Your ideas are well and good and I understand your point but I hope you realize that the corporeal “power” of a soldier is several notches higher than the corporeal “power” of a member of the church.

For one, the soldier and more specially officers have government materials at their disposal which includes government arms, materials, etc…

The officer also has the advantage of a more corporeal “authority” over his subordinates than a clergyman over his parishioners.

If you don’t do what a clergyman orders you to; what is the worse that he can do to you within his “authority”?

If a lower ranking soldier disobeys his officer; an order to do 100 push-ups is quite a punishment already.

Anglican Bishops still sit in the Lords but if Tony Blair has his way, the Lords will be composed of all elected individuals. And if the Church of England gets disestablished (as the Prince of Wales would like to see) then the bishops will go.

Actually the American idea of church-state separation has more pluses for the churches rather than the state. While I don’t think it is favourable to the State to define what a religious organization really is and who is a religious worker. I think religious workers should not seek elective office. If they file for candidacy they should resign their ministry. This concept is not far from Civilian supremacy that prevents a soldier from seeking office unless he resigns his commission. But civilian supremacy is an older convention dating from Rome itself “cedant arma togae”. Arms should give way to the toga. If soldiers are prohibited from seeking office, why should the state not prohibit priests, minister, pastors and “brothers” and religious workers?

The Church and state separation concept is a fruit of the Reformation. The Reformers knew and experienced the abuses of the Papacy. Unfortunately the Protestants also abused liberties and minorities when they were in power. So when the English Colonists revolted and formed their United States, they enshrined religious non-establishment.

It was only after the Second Vatican Council when the Catholic Church had to accept religious liberty. But as you see there are still who can’t accept this.

In the Philippines a major factor we have to consider is that the Philippine Catholic Church has never experienced persecution. (If it had why do we have only two canonized saints?) In fact it was intolerant of all other faiths until after Vatican II. Thus it historically can’t appreciate why it should keep its hand off politics. Our bishops meddle in all sorts of political issues. In Protestant England the Catholic Church does not engage in politics unless its freedom of conscience is under threat. I think this is fair enough since EU law demands that its adoption agencies give services to gay couples, something contrary to church belief.

Unfortunately some Evangelicals have fallen into the same trap. Not having experienced state sponsored persecution, they also meddle in all sorts of politics.

Thus I am not in favour of lay preachers running for election. Lay preachers can narrowly represent their religious constituency (which makes a mockery of our religious non-establishment clause). If these preachers head a congregation (as most of them do), they should be banned from running for elective office.

However I believe that he had already informed his bishop of his intentions and that means this man formerly of the cloth is no longer a priest. He may decide to become a simple lay minister like the Opus Dei Lay Ministers. Like Pat Robertson and Bro. Eddie Villanueva they can all run for public office.

Please remember that being an ordained priest of the Catholic Church means that your political authority rests with the Vatican. Your boss is the Pope. No ifs, buts and maybes.

Please remember the important distinction between priest and minister and more importantly remember the difference between being ruled and governed.

The Vatican is a dictatorial state but today you do not loose your head or be turned into charcoal if you disagree with the dogma. You can resign.

Please note Limbo no longer in effect. More important though is the Church has already accepted the theory of evolution as a valid thesis.

The Justice Secretary would stand as prime example of it. He needs some serotonin to calm his testosterone based outbursts vs women. Being the country’s chief law enforcer in a fast deteriorating body can affect the mind.

Our electorate should wise up to so-called men of the cloth and demagogic preachers who use religion for political ends. They represent the biblical brood of vipers that Jesus drove from the temple of his Father.