Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Katie Couric: Thomas Jefferson wrote about the First Amendment, building a wall of separation between church and state. Why do you think that's so important?

Sarah Palin: His intention in expressing that was so that government did not mandate a religion on people. And Thomas Jefferson also said never underestimate the wisdom of the people. And the wisdom of the people, I think in this issue is that people have the right and the ability and the desire to express their own religious views, be it a very personal level, which is why I choose to express my faith, or in a more public forum.

And the wisdom of the people, thankfully, engrained in the foundation of our country, is so extremely important. And Thomas Jefferson wanted to protect that.

~editor's note:I know you are looking, so please comment :)

February 26th, 2008

The First Endorsement sought by John McCain of Pastor Rod Parsley

[RodParskey.com website states: Senior pastor of World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, a non-denominational congregation of more than 12,000 people.]

Newsvine reports,
"February 26, 2008, McCain requests and receives the endorsement of Pastor Rod Parsley."

Included with the blessing from Parsley, John McCain obtains the support of Parsley's entire congregation.
image via blog.cleveland.com

February 29th

Shorty prior to the media firestorm surrounding Rev. Wright & Senator Obama, Senator John McCain actively seeks the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee.

Wikipedia describes "John C. Hagee [as] the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a non-denominational charismatic church with more than 19,000 active members."

John Hagee Ministries' website is currently not avaialble.

A positive note on this endorsement verified by Republican Texas Senator, who was present at the ceremony, and The Dallas News reports, "Cornyn: 'Hagee Is Just Alright With Me.'"

image by washingtonpost.com

EditorandPublisher.com reported "John Hagee declares, "It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement." [editor's note:article present 5/23/08 has sense been removed]

While Huffington Post.com reports the meeting as "McCain 'Proud' of Endorsement From John Hagee Who Calls Catholics" "The Great Whore." Where's Tim Russert Now?"

March 2nd
Sean Hannity, Co-Host of Hannity & Colms introduces Fox News viewers to Barack Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Hannity: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been inundated with coverage about his Mormon faith, LDS. In light of this, last night we reported on the controversial teachings of Democratic candidate Barack Obama's Chicago-based church. A guest on our program likened Trinity Unity Church of Christ to a separatist movement, drawing comparisons to Branch Davidians.

March 11th
The Boston Globe headlines "Obama wins racially polarized Mississippi primary.
Senator Barack Obama notched another victory over Senator Hillary Clinton in today's Mississippi Democratic primary, further demonstrating his appeal in the Deep South"

Mississippi Primary results: Barack Obama with 61% of the vote over Senator Clinton's 37%.

March 13th
2 days later ABC News reports, "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11"

Media Matters documents the breaking story this way, "ABC's Ross reported Wright's 9-11 remarks -- but not that Obama disavowed them."

TUCC website states "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. became Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) on March 1, 1972...grew from 87 members; and currently exceeds 6,000!"

We all know what happened next. Approximately 2 weeks after the Parsley endorsement of McCain, the Main Stream Media video feeds were filled with images such as these from the blogger "The Roanoke Slant" and "God Damn Americia!" filled the air.

March 18th

Senator Barack Obama gives his historic Speech on Race, viewed here on the "Obama for President" page or read at HuffingtonPost.com

Chris Patten at News.Scotsman.com describes the speech...

"Faced with the embarrassment of his pastor's views on race and America, Obama did not go into a huddle with spin-doctors. Instead, he delivered a thoughtful, eloquent, and moving speech about race. He treated the issue head-on, and intelligently. Confronted with an awkward problem, he responded with reason. Whatever else happens in the presidential race, that speech marked a special moment."

Only hours later

Sen. Obama's Speech, according to HuffingtonPost.com, Sean Hannity & John McCain exchanged this conversation on Fox News' Hannity & Combs.

courtesy of Newsday.com

HANNITY: He's been -- but he's been going to the church for 20 years. His pastor -- the church gave a lifetime achievement award to one of the biggest racists and anti-Semites in the country, Louis Farrakhan. Would you go to a church that -- where your pastor supported Louis Farrakhan?

MCCAIN: Obviously, that would not be my choice. But I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views.

