How much influence, if any, should religious organizations have in politics?

SSG Shavonde Chase — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:04:28 -0500

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Nov 23 at 2016 1:12 AM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:12:25 -0500

This where the separation of Church and State comes into play. The Religious organizations can not influence the state at all. So they really should not be using the pulpit for political purposes. Nor should they talk to elected representatives about certain things that might be good for the whole country but the religious group may oppose it on religious grounds. The same can be true of politicians asking the religious groups to back certain legislation or telling a religious group to shut up.

I believe that politicians can pray on the floor of their capital(s) since that is not a violation of the separation between the too. (that is the one thing everyone gets hung up on when it comes this issue). So with that said. Politicians and church leaders need to understand that they can not influence each other to do something the other wants them to do.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Nov 23 at 2016 1:13 AM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:13:35 -0500

Very limited role, there is supposed to be a separation of Church and state. Opinions are one thing actual acts to promote any religion as having a major role in Government should never be. There can only be one rule of law and not a religious one. Don't confuse that with opening prayers etc, that is fine, that is not the operation of Government. Keeping that in mind also however the Government has no right to exert undue influence an any religion either !

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2016 1:16 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:16:24 -0500

NONE!! A voice yes, a say NO.

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 23 at 2016 1:16 AM

SFC George Smith — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:16:58 -0500

the True meaning in the separation of church and state ...
keeping the Church from Making decisions for the state and Keeping the State out of the Pulpit...

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2016 6:10 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 06:10:31 -0500

It depends on what type of involvement your are referring to. If its just voicing their opinion, donations or lobbying then they have just as much right as corporations or unions to have a say.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Nov 23 at 2016 7:32 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:32:33 -0500

Next to none.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Nov 23 at 2016 8:40 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 08:40:08 -0500

Companies lobby Congress. Unions lobby Congress. MOAA (Military Officers Association of America) lobbies Congress. Does CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) lobby Congress? or USCMO? ISNA? If they do, why wouldn't a Coalition of Catholic Organizations Against Human Trafficking be able to? As a faction within our populace (and we all are members of factions), do we tape shut the mouths of believers, but allow every other faction a voice?
http://www.usccb.org/about/anti-trafficking-program/coalition-of-catholic-organizations-against-human-trafficking.cfm

Coalition of Catholic Organizations Against Human Trafficking

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Nov 23 at 2016 8:57 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 08:57:19 -0500

Absolutely zero. If they want to donate money to political causes, that is their right. If they want to protest political causes, that is their right. But they have no say in politics more than the vote that they cast for the individual they chose to represent them.

Using Catholics as an example... we've got the Pope. He is not an American citizen. He doesn't get a say in how we do things. Now as a political leader, it would benefit me to be on good terms with the Pope in order to also be on good terms with the vast amount of Catholics in our country. But that is the full extent of it. I am not obligated to do what the Pope demands any more than I am obligated to do what lobbyists demand. I might piss some people off, but it'd be my job to run the country, not theirs.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Nov 23 at 2016 9:00 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:00:37 -0500

None at all to be consistent with the separation of church and state doctrine.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Nov 23 at 2016 9:48 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:48:22 -0500

An opinion inspired by one's religious foundations, whatever that may be, is one thing; theocracy however is a whole different matter.

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Nov 23 at 2016 10:17 AM

SSgt Boyd Welch — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:17:56 -0500

1 If they are a religious organization, then they should "keep the main thing the main thing".
2 That should be the priority but they still have a right and duty as citizens to hold those in elected office accountable to fulfill their duty. Whenever they start getting too far into rule #2, then they need to refer back to rule #1....

