Churches Given Anti-Obama Message on Sunday Before Election

Go ahead, explain it to him, Roger..

(I'm too close to it, get all ruffled up)

I disagree.

The church belongs in politics as much as the church belongs anywhere. In fact, a church that isn't in the middle of politics is rather useless.

Churches (of any religion) are supposed to be defending the weak and standing up for justice and helping the poor. The church was at the middle of the struggle to end slavery. The church was a the center of the struggle for civil rights.

There is a valid question about whether churches should be tax exempt or not. But having government decide which churches should get tax exemption or not based on their involvement in politics doesn't make any sense.

I don't see how punishing churches for having a political message can possibly be in line with the First Amendment.

I'm fine with churches having political messages.
Not fine with their being tax free if so.

Do you believe that churches should be tax exempt at all then?

That's a good question. My first answer is no, and my second is maybe. My bias, as is observable, is towards no. Re U.S. law, I think this should be tested.

Because they get to build church empires free of tax. Whatever so called church.

The word used to be rook.

I see a difference between being involved in social issues and being involved in party politics. The message of the Illinois bishop is that the Obama administration and Democratic senators are on the wrong side of a religious issue.

Preaching political messages as religious dictum is dangerous. In 1932 Roman Catholic churches in Germany advised their members to vote for the NAZI party.

That's for the lawyers, if the bishopric charges into speechifying parisioners on this and that.

I was rather agog myself, with a particularly good paulist speaker, Elwood Keiser.
Man was a crowd mover.
People have power in pulpits.
Interfering by a church re voting is a serious offense. I'm not saying Keiser did that, I'm just remembering strong, ah, sermons. Didn't hurt that he was something like six six and blond.

Do you have link to a source for this claim?

I recommend a book by Bronko Bokan, Spy in the Vatican. He represented the red cross of then yugoslavia, but had his own biases.

Very interesting, re the vatican. If you run across it, please read, I'd like to hear what you think.

Of course, it's a biased write.
Still, part of my library.

Walter, among all of us, has compilations of his sources.

How do you feel about the counter examples? There were many churches who preached against the evils of the Nazis as they were rising to power, and many who paid dearly for their faith. Was speaking out against the Nazis appropriate for the churches that did so?

The problem with letting government classify religion is where the heck do you draw the line?

Does the stance matter? Black churches in the US speak out about political issues relating to their parishioners, this has been a huge part African American history and it continues today from issues of the incarceration of young black males, to opportunities for education? Is this OK? What about Quakers and Mennonites who are pacifists due to religion beliefs? Who do you oppose war without being politically involved?

And where do you draw the line?

In a Quaker meeting (which is unscripted and consists of short insights from members since there is no clergy) you might often hear political issues. Is this enough to label them as "political".

Is one prayer for marriage equality a bad thing?

Is one paragraph in a sermon about the need to support aid for families enough to black mark a church?

I think it is a very bad thing for government to be in the business of regulating the content of religious meetings, even for the purpose of tax exemption. There is no way for government to make these judgments in a way that is not biased. And these messages are part of a religious community they belong in the context of people who are involved.

I am not sure that tax exemption for religious organizations is a good thing.

But I am very sure that any attempt to reward or punish religious organizations based on a outside judgment of religious practices is a very bad thing.

That's a scramble of questions, back tomorrow. I'm busy making dozens of pot stickers.

Telling parishioners how to cast their ballots isn't a religious practice. All of your examples don't cross my line. Telling people how they have to vote in a democratic society does.

I did not think that one can "quit" the Catholic church, like one quits a job. Unless of course, like a job, one joins a new church, and gets all the rituals performed that the new church subscribes to?

I thought one can become a "non-practicing" Catholic, but that does not mean that one has left the church, in my opinion. One has only decided to not attend the church; however, one is still Catholic, by virtue of that Baptism that one had way back when.

If one was able to just "leave" the Catholic church, what would one be? A pagan? Perhaps, a more nuanced term should be introduced, such as "secular Catholic"?

I liked this man, whose name I misspelled earlier. At this point, decades later, I can't guess what he was about.

He was my last touch with religion.

Let me guess - he might not be quiet now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/20/arts/rev-ellwood-kieser-priest-and-film-producer-dies-at-71.html

you put a lot of stock in getting a little wet.

I think if one says they quit the church, much like a job, and quits going to said church events and activities, one has in fact "quit" the church...

I just don't get foofieism.

for the record, I think only charity organizations should be tax exempt. (with strict guidelines)

churches have become very corporate in the last 30 years...

Well, there are folks who say they "quit" the church; however, when it comes to who they feel most comfortable around, it happens to be, you guessed it, Catholics. So then, did the person really "quit" the Catholic church, or did they just decide to stop being a practicing Catholic? Again, I believe a nuanced term of "secular Catholic" would really be more intellectually honest, in my opinion.

And, your comment above about the "little wet" should be directed to all the good Catholic nurses that Baptized Jewish babies on the QT, in my opinion. Someone was very concerned that if the Jewish baby did not live, it would not wander in limbo for all of eternity. So, others really valued a "little wet" and some sentences in Latin.

eye of newt and wing of bat...