Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
So to you , then, separation of church and state is basically equivalent to a form of extortion of the church by the state.
Sorry - I can't buy this. You are honestly saying that there should be laws over a church telling them they have to give what is considered to be a holy sacrament to those who do not meet the religious standard or face loss of tax exempt status?
Then the original fears of the founders truly begins to be realized - a state run church (rather than religious influence on the state), a la the Church of England.
|
NO, that is not what I am saying at all. If the church chooses to deny the sacrament to a member of their congregation based upon
how that person is likely to vote, then they need to decide what is more important to them- dogma or the law of the state. They need to figure out how to reconcile the situation- it is what it is. They cannot have it both ways- choosing to remain tax-exempt while not following the rules for maintaining that exemption. Why not do what they should be doing- educating people about the mores of the church, and trusting that people will vote their conscience. Why threaten or throw out people if they don't vote the way the church decides they should?
I see more sense in applying your example to what the situation would be should churches be allowed to dictate politics from the pulpit.
That is the reason for separation of church and state. Need I remind you of what the Colonies were like prior to the Revolution?