Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
If government enacts laws because a religious organization dictates to politicians of that religion to do so, the state most certainly is supporting church. I realize the fine line here. It is despicable of the Catholic church to even attempt to dictate state policy.
I believe dictate is an inappropriately strong word and hysterically overstates the situation.

This is a group of college presidents sending a letter to Catholic congressmen, not the Inquisition.

As Hugh wrote and I agreed, this is a constitutionally approved action.

I am the first person to denounce religions that violate the establishment clause. in this case there is no violation and the presidents are merely exercizing their constitutional rights to petition the government and its representatives.

With such a non-defined subject as the intent of the constitutions reason for mentioning a seperation of church and state, how you see it in detail is no more valid than how I see it. So stop trying to make it sound like you or understand something that others don't. It is the non-descript way seperation of church and state is stated in the constitution that has allowed for the problems that anti-theological organizations have caused for those of us of faith.
Actually the problems are not caused by what you mistakenly label "anti-theological organizations" but rather by theological organizations and individuals violating the constitution.

If the Catholic Churce wants to preach to Catholics to work together to change immigration laws, that is one thing. To go directly to Catholic politicians and tell them to change immigration laws is despicable. It may not be illegal, and it may be the right of the Catholic Church to do it, but it is still no less despicable than how anti-theological organizations have acted.
Oh hell, every religion and religious organization in the land tries to influence politicians and legislation.

Happens every day.

I would say your dislike of the Catholic Church is the primary motivation rather than any perceived violation of the establishment clause.