March 20th

CBS News reports, McCain Aide Suspended For Circulating Obama/Wright Video.

Based on the interview with Sean Hannity and the actions against the campaign staffer, John McCain has made it clear through both words and actions, he "does not think the views of Rev. Wright are those of Senator Obama."

The MSM media continues to devote endless hours to the Wright controversy.

March 21st

Endless coverage leads Latino Governor from New Mexico and longtime Clinton loyalist, Bill Richardson to make a surprise visit to Portland, Oregon.

In front of approximately 15,000 supporters, Richardson endorsed Barack Obama as reported by CNN, claiming "Obama [S]peech [on Race] 'Clinched' Endorsement."

image from MSNBC.com

April 8th

Wake Up, This Is Must Read!

On April 8th, something most American's will not know, The Reverend C. Welton Gaddy, Leader of the The Interfaith Alliance and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, responded to a question in The Washington Post, "McCain, Parsley, Hagee, and Apocalyptic Foreign Policy"

image from WashingtonPost.com

The Question: John McCain's spiritual guide, televangelist Rod Parsley, calls Islam a "false religion" that should be "destroyed." Should McCain renounce Parsley? Will Islam be an issue in this year's U.S. presidential election?

Reverend Gaddy responded...

"Senator McCain should not have sought the endorsement of religious leaders like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, his “spiritual guide.” He should not only reject their extremist beliefs he should reject their endorsements. No candidate should seek, celebrate, or even accept endorsements from religious leaders.

For the sanctity of religion and the integrity of our democracy, religious leaders should avoid entangling houses of worship with partisan politics. Clergy must be free to speak about important issues of the day, and they should provide moral guidance to their congregations, but they lose credibility when they tie themselves to specific candidates."

Listen to the widespread coverage of Rev. Gaddy's statements

As most likely this is the first time you are reading this, you already know this was not picked up my the Main Stream Media, as they were preoccupied waging coverage war with one another over who could cover the Rev. Wright issue the most! There was no interest in this coverage, because no one was supposed to know what they were really like even though it was picked on the small media all the way back to December, 2007 by FireDogLake.com.

April 20th

The transcript from Sunday's Meet the Press shows the important topics were nearly devoid of any mention of McCain or his religious endorsers & "advisers."

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask about two final issues. David Axelrod, based on the last couple of weeks, many Democrats fear Republicans in the fall will string together an ad which shows Michelle Obama saying that she really never had pride in America until this campaign when Barack Obama was running, Barack Obama with his hands clasped in front of him rather than holding his heart during the pledge of allegiance, Barack Obama not wearing a flag pin, Barack Obama talking about clinging to faith and to guns, suggesting—Barack Obama meeting with Bill Ayers, a former Weather ground under—Weatherman underground figure. Are you concerned that all those kinds of issues could be strung together to create an impression of Obama that would make him almost unelectable to a lot of swing voters?

The Main Stream Media was covering everything under the sun, but failed to even let out a "peep" over the Hagee & Parsley endorsements of John McCain, which were nothing more than Church bribing the State with their congregations votes for who knows what quid pro quo after the November 2008 Presidential Election!

14 days passed of absolutely zero "News" worthy of actually being called News being run on the MSM in the long, prolonged 6 week slog between the Mississippi Primary and the Pennsylvania Primary, except for the Pundit regurgitating the same old Rev. Wright controversy & who would win Pennsylvania.

The true character of bigotry, anti-semitism & hatred knowingly displayed by John McCain's endorsers over the years was completely ignored.

April 22nd
image via blog.cleveland.com

Pennsylvania Primaries are held after 6 weeks of endless MSM coverage of the Reverend Wright/Barack Obama controversy. Clinton wins the popular vote 54.7% to Obama's 45.3%, mainly due to strong Pennsylvania support from Governor Ed Rendell, other state dignitaries & endless MSM coverage of the Wright issue.

April 24th

The NY Times and other media outlets begin to report, "North Carolina G.O.P. to Run Ad Using Obama’s Ex-Pastor"

Despite objections from Senator John McCain, the North Carolina Republican Party is planning to roll out a television advertisement on Monday attacking two Democrats who are running for governor by linking them to Senator Barack Obama and playing a clip of his former pastor excoriating the United States.

