There must be sta ndards for the exercise of such leadership so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into a n opportun ity for mere political advantage. But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition many of the great evange lists of the 1800s were in the foref ront of the abolitionist movement in our own time the reverend william Sloane Cof f in challenged the mora lity of the war in Vietnam. Pope John XXIll renewed the Gospels call to social justice. And Dr. Martin Luther King, ]r. who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial segregation Their words have blessed our world. and who now wishes they had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [Il to quiet his voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry and those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time? President Kennedy who said that no relig ious body should seek to impose its w ill, also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when he public debate involved ethical issues. In drawing the line between imposed will and essential w itness we keep church and sta te separate and at the same time we recognize that the city of God should speak to the civ ic duties of men and women There are four tests which draw that line and define the difference First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice --even slavery - to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor. I believe that the prophecy The poor you have always with you"is an indictment, not a commandment. And i respect ully suggest that God has taken no position on th Department of Education --and that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis, and not heavenly appeals Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue; but not every public issue involves religious values. And how ironic it is when those very values are denied in the name of religion For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry but that mission is an explicit mandate given to us in the 25th chapter of Matthew Second we must respect the independent judgments of conscience Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith Just as I disagree with the Catho lic bisho ps on tuition tax credits-- which I oppose--so otherThere must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage. But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition. Many of the great evangelists of the 1800s were in the foref ront of the abolitionist movement. In our own time, the Reverend William Sloane Cof fin challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam. Pope John XXIII renewed the Gospel’s call to social justice. And Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial segregation. Their words have blessed our world. And who now wishes they had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [II] to quiet his voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry, and those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time? President Kennedy, who said that “no religious body should seek to impose its will,” also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when the public debate involved ethical issues. In drawing the line between imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, and at the same time we recognize that the City of God should speak to the civic duties of men and women. There are four tests which draw that line and define the dif ference. First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself . People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice -- even slavery -- to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor. I believe that the prophecy, ”The poor you have always with you” is an indictment, not a commandment. And I respectfully suggest that God has taken no position on the Department of Education -- and that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis, and not heavenly appeals. Religious values cannot be excluded f rom every public issue; but not every public issue involves religious values. And how ironic it is when those very values are denied in the name of religion. For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry, but that mission is an explicit mandate given to us in the 25th chapter of Matthew. Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience. Those who proclaim moral and religious values can of fer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith. Just as I disagree with the Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits -- which I oppose -- so other