Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another coming storm... [Cardinal Mahoney Politicking during Mass]
Open Book ^ | 5/15/06 | Amy Welborn

Posted on 05/16/2006 7:12:41 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam

A reader from LA writes with this: am in the archdiocese of Los Angeles.

I would be interested to hear what you and your blog readers think about what happened in parishes in our diocese yesterday. In the middle of mass, after the homily and before the Creed, Fr. C. stood up and said that Cardinal Mahony asked all priests in the diocese to pass out post cards to the parishioners regarding immigration reform, addressed to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The ushers passed them out with pencils, then picked up the completed forms. It took about 20 minutes. Here is the text of the post card:

Dear Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: I urge you to enact realistic and humane comprehensive immigration reform this year that: (1) includes a path to citizenship for hard working immigrants and their families. (2) provides an effective visa program for future immigrants that protects their rights and includes a path to citizenship. (3) keeps families together, (4) protects our civil rights and civil liberties, and (5) does not criminalize immigrants or their allies. Our immigration laws and our leaders should recognize that immigrants strengthen our economy and contribute to the fabric of our country. Signed: City & Zip:

While this is a social justice issue, and most people do agree that immigration laws need to be reformed in some way, it becomes a political issue when parishioner are asked to sign their names to something to be sent to a member of the Senate.

What really angered me about this, is that a couple of months ago, a group of us asked Fr. C. if we could collect signatures after Mass on the patio to get the parental notification act back on the ballot. We were told that Cardinal Mahony said we could not collect signatures on church property for a political issue, so we stood on the sidewalk to collect signatures. We were totally fine with that, and did so with no complaint whatsoever. I would not have minded if there was an "immigration reform table" on the patio after mass and if there was an announcement about it at the end of mass, but to interrupt the holy sacrifice of the mass for a political agenda is completely inappropriate.

We had active, faithful parishioners stand up and walk out of mass yesterday. This is going to be very divisive. I sure wouldn't want to be answering the phone in Cardinal Mahony's office this week!


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: taxfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 05/16/2006 7:12:44 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

Is he a Priest or a friggin' politician?

Pick one.


2 posted on 05/16/2006 7:15:43 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (If its such a great idea, lets see how well the capital and white house do with a virtual fence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

I just posted this on another thread but it is very applicable here too:

I say be on the ready to report these 501c3 organizations and churches to the IRS and FEC for violating their non-profit status. There is a restriction on their political speech in exchange for their tax-free status. And that restriction is they cannot campaign/endorse for/against a party, a piece of legislation, or a candidate.

If there is ANY attempt at telling a voter "how" to vote, they have jeopardized their tax status.


3 posted on 05/16/2006 7:17:21 AM PDT by weegee (Slowly but surely and deliberately, converativism is being made a thoughtcrime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

Get the church's tax free status challenged. That will prevent this in the future.


4 posted on 05/16/2006 7:35:08 AM PDT by Draco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

He is certainly asking to lose his tax-free status if he is doing things like this.......................


5 posted on 05/16/2006 7:41:50 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
if we could collect signatures after Mass on the patio to get the parental notification act back on the ballot. We were told that Cardinal Mahony said we could not collect signatures on church property for a political issue[but could for the "immigration reform" issue, which is much more political]...

Well, isn't that a surprise. That's Mahony, all Dem, all the time.

6 posted on 05/16/2006 7:42:34 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draco

That's exactly what it takes. I've seen it work before with a Baptist preacher who was stepping a bit possibly over that line.


7 posted on 05/16/2006 7:42:54 AM PDT by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: weegee

**report these 501c3 organizations and churches to the IRS and FEC for violating their non-profit status. There is a restriction on their political speech in exchange for their tax-free status. And that restriction is they cannot campaign/endorse for/against a party, a piece of legislation, or a candidate.**


Bumpin your idea!


8 posted on 05/16/2006 7:43:15 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

Tax 'em


9 posted on 05/16/2006 7:48:44 AM PDT by Blzbba (Beauty is just a light switch away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
There is a restriction on their political speech in exchange for their tax-free status. And that restriction is they cannot campaign/endorse for/against a party, a piece of legislation, or a candidate.

Churches have a duty to speak out against anything which conflicts with the Gospel. Not to do so is to become mere serfs of the almighty state and to start on the path to subjugation and irrelevancy.