The release of the commercial, which Republican officials in North Carolina said would make its debut during the 6 p.m. newscasts, injects a potentially divisive racial element into the campaign for the state’s Democratic presidential primary, which is on May 6.

Immediately after Pennsylvania and 3 days before it was to appear on Bill Moyers Journal, the Main Stream Media picked up the Jemimah Wright story and began to run the endless reruns of his 30 seconds tirade of "God Damn America!", once again taken out of context.

April 25th

Moyers starts the show,

"But just who is this man? That's the question I asked when those sound bites began popping up. I'd heard the name Jeremiah Wright -- his church in Chicago belongs to the fellowship of the United Church of Christ. I joined a UCC church on Long Island 40 years ago and attend Riverside Church in New York City, which is affiliated with American Baptists and the UCC. But I couldn't remember ever having met Reverend Wright. So I wanted to know more about the man, the ministry, and the church.

Between the scheduled airing of The Bill Moyers' Journal and the conclusion of the weekend, Jemimah Wright went into "crazy mode" and the MSM didn't miss a beat and latched on like vultures chasing the walking dead.

The speech at the NAACP finished the kill. The MSM went into full speed ahead after the speech by Jeremiah Wright met the world like "excrement" hitting a fan.

Fox News reports, "Rev. Wright Defends Sermons, Rattles Critics at NAACP Dinner"...

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the embattled pastor of presidential candidate Barack Obama, called his sermons ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘divisive’ during his keynote address at the NAACP freedom fund dinner in Detroit.
image from Newsbusters.com

“I’m not here for political reasons,” Wright said. “I’m not a politician. I know that fact will surprise many of you because many in the corporate-owned media made it seem like I am running for the Oval Office. I am not running for the Oval Office. I’ve been running for Jesus a long, long time, and I’m not tired yet.”

April 29th

Barack Obama calls a press conference in North Carolina, reported here by MSNBC, "Obama Denounces Wright"

"I've known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."
image from CBSnews.com

"They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Rev. Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well I might not know him as well as I thought, either."

author's note: I need to finish this from here on out, but it ties into right now and we know what is happening now.

May 6th
The Indiana & North Carolina Primary are held.

May 13th
The West Virgina Primary is held.

May 20th
Oregon & Kentucky Primaries are held.

Robert Greenwald & BraveNew Filmsreleases this on video on the internet underground

Start, then pause, slow feed

Kieth Olbermann on McCain's Lobbyist & Pastor endorsement problems

McCain issued this statement:

Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well. I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual adviser, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today.

Notice, John McCain is unable to deal only with repudiating himself from his own self made problems. And if we recall from above, Pastor Parsley's endorsement was sought by John McCain on February 26th. Apparently these endorsements were actively sought without McCain's campaign staff doing any vetting of these men of the Church. Can we absolutely be certain that McCain's advisers did not vet the two, found out about their past years of bigotry & hatred, and decided to go with it anyways?

John McCain now is confronted with his own self made problems of Revs. Hagee & Parsley, so why does he need to bring up Barack Obama & Rev. Wright when they have absolutely no connection to the problem McCain is in? Did Barack Obama seek out the endorsement of Rev. Hagee in March or Rev. Parsley in February? No he did not, so why does John McCain drag him into this issue when it is John McCain's and John McCain's only?!

Note from author: Please excuse this work in progress. I realized today that there were no Chronological combinations of all the Endorsement-gate events out there, and it needed to be done. The dates and the events are factual, sourced and accurate as currently laid out. Blogging/journalism is new to me, but this needed to go out. Content is complete up until current events of the past days.
Comments are highly welcomed!
Thanks for the understanding, Hans.

March 30, Sunday, Manila time. It’s the week after Holy Week and I understand some well-meaning Filipinos want to crucify Lingayen-Dagupan (Pangasinan) Archbishop Oscar Cruz for condemning our President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). Both are Catholics, one the former President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), the other the current President of the Philippines. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Two heads at loggerheads are no better.

