Semantics.
Semantics, you should know, are very important.
You can call it a constitutional republic. I call it a democracy.
A Constitutional Republic is Democracy in the same way that your dog, affectionately named "kitty" no doubt, is a feline.
Democracy is, essentially, ochlocracy: there are no rules and anything goes, as long as you have enough people behind you - that is, as ong as you have a majority. In a Republic on the other hand, the majority is constrained by a charter which defines what the majority can and cannot do.
Well big deal. Can't a majority edit the charter anyways under a Constitional Republic? Well, yes...
somewhat. Charters typically do offer a mechanism to allow modifications - our Constitution, for example, describes how it can be amended in Article V but at the same time, it places limits on what modifications are, actually, allowed. For example, an Amendment could not be incorporated that, say, mandated that West Virginia gets only one seat in the Senate if West Virginia did not wish to only have one Senator.
And I have no problem with people voting to advance or oppose religious-based views. That's what democracy is all about.
You are making a very broad statement here - and it's not one I necessarily disagree with, depending on how one goes about interpreting it.
The fact is that people can already apply any "reasoning" they want in deciding how they vote on a particular issue and rational thought is not required. For example, people can choose their vote by flipping a coin or by praying to get mystical insight - as I'm sure many do. There's no way to control how people decide to vote and there shouldn't be.
But - and there's always a but - those very same people are limited in what they can vote about. For example, the people (whether directly or indirectly through their Representatives) can't vote to compel every American to attend a house of worship once a week.
To get back to the original article: it suggests that many Americans want churches to have a voice on political subjects, but as it stands, churches whch involve themselves in politics risk losing their tax-exempt status, so most avoid overt participation with the political process and endorsment of particular candidates.
I absolutely think that churches should be able to express opinions on politics in general and specific issues in particular, just like I think that they should also be able to endorse candidates. I think that Churches, like other legal entities, should be able to speak on issues that concern them. Of course, since I also think that churches shouldn't be exempt from tax...
