The Supreme Court has, for the last 20 years or so, fairly consistently said that the government may not endorse religion or irreligion. It is supposed to stay neutral on matters of religion. To pronounce on religious questions would violate the constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion
So it is generally agreed that the Wisconsin state legislature could not adopt a resolution stating that Jesus Christ is the sole path to salvation or one declaring Scientology to be a fraud.
But the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution denouncing Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. It called the church's opposition to homosexual adoption:
"hateful and discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.''
I am not a fan of the "endorsement" approach, but why isn't this a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state?
I just checked the web site of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State because I am sure they would want to denounce this. They did manage to denounce Pat Robertson for saying Islam is not a religion of peace. Robertson, of course, is not a representative of any government, so you'd think that when a governmental body weighs in on the nature and value of religion, they'd be all over it.
Maybe someone should send them an e-mail.
Or a clue.