Where else in the world but in the Philippines where you can witness real-life crucifixions? As a Filipino, I’m not surprised. In another sense, those who would be crucified invite it upon themselves. It’s the tongue. ‘From the same mouth come both blessing and cursing’ (James 3: 10, New American Bible).

I wouldn’t want to be the one crucified, so I wouldn’t want to nail anyone on the cross, even verbally. I couldn’t even entertain the thought of watching Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ, although I’ve heard and read that it’s great. But I’m a writer, so I write. I’m safe as long as I watch my speech.

In the time of Jesus Christ, before the court of Pontius Pilate, the priests were inciting the people, who then demanded, ‘Crucify him! Crucify him!’ (Luke 23: 21, New American Bible). It was the priests who were inciting the people to betray Christ. Christ is The High Priest. Today, it is the people demanding that a high priest be crucified. Tongues and times haven’t changed much.

They could not have chosen a more perfect target for crucifixion: Lingayen-Dagupan (Pangasinan) Archbishop and former CBCP head Oscar Cruz. In fact, ‘Cruz’ means ‘cross’ in Spanish, the language of the Spaniards. (You know a cross, of course, the one they nail you on alive if you were bad, or thought to be bad, and leave you there to perish in your own time. At other times, they would burn you at the stake. A choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.) I remember, the Spanish friars were historically the first to crucify the Filipinos. History repeats itself even to those who remember. Now we’re making history ourselves – we’re crucifying our own kind.

In fact, it is Archbishop Cruz who has been calling for the President to be crucified. This Catholic priest has been doing that publicly since I can remember. Would you believe 2004? And Oscar Cruz has been careless with his idiom as Jesus Christ has been careful with his metaphor. Why do you associate with public sinners? the people asked Christ in reproach. Because it is the sick who needs a doctor, Jesus said. That’s a parable. I would not associate with public sinners, Oscar Cruz said. I would deny them, including GMA and her family, the sacrament of Holy Communion. That’s not a parable. Then he denied that he would deny them. (I forgive everyone in the Black & White Movement for not associating with public sinners, for none of them is Christ.)

This is what the good Bishop is denying; ABS-CBN reports (March 30, abs-cbnnews.com):

Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz said ‘public sinners’ should not be given the Holy Sacrament of Communion including, he said, President Arroyo. ‘I would not give communion to somebody receiving communion in public whom I know is a public sinner.’ Because to do so would be ‘like throwing the body and blood of Christ into the garbage.’

I understand that. If you didn’t know, we Roman Catholics believe that the bread becomes the Body of Christ when it is consecrated during Mass. On one hand, to receive it during Holy Communion with your soul dirty white, that is, without the benefit of Confession and doing Penance for your sins, is to commit at the very least a sacrilege. On the other hand, it is horrible if you are a Catholic and denied it because ‘Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation’ (newadvent.org).

Whether you’re a Catholic or not, I want to tell you that when I go to Mass – and that happens about 3 times a year – I am almost always the one left on the pew when almost everyone stands up to receive the Holy Eucharist. I’m not ashamed; I don’t fidget in my seat. Why? Because I know two things. One is that you need to confess and be sorry for your sins, that is, to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation (that is, Confession and Penance), before you can receive the Body of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion. Two is that I confess here and now that I had not gone to confession before.

To me, you are a public sinner if you receive Holy Communion in the public eye of the Church (the people) but you have not confessed your sins to a priest. So, if Archbishop Oscar Cruz would not associate with public sinners, he would have a problem – in one Catholic church alone in a single celebration of the Mass, there are too many of them to avoid!

And isn’t it that you are a public sinner too if you deny public sinners their Catholic birthright to receive Holy Communion as Archbishop Cruz would? Jose Rodel Clapano reports (March 27, philstar.com):

Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz vowed yesterday not to give Holy Communion to President Arroyo, members of her family, and other known ‘sinners’ in the country. Cruz told the Newsmakers Forum held every Wednesday at the Crowne Plaza in Mandaluyong City that he will encourage the Catholic Church leadership, specifically the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), not to allow any publicly known sinners like Mrs Arroyo and members of the First Family to receive communion.

Almost like fire and brimstone in the bad old days.

