Lucas, "Tax-exempt institutions are allowed to take public stands for or against ballot issues but cannot support or oppose candidates."

Moral issues are à priori the bailiwick of churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc. before they become political issues.

The invisible line in danger of being trampled is more, in my opinion, in the reverse direction, that is, politics entering into moral issues.

Amendment 2 relates to a moral issue in the minds and understanding of many. Therefore, they are voicing their concern and position on an issue.

As to politicians speaking in churches, that has disturbed me as an independent voter and devout Christian. The main transgressors in this regard are Democrats and African American churches.

In my more than a half century of Presbyterianism and evangelicalism, no politician has ever addressed a church I have belonged to or attended. Government leaders of both parties are prayed for regularly according to biblical instructions. Though most congregants are conservative, the Republican Party is never allowed to distribute literature nor to speak or to urge the congregants to vote for them.

How different from other churches, which is why some are becoming disgruntled that it can be done safely in black churches, but not in other churches.

Interestingly, Catholics and evangelicals are pretty much of same mind on the "culture of life," and, yes,they also do what they can for the poor and homeless. We are very involved in the Sunshine Mission, the Salvation Army, and ministries to men and women in prison, as well as for their children.

Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Abolition: some of the most significant social movements in our history have strong roots in the church's activism. There are lines to be careful about, but I strongly believe that the church can be a positive force in American politics (though admitedly it often is a negative force too). I think the Pro-Life Churches are wrong on this issue, but I completely respect their activism on this issue.

I appreciate the above response and respect. As for Pro-Life churches, they remain consistent and constant with the first century church. The following is from the Didache,the earliest non-canonical Christian writing, (probably written in the latter half of the first century):

"There are two ways, a way of life and a way of death; there is a great difference between them?.In accordance with the precept of the teaching 'You shall not kill,' you shall not put a child to death by abortion or kill it once it is born?.The way of death is this: They show no compassion for the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and by abortion cause God?s creatures to perish; they drive away the needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and unjust judges of the poor, they are filled with every sin. May you be ever guiltless of all these sins!"

Respected Catholic and evangelical theologians agree: "Barring natural tragedy, as in miscarriage, or lethal intervention, as in abortion, this being will become what everyone recognizes as a human baby. It is false and pernicious to claim that the unborn child is, at early stages of development, only a potential human being. No life that is not a human being has the potential of becoming a human being, and no life that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being."

On these bases many churches and Christians are obligated to express grave concerns.

There have been many good Catholics (and some strayed ones as well) that disagree with church hierarchy on amendment 2, as well as others. It is one thing for church leaders to talk on the issue, but the rhetoric in my hearing has often been misleading as well as down right false. The Catholic review newspaper has gone out of its way to repeat falsehoods at every chance and to "out" Catholics who have taken a stand in favor of amendment 2. IMO, church hierarchy has really failed on this issue to address the sort of balanced discussion on the issue that it needs. Does Archbishop Burke, for example, really want to be on stage with speakers who equate doctors doing research and cures with Nazis? Way over the line and very unfortunate...

Unfortunately, Nazi physicians did some research and experiments on human beings. Such a reference is a reminder that being a doctor does not ensure all that is done medically speaking is moral. That is perhaps what the reference is to.

I read Archbishop Burke's column in the recent St. Louis Review and thought it was decent, reasonable, rational, and straightforward as to what the issues are for Christians. A nonliving clump of cells cannot become a living clump of cells or human being. That tiny clump of cells carries DNA and a unique, magnificent design. What exactly is considered down right false about anything that has been said or published?

Helen, how does Amendment 2 "hurt women"? I saw a sign the other day that said that. That seems like a false statement from the anti-amendment 2 people.

Also, Amendment 2 doesn't make cloning legal. It only makes the federal laws legal in Missouri. As I know it the federal government hasn't made cloning legal yet, so it wouldn't be legal here either. So I think those signs about amendment 2 being about cloning are false also.

Worried Citizen, I took the time to attempt to answer your questions in depth and with my limited knowledge. When I went to preview my response for typos, the website obliterated it.

I have contacted Dave and Lucas expressing frustration because my answer was totally respectful and compassionate. I don't understand why some can use obscene language and get posted while a thoughtful and respectful response gets denied.

I don't have the time now to do it again, but when I do I will try to cover the same material.

Archbishop Burke could show his concern for youth by asking SLU to do abuse checks on faculty, as Mizzou is finally starting to do.

Nia says "NO to Stem Cell"

After all...Nia knows