So much for separation of Church and State (if it ever did exist)

transporter

Active Member
4 more "union members" stumping for a candidate???? Where's the somd outrage???

Priests' attendance at Trump rally causes furor


The attendance of four Roman Catholic priests from Montana at President Donald Trump's political rally in Great Falls Thursday has created a social media firestorm and apparently incurred the displeasure of the priests' superiors in the church.

The four, who were seated near the front of the rally, wore their clerical garb, carried "Make America Great Again" signs, and wore VIP badges. They clapped for Trump as he doubled down on his oft-repeated slur of Sen. Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas," mocked the #MeToo movement, and questioned the meaning of former Republican President George H.W. Bush's "Thousand Points of Light" slogan.
Bishop Michael William Warfel, Bishop of the Great Falls-Billings diocese, answered a query about the priests' attendance on Facebook by saying, "I was not aware that these priests would be in attendance at the rally at which President Trump spoke. Two were from the diocese of Great Falls-Billings and two were from the Diocese of Helena. I will be contacting the two priests from this diocese.

"While they are free to support a political candidate — and I believe they were there in support of Matt Rosendale, who is running for the Senate seat from Montana — they should not have been attired in clerical garb and seated in such a prominent location. I myself had been invited to attend the rally but declined. It has been my experience that people can be manipulated and used unwittingly. I judge that it was an imprudent decision on their parts to allow themselves to be used in such a way though I suspect they had not thought of this. In Christ, Bishop Warfel."
 

glhs837

Power with Control

PrchJrkr

It'll be Fine...
Trans is just confused. Progs never did understand what the separation of church and State actually means. You can't blame her, she appears to be of below average intelligence. Trump being the most effective president we've had since Reagan, really gets her worked up...
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Trans is just confused. Progs never did understand what the separation of church and State actually means. You can't blame her, she appears to be of below average intelligence. .
I understand what it means...and I'm agnostic! Well..OK..truth be told..I'm Druid..but in any event, I clearly understand what the founders meant and intended. It's not that hard to grasp!! Unless you are like Tranny..
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Trans is just confused. Progs never did understand what the separation of church and State actually means. You can't blame her, she appears to be of below average intelligence. Trump being the most effective president we've had since Reagan, really gets her worked up...
When a priest takes his vows does he give up his first amendment rights? I don't think so.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
Wait, aren't they the same ones who insist it's only moral and Christian to throw our borders open and let anyone who wants to come rolling in? That that's what Jesus would want us to do?
 

Kyle

Imagine No Democrats
PREMO Member
Wait, aren't they the same ones who insist it's only moral and Christian to throw our borders open and let anyone who wants to come rolling in? That that's what Jesus would want us to do?
Until he completes the legal process, I prefer Jesus stay in Mexico.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Can someone direct me to the passage in the constitution that says... "separation of church and state"?
You wont find it there, since it's not there, but it's generally accepted to be both the genesis and virtually the definition of the scope of the FA.

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Wait, aren't they the same ones who insist it's only moral and Christian to throw our borders open and let anyone who wants to come rolling in? That that's what Jesus would want us to do?
As I see it, the Bishops are pretty much fine with what Pope Francis states about immigration.
The Pope is all for us letting in all comers.
Not really sure all of the rank and file priests are in favor of it.
IMO the Pope and the Bishops should stick to guiding the Church and let the President guide America.

Perhaps these priests feel the same way----and are about to catch hell for it.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Virtually all of my life, I've heard OF preachers and pastors and religious leaders supporting political candidates from the PULPIT
and occasionally - giving them opportunity to campaign during the church service.

Apparently the Catholic Church has different opinion on this - but their most egregious offense was that they went
dressed in their garb as priests. I'm not aware of any policy or rule that this breaks - priests have held public office
across the world for - I don't know how long.

But this is not a violation of "separation of church and state" which is not even part of our Constitution but a description
of what the First Amendment is supposed to achieve - as in, the government isn't supposed to be establishing religion.
This is the opposite - this is religious people expressing their First Amendment right.

Maybe trans has officially joined the "ignorati"?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If this had been four Pepsi workers in full Pepsi gear, and the CEO of Pepsi didn't like it, or the local Pepsi branch (for whom they worked) didn't like it, that Pepsi boss would be well within his/her rights to say, "I don't really like this because I think the political candidate was abusing my workers and they shouldn't have been there in full Pepsi gear as though the entire Pepsi company is in full support of that candidate. We, at the glorious Pepsi company, have no concerns with our workers supporting any candidate they choose, but they should not do it in full Pepsi garb."

I see no difference in a Bishop suggesting the same thing about priests that work for him.

To the best of my understanding from what was posted in the OP, the separation is coming from the church, not the government. The church leader is saying (in effect), "don't bring my church into politics." That seems pretty reasonable.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
Virtually all of my life, I've heard OF preachers and pastors and religious leaders supporting political candidates from the PULPIT
and occasionally - giving them opportunity to campaign during the church service.
Happens all the time. Heck, that's the only time you ever heard of Bill Clinton going to church: when he was campaigning. Note that the Left didn't mind it then.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
I see no difference in a Bishop suggesting the same thing about priests that work for him.
Priests don't "work for" the Bishop, as in he is not their employer and it's not "his church". It's his diocese, but I'm not sure how that translates to curtailing the Constitutional rights of priests.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Virtually all of my life, I've heard OF preachers and pastors and religious leaders supporting political candidates from the PULPIT
and occasionally - giving them opportunity to campaign during the church service.

Apparently the Catholic Church has different opinion on this - but their most egregious offense was that they went
dressed in their garb as priests. I'm not aware of any policy or rule that this breaks - priests have held public office
across the world for - I don't know how long.

But this is not a violation of "separation of church and state" which is not even part of our Constitution but a description
of what the First Amendment is supposed to achieve - as in, the government isn't supposed to be establishing religion.
This is the opposite - this is religious people expressing their First Amendment right.

Maybe trans has officially joined the "ignorati"?
Joined it?, she is President and CEO.
 
Top