Norman Bordadora reports that Archbishop Oscar Cruz said he would not give Holy Communion to ‘public sinners’ when asked if he would give the sacrament to GMA or members of her family (‘Lawmakers want prelate punished,’ March 30, inquirer.net). He said what he said. Having said that, the Archbishop made the Southern Tagalog alliance in the House composed of 28 congressmen very angry. Quezon Representative Danilo Suarez, their leader, said the alliance had asked the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to censure Oscar Cruz, one of them. Would they?

Suarez said his group was thinking of ‘elevating the matter to the Vatican if the CBCP will refuse to sanction Cruz.’ The Archbishop said he was misquoted. Suarez said, ‘Archbishop Cruz cannot claim that what he said was taken out of context or misunderstood by members of the media as that press conference, I believe, was videotaped.’

If Oscar Cruz is telling the truth, then the media who reported otherwise are lying, manufacturing the truth. That includes inquirer.net, and GMA News, who quotes Suarez as saying that Cruz set a ‘very bad example to Catholics by telling a barefaced lie to backtrack on what a multitude of people heard him say during a press conference.’ Suarez also said: ‘It’s the height of ecclesiastical arrogance for an Archbishop to be very quick in condemning others while turning a blind eye on his own mistakes’ (gmanews.tv).

If it is true that the priest would not deny the public sinner the blessings of Holy Communion, that would deny the credibility of the media who reported the incident. It's not that I believe in Oscar Cruz less but I believe in the media more. So, shouldn’t we the people instead be reproving Oscar Cruz and be shouting, ‘Crucify him! Crucify him!’

Still: Should a priest be in the first place in the political arena slugging it out with the politicians? Isn’t there a separation of Church and State?

No, Archbishop Cruz would tell you, according to Santosh Digal (February 28, cbcpnews.com):

There are no directives from the Vatican telling Filipino Catholic bishops to keep out of the country’s politics … In fact, the opposite is true, says Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz. Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes says that the Church should ‘pass moral judgments even on matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls require it.’

So, Archbishop Cruz is in his proper element, and I agree with him. Except that his language does not agree with me.

Now, does the Archbishop speak for the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines? Fortunately, no. Some bishops are for GMA to resign, some are for GMA to resist. So, is the CBCP a house divided against itself? Cher Jimenez reports (March 12, globalresearch.ca):

Archbishop Oscar Cruz … said that the division among the clergy is ‘not a question of faith and morals, where we are united, but of a judgment call on the ethical dimension of a government.’

‘The ethical dimension of a government’ – yes. The virtual dimension of the real. I myself do not believe on the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. What would be your moral basis without a moral basis? When Archbishop Cruz uses the term ‘public sinners,’ inadvertently, he is using the language that connects the physical with the metaphysical world. ‘Public sinners’ is a concept that is by itself a good example of the concept that you cannot separate the Church from the State.

‘Public’ refers to the people, and there is no government without the people, so the people are in fact the Government, the State. What is the physical proof of that? We Filipinos have two historical proofs of that. On February 25, 1986, People Power I (also called the EDSA Revolution) occurred, the people changing their national leader by ousting Ferdinand Marcos. That is a mighty exercise of Government, the only exercise that matters. On January 20, 2001, People Power II occurred, the people changing their national leader by ousting Joseph Estrada. That is another mighty exercise of the power of the State, who is none but the People. (When the Filipinos are good, they show the world. Now, some people have been trying another mighty exercise of People Power, this time against GMA, but the people are not with them. Sorry about that.)

‘Sin’ is not a human invention like a ‘lie’ is a human invention. ‘Sin’ belongs to the spiritual world as a ‘lie’ belongs to the material world. And yet you cannot separate the two.

Wikipedia says Oscar Cruz is ‘a vocal critic of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration.’ Bishop, you can disagree without being disagreeable. As a Christian, you can be a vocal critic of the Sin, but never of the Sinner. You have to distinguish the act from the actor. Otherwise, God would not have forgiven Paul of Tarsus because he didn’t know what he was doing! ‘I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate to do’ (Romans 7: 15, New International Version).