Legislation which attacks the family, such as homosexual "marriage" or any anti-life initiatives such as the human spare parts industry (embryonic stem cells, cloning etc.,) or abortion is well within the ambit of the Church's mission. To remain silent on these issues is simply to clear the way for the return of Hitler and Dr. Mengele.

Tax exemption does not stifle free speech. The Church may not campaign for a particular party or candidate but it certainly must speak up when morally reprehensible legislation is proposed.

10 posted on 05/16/2006 7:57:44 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

The Cardinal has done flipped! I'd check his prescriptions and the frequency of visits to the liquor cabinet. Something's up here.


11 posted on 05/16/2006 7:58:47 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (If you find yourself in a fair fight, you did not prepare properly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

You are absolutely wrong about that.

A 501C3 can use a percentage of its funds to lobby on ISSUES>


12 posted on 05/16/2006 8:08:41 AM PDT by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Pyro7480; BlackElk

Mahony's at it again - ping!

I think we here at FR should take up a collection and give him the gift of a one-way bus ticket to Mexico, he'd be much happier there!


13 posted on 05/16/2006 8:10:11 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (Illegals - taking the rights Americans don't have - tell them No Tu Puede)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Churches have a duty to speak out against anything which conflicts with the Gospel. Not to do so is to become mere serfs of the almighty state and to start on the path to subjugation and irrelevancy.

Legislation which attacks the family, such as homosexual "marriage" or any anti-life initiatives such as the human spare parts industry (embryonic stem cells, cloning etc.,) or abortion is well within the ambit of the Church's mission. To remain silent on these issues is simply to clear the way for the return of Hitler and Dr. Mengele.

Tax exemption does not stifle free speech. The Church may not campaign for a particular party or candidate but it certainly must speak up when morally reprehensible legislation is proposed.

True. Furthermore, any attempt to revoke a church's tax-free status will ultimately come back to bite conservatives in the tush.

The ironic thing here is that if people put their religious loyalty first (as they are supposed to do), the sides on the immigration debate would be reversed 180 degrees. If Hispanic immigrants voted their traditionalist Catholic beliefs conservatives would welcome them and liberals would oppose them. But unfortunately, religion is all too often completely swallowed up in ethnic, racial, and "civilizational" loyalty. Hispanic immigrants, whatever their personal beliefs, will be herded into an ethnic ghetto where their political power will be allied with that of abortionists and homosexuals (like Black Fundamentalists), and as for the other side, more and more the fight for universal morality (rooted in G-d's Law) is being swallowed up in the fight for White European Civilization.

In theory G-d comes first. Unfortunately, in practice, G-d is usually turned into a tribal totem and invoked against "co-religionists" from other tribes.

14 posted on 05/16/2006 8:18:54 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `al korchekha 'attah nolad . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

I am a Catholic and I do think this crosses the line established for non profits regarding political activity.
If the Cardinal wanted to have cards about immigration passed out it should have been one that simply stated the USCCB's statement on immigration with a plea for people to remember Catholic teaching when contacting politicians about the immigration debate.


15 posted on 05/16/2006 8:21:28 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
The Cardinal has done flipped!

He done flipped a long time ago.

16 posted on 05/16/2006 8:40:40 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: weegee
If there is ANY attempt at telling a voter "how" to vote, they have jeopardized their tax status.

And communism marches on.

It's sickening how people would support that kind of restriction on free speech.

17 posted on 05/16/2006 9:32:08 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Happy New Year! Breed like dogs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Tax 'em

That's the liberal's answer to everything.

Ever thought of a country where churches would be free to guide their faithful in how they should live their faith, including how they should apply their faith to the political arena? Nah, I guess if they want free speech they should pay the government for it.

18 posted on 05/16/2006 9:36:00 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Happy New Year! Breed like dogs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

There are few issues that Catholics must adhere to / believe to remain loyal to the Church, and immigration isn't one of them. Ironically, pro-life being one of them. So for him to refuse the pro-life petitioning is shameful.


19 posted on 05/16/2006 9:45:36 AM PDT by technochick99 ( Firearm of choice: Sig Sauer....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

"Ever thought of a country where churches would be free to guide their faithful in how they should live their faith, including how they should apply their faith to the political arena? Nah, I guess if they want free speech they should pay the government for it."


A. It's not coincidental that the majority of illegal aliens