Mark Shields: Iron Rule of Religion and Politics

[cbayer]

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/mark_shields_iron_rule_of_religion_and_politics_20140301

By Mark Shields | Published on 03.01.2014 5:15 p.m.

There is one iron rule regarding religion in American politics, and here it is: With only one exception, ministers, priests, rabbis and imams — men and women of the cloth — should stay out of American politics. The one exception? When the minister, priest, rabbi or imam in a political fight supports my side or my candidate.

That this rule has not been fully grasped by the White House is obvious from the Obama administration’s tone-deaf decision to pick a fight with an order of nuns, still faithful today to their noble mission to care for the impoverished elderly and dying in some 31 countries, over the federal mandate to provide coverage without copays for contraceptives. There are a few U.S. Supreme Court cases that echo through the centuries — Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Brown v. Board of Education. It’s doubtful admirers of this president would want his era remembered by President Barack Obama v. Little Sisters of the Poor.

Religion and politics have been in the spotlight with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who vetoed a bill passed by the state’s GOP-controlled Legislature, which, according to its supporters, was intended to give legal protection from lawsuits to business owners who assert their religious beliefs in refusing to provide service to gays or others. The bill sparked a national argument over discrimination, gay rights and religious liberty while exposing Arizona to criticism and thinly veiled threats from influential corporations and employers.

American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Marriott hotels, the National Football League (possible loss for Arizona of an already-scheduled Super Bowl), Major League Baseball, Apple Inc. and AT&T, in effect, lobbied Brewer to veto the bill. So, too, did former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, among others. Brewer’s veto, it’s fair to say, pleased civil rights group and the Arizona business community.

more at link

[factsarenotfair]

1. Yup. The fundamentalist Christians in my family are beyond outraged about the Little Sisters of

the Poor case. It's impossible for me to even debate this issue because I would have to attack their religious beliefs.

[cbayer]

2. I think it's possible to make the case without attacking anyone's religious beliefs.

But I haven't had much success arguing these things with fundamentalists, so it may not be worth the effort.

[skepticscott]

3. Maybe that's because you enter those arguments

assuming that you have the answer and that the people you're arguing with are dead wrong. Maybe if you practiced what you incessantly preach here, you'd have more luck.