Archbishop Oscar Cruz knows about media and language. He has published a great many books, including Media In Our Midst and Call Of The Laity (cbcponline.net). He has his own website, ‘Viewpoints,’ http://ovc.blogspot.com, which he started in December of 2004.

As a Roman Catholic, this is what I believe about media: It is not right to separate the Church from the State. It is only right to separate princely language from unpriestly language. What is the message I’m trying to put across? The crucifixion by language that is a cross.

March 30, Sunday, Manila time. It’s the week after Holy Week and I understand some well-meaning Filipinos want to crucify Lingayen-Dagupan (Pangasinan) Archbishop Oscar Cruz for condemning our President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). Both are Catholics, one the former President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), the other the current President of the Philippines. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Two heads at loggerheads are no better. ¶ Where else in the world but in the Philippines where you can witness real-life crucifixions? Click here for full essay

This whole subject of 'reform' in Islam is riddled with polemics and misunderstandings (which are not always the fault of 'outsiders' it must be said). I have personally never bought into the idea that there was some year in the past when Muslims just decided to stop thinking about Islamic law. It would appear the real 'battle' has always been over the extent and scope of any new "reasoning" or "interpretation" (and just who can undertake such a task), rather than merely reasoning and interpretation, per se. (Afterall, do even the most 'anti-reason' of religious believers really give up "reasoning"? Highly unlikely.)

That the Turkish state sees it as necessary to involve itself in such questions when it comes to the question hadith material (rightly or wrongly), brings up once again how 'separation' of religion from politics (and law) is achieved and worked by different secular states.

In my view, there is never a total severance between religion and the state, but rather a symbiosis or outright domination of one over the other. It so happens that secular states try to tread the path of neutrality by demanding that religion within its borders is controlled by the state itself. Consider how the United States, Britain and France deal with this issue in different ways. (Muslim countries can be just as varied when it comes to the religion-state issue, although not all claim to be secular states. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Malaysia represent quite different approaches on the relationship between religion and state.)

Of course, there are many times which the supposed neutrality of a secular is, almost out of necessity, violated due to different historical and social facts. The state must then involve itself in questions of religion, whether it likes it or not, and by extension (as I was reminded, during an unreflexive moment, thanks to a blogging acquaintance*) of 'the good', just as it repeatedly involves itself in questions of 'culture' (its production, preservation and defence).

To highlight what I mean when I say I don't think there is a total 'separation', consider the following question: should a secular state pay for the upkeep of religious places of worship? If a secular state does such a thing, is it not supporting and financing one place of worship showing favouritism, and thus violating the 'wall' between religion and state or its officially neutral stance on matters of personal belief? What about 'important' historical buildings which are also places of worship? Do we apply a test whereby we differentiate merely religious places of worship from those places which are of historical importance? If so, how does this work? There are numerous other privileges granted to religions (schools, tax breaks, etc.) which are not always distributed evenly and appear as favouritism to one or more groups over another (Muslims in Europe, it can be said, provide the most stark example of this).

*Thanks LoA.

Australian Baptists maintain a very strict separation between Church and State in this regard. I would never dream of having a politician visit a service during an election campaign let alone speak. Baptists in America [or at least some] think differently.

I have been watching the American election saga with interest, particularly when the main candidates are invited to speak at churches. Each Sunday sees a competition between the primary candidates in terms of which church they appear at and whose support they get.

I'm not sure if Americans are aware of it but the rest of the democratic world looks on in horror at the American political system. How is it that in the ‘world's greatest democracy', the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave', control of the superpower is shared between two dynastic families?

How is that in order to participate in the ‘democracy' you don't have a hope unless you have millions of dollars at your disposal? Current candidates are claiming a combined campaign funds of almost $US500 million.  At this point in 2004 observers were stunned that Democrat Howard Dean had amassed an astronomical US$41 million. Chicken feed compared to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who both claim in excess of $100 million.

It's a system that is heavily influenced by lobby groups, pressure groups, and above all things: money. There aren't any systems on the planet that are perfect, that's not the point. The point is the pulpit is no place for partisan politics, and a church has no business advancing the cause of any politician or party. The Gospel must stay above partisanship, and the pre-eminence of the kingdom of God must be maintained over an above any secular cause, no matter how virtuous its policies may appear.

