Joe... you said (late last night or early this morning Mudcat time):

"Somebody said churches shouldn't be involved in politics. I disagree." And the Constitution also disagrees.

Knowing you, and reading the rest of the paragraph, I understand what you are getting at - but I must take issue with the phrasing. I would say that it is perfectly fine, in theory,for religious people to involved in politics, but the logical extension of that is that any off-the-wall fundamentalist with the most extreme views can 'be involved'. Obviously, in the USA, that IS how it works. (Pat Robertson once ran for president.) What is not advisable is for them to do it in the name of their church. Is this nit-picking your statement? Perhaps- but I think it's an important concern.

The nun in Sacramento or your boss the nun.... or you.. who have valuable contributions to make to society, should not be constrained or ignored because they are known to be religious, but I always hope that their message and their goals will be couched in a manner that says "this is a good thing to do as humans", not simply because Jesus said so, or because the Bible has a verse about it.
I know this sounds a bit tediously pedantic, but far too many foolish ideas are promulgated when churches -as churches- become politically involved. There is of course no way to easily restrain the more extreme elements from using their church affiliation to affect political ends, but I'd hope that your 'boss the nun' doesn't pursue her goals in the name of the church, but only as a citizen who happens to be a nun.

( I think I need 12 more paragraphs to expand all that and include all the disclaimers and corollaries, but I'll spare you)