Obama is now appealing to the religious leaders of this country to drive home his cloudy health care. He is using them as a tool just like he uses the unions. I live 15 miles from a high school that has a principal and a coach facing jail time for saying grace over a meal that no students attended, while our president appeals to our religious leaders to push a political agenda from the pulpit. Which one smells more of a violation of the separation of church and state?
First of all, you are lying about your supposed principal and coach. Stop lying - it's painful to listen to.
Second, there is a BIG difference between appealing to religious communities for support and establishing religion in the law. The first is allowed, the second isn't. Politicians have always made a point of speaking in front of church and temple meetings (for example), and this is perfectly legal.
First of all I would like to say right away that I do not like Obama and although I must respect him because of his position of authority I do not agree with anything that he has done this term, in fact I can't wait for him to be out of office. Second I would like to state that there is really no such thing as the separation of church and state in our constitution, it was mentioned in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, but it is no where found in the constitution. In fact if you look back to the revolution, civil war and even as early as the 2 world wars politics was in church and I believe that it should because the bible is full of politics and they should be taught as well as other biblical teachings. No I do not think that Obama should be trying to get religious leaders to push his agendas because his agendas are not Christian.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you remember the Republican primary debates. Where every republican candidate said they didn't believe in Evolution and supported teaching creationism in public school science class. A position that the US Supreme Court says violates the 1st Amendment.
Getting the support of religious leaders is not a violation of the 1st Amendment, as religious leaders have freedom of speech to support any position they want, also protected under the first amendment. Only when government tries to force religious doctrine on the public, such as creationism or restrict people from practicing their religion is it a violation .
The left obviously think that they never violate the Constitution, they only see conservatives doing it.
I don't think that it IS unconstitutional for religious leaders to be involved in political debate and activity. It is only unconstitutional for government to let a religious leader have the power to govern -- to make laws, all by themselves, or to enforce them or to interpret them. But a religious leader has every bit as much a right to be involved in politics as any kind of "special interest group."
The left will allow it when it serves their interests. They not allow it when it goes counter to their goals.
Our constitution does not say anywhere about separating church and state. Congress itself states that they will not discriminate against any religion or endorse any dominant religion.