During our last election campaign we did have politicians gather in a church to be questioned by Christians on a range of topics [in relation to their policies]. The occasion was broadcast live to churches across Australia who subscribed to the live feed. That's pretty much the extent of politics in the pulpit when it comes to Baptist churches in Australia. Long may it be that way.

Church & State: Keep Them Separate

Dear Mr. Brown:

You certainly have a right to your beliefs and should be grateful to the God-fearing people who helped create and have preserved this nation over the years. I will continue to pray at every opportunity. You have the right to run for any office also.

Sincerely,

Virginia Foxx
Member of Congress

VF/rc

Though this response is brief, its content is revealing. She didn't explain why prayer by elected officials needs protection, or what actual affect it has ever had on real problems. She didn't respond concerning a clear violation of the Constitution. She didn't express any reluctance in alienating part of the constituency. She didn't make any attempt to defend belief in a magical entity that is ready and waiting to intervene upon request.

What she did offer is what seems to be an attempt to justify religious people. Yes, "[g]od-fearing" have helped to create and preserve freedoms in this country. But so have rational, atheistic citizens. Let's not forget the positions of the founding fathers. If she is suggesting that an appeal to good actions of the religious justifies their superstition, then she has committed a fallacy.

I wasn't sure my email would even be read. I certainly never expected a response. I am pleased that I reached her, even though it probably made no difference.

The Public Prayer Protection Act is presented to protect the rights of elected officials so that they may pray freely. But they already have freedom of religion and the right to pray like all citizens. The only purpose this act is serving is to insert religion into the government. And by the way, does it seem like any of them refrain from praying? President George W. Bush has ridden religion to the top, praying and quoting the bible all the way. The citizens are who need protection. How about a Public Protection from Prayer Act?

Praying while representing a group of diverse citizens all of whom are guaranteed freedom of religion is clearly contradictory. How can I be free in my religious position if my representative is making decisions on my behalf based on the doctrine of a religion with which I disagree? More to the point, why should I trust such a person who claims to be guided by a magical entity that no one has ever seen? This is not what I consider a trustworthy public servant.

You disagree? Consider how you would feel if the president's speech included quotes from the Qur'an, the book of Mormon, or the Vedas. Would you want the leader of this country blessing you in the name of Allah or Krishna? What about Satan? Think of a religion which you trust the least, or consider the most dangerous... even ridiculous. Now think how you would feel if your government officials were basing decisions about your life and the lives of all citizens upon it. I realize that religious beliefs will be present regardless of the ability to pray while on the job. But this act will not just allow, but encourage religiosity by our elected officials. The dangerous potential outcome of this is further movement toward the combination of church and state- theocracy.

Instead of ranting further, I will conclude with the message I sent to Rep. Foxx through her website.

Congresswoman Foxx,

On the front page of my local paper, the Statesville Record & Landmark, I read about the National Day of Prayer. I also learned that you are co-sponsoring the Public Prayer Protection Act. I am greatly disappointed that you are working to violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution. Why does prayer need protection? All citizens are completely free to pray in their private lives. If you haven't noticed, the United States is comprised mostly of religious people. Elected officials should not be free to express religious beliefs while serving the public. Like the rest of the citizens, they can pray in private. All people should be served equally fairly. An elected official praying on the job alienates part of the group she represents. That might be over religious differences for those in other religions, or in my case, by an official being religious at all. Appealing to a god shows me that a person is superstitious and unreasonable in at least part of her thinking. It's a silly, useless waste of time. If our elected officials aren't capable of fulfilling their duties without appealing to unproven supernatural powers, they should resign and make way for those of us who are able to deal with reality. Human problems require human solutions.

Sincerely atheistic,
J.S.Brown

I wish many of our Christian brethren/sisters would leave the realm of trying to marry religious beliefs to a particular political persuasion. Paradoxical as it may seem, Christianity does not need politics to be furthered. Well-meaning Christians often think it does. Christians who try to package God up and peddle Him to others as though He is as simple to comprehend as a political viewpoint may essentially be pushing a modern form of idolatry.