Response by SGT Tim Soyars made Nov 23 at 2016 10:27 AM

SGT Tim Soyars — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:27:46 -0500

The First Amendment of the Constitution states that the Government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, i.e. no official religion of the government. It also states that there should be no prohibition on the exercise of religion. That is ALL that is said on "Separation of Church and State". That being said, organized religion, as a single entity, does not have an official say in the government. However, a person's expression of their personal thoughts and feelings cannot be suppressed when they are influenced by one's religious beliefs. That too, would be a violation of the First Amendment in regard to freedom of speech. Basically, individuals talking with government officials and expressing their view is okay, as is a representative of a group talking with their government representatives. The constituency of a government representative should be able to express to them their thoughts and views.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2016 12:28 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:28:39 -0500

Say? None. Input, just as much as anyone else. Prayer, I leave that to the individual and fully believe the Government has NO RIGHT banning or enforcing it anywhere. We are a nation that is based on a belief that there is a higher power. The modern Christian (zealot) believes it is his style of Christianity. Yet, if you study what the founding fathers debated and believed, the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution was prayed over, followed God's Laws, and is directly attributed to God.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Among our founding fathers were enough differing ideas on religion that they, IMHO, boiled it down to a common core of belief. It is CLEARLY stated in the Declaration of Independance. It has both Christian and Deist wording. In fact, I am positive you could put on the glasses of any religion that adheres to "the golden rule" and see yourself in those opening words.

Sharia Law is not God's Law, it is Muhammed's Law, a prophet (as I understand it). Therefore it is a rule of man rather than a rule of law, and as such, does not belong here.

The whole idea of separation of church and state was to NEVER allow the church to rule the people, not even in the name of a King or body politic. It was NEVER intended to strip the individual's belief and practice while in office. What a gaggle we have let happen.

Response by PO3 Ricky Foster made Nov 23 at 2016 12:42 PM

PO3 Ricky Foster — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:42:28 -0500

The Constitution is clear on this matter, I think a more interesting question would be is should the government stay out of religious affairs?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2016 1:27 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:27:34 -0500

Religious organizations are made up of people, and people have a say in government. Religious organizations that focus on influencing government are fine, however at that point they should start probably paying taxes like any other business. Religious organizations that want to control or dominate government are the scary ones and they need to be denied the ability to obtain any sort of special status.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2016 2:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:31:32 -0500

As private citizens they could say whatever they want, as organizations they should have 0% say on anything. I fully believe that government and any religion should be 100% separate.

Response by Maj John Bell made Nov 23 at 2016 7:59 PM

Maj John Bell — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:59:43 -0500

Their are undoubtedly issues that have an impact on religious views (i.e. dogma and doctrine) and on day to day secular operations (building codes, parking lot sizes, day care licensing, play ground codes, etc. etc.)

If a faith has a position in dogma or doctrine that has also become a political issue, that faith or sect not only has the right, they have the obligation to let their followers know where the faith or sect's position is. There is no doubt that the Vatican's position on birth control and abortion cost it followers. So there are consequences for a faith whose dogma and doctrine are politically or spiritually controversial.

When it comes to secular issues before a legislative body if the Priest or Pastor is also the secular leader of the congregation, of course he/she has a right and responsibility to campaign for a particular outcome.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2016 8:24 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:24:18 -0500

The same influence we all have. No more no less.

No control except through the ballot box.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2016 12:55 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:55:26 -0500

None. Otherwise how do you determine whose takes precedence? That way lies theocracy, and that's a Very Bad Thing (tm)

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2017 7:45 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:45:47 -0500

SSG Shavonde Chase they should have no influence, but neither should unions, businesses, or foreign governments.

The problem is that both sides say they want a level playing field, but each really wants the field tilted in their direction. IMNSHO unions are the worst, because they are allowed to force people to join the union, force them to pay dues, and use those dues to support causes the members may not approve of.

All those whining about Democracy and popular vote because Hillary lost, please explain to me how "Democratic" it is to force someone to join a union, force them to pay dues, and use those dues in ways the member may not agree with. Certainly the desertion of the blue collar workforce, once a pillar of the Democratic party, exemplifies this.