobs or Gynecomastia can now opt for surgery to get rid of this malady. However, there are many other ways on how to loose man boobs other than surgery. But because of convenience, people would prefer to “slice” something “off their chest” to get rid of the problem. An unprepared and unmarried woman who got pregnant would prefer the easy way out by abortion and political leaders see it as a convenient way. What a waste. So, is religion intervening with politics? Yes, and it’s because the laws of man is intervening with the Laws of God, period.