Fellow Christians have become drunken with 'victory' at the polls, instead of the victory at the cross. But we as Christians don't have to be "victorious" in stuffing our religion down others' throats by being elected and telling others how they've got it all wrong. That only turns people off to your religion and political party in the long run.

A real change in a person's life through Christ does not happen overnight, but over a lifetime through God's inner workings and not legal impositions. God works with each individual over time in His own way. For this reason, we Christians must resist the temptation to "save" the country from the evil and 'unrighteousness' that exists in this world by a stroke of the legal pen or the vote of a citizen or Member of Congress.

We must change our thinking: God is not restricted in working only through politicians or political parties. God is not so small.

If God wants us to know something as Christians and to act on our beliefs across all of society, I am convinced He will lead us. We each must approach the matter very openly and dialogue with each other about the best course of action. We must listen to each other, and not think too highly of ourselves, but consider all sides of the issues of our day. Jesus would do no less, and if He would so act, then we, His followers, should surely do likewise.

The danger of a blurring of the lines between separation of church and state is that the simple religious message gets lost in politics. We must preserve the sanctity of both by keeping them from polluting each other.

I sometimes have gotten discouraged during the past six years that the voice of Christian reason and moderation has been lost. I sincerely hope that the pendulum has begun to swing back to the center after this past fall's elections.

I don't want the pendulum to swing too far back left though. I believe the center is where we should be as a country...and I just remind myself that we wouldn't know where the "center" is, if we didn't have swings between the right and left periodically. That is just the history of things, and it is no different now.

Signing the agreement without the prior consent of the university's Board of Regents (BOR) is seen as De Leon's selfishly taking advantage of his position to hurt the sentiment of the Maranaos. In an open letter De Leon, local Muslims strongly appealed to the MSU president to "listen and heed to what we thought is best for Muslims and Christians relationship". It said MSU has been an instrument to dispel prejudices, misconceptions and distrust among Muslims and Christians.

The practice of religion is a basic freedom of every Filipino. Goes with this freedom is the right to establish a house of worship. But to use a government property to build such a house is illegal. The law requires that no government property be used for private purposes even if it's for religious intent.

While there is religious freedom, there is also the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. This is a basic democratic tenet every person living in a democratic country is duty-bound to learn. But leaders of religious and sects take advantage of this freedom and at the same time violate the separation of religion from the government. Many churches, mosques, temples and other houses of worship mushroom everywhere. Some stand in wrong places.

The thousand of hectares of land donated by the good people of the Islamic City of Marawi was for the purpose of educating the cultural minorities and equip them as active partners in nation-building. No way would they allow it to be used for any religious purposes directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously converting their generations to a religion other than their own. No sane Maranao would ever do that.

On the other hand, De Leon's Maranao sympathizers are worried on the antagonistic sentiment against the establishment of a Catholic center. They invoked that mosques are being established all over the country and such hostile sentiment may affect them in Christian areas.

I don't beg to disagree with that line of thinking. Aren't they not aware that the Muslims never built a mosque anywhere in the Philippines owned by the government. True, mosques proliferated everywhere but every piece of land where there stands a mosque is bought by the Muslims from non-government persons. Or don't they understand that the Muslims were never allowed to build a mosque within the UP campus in Diliman, Quezon City because UP authorities said it would be a violation of the separation of Church and State doctrine. If it couldn't be done at UP, how and why could De Leon do that in MSU?

The said open letter also accused De Leon of exploiting some members of respectable families in Lanao and Marawi City and using them of justifying hi dark motives by driving away from the dormitory Muslim women who were performing Islamic teachings and even branding them as "terrorists"; dictating the way Islam celebrate Eidel-Fitr and Eidel-Adha by having consultations with Ulama done in divide and rule manner; making innocent students and coward Muslims celebrate Christmas by parading with big lanterns and burning the night with dances and wine; wanting to destroy the Great Attributes of Allah (swt) by making ninety-nine ascending steps going to the King Faisal Mosque so that every passer will step on each of the names of Allah (swt): converting the highly regarded Maranao cultures to an "Ati-Atihan" Festival, and establishing a Catholic Cathedral under the guise of an interfaith center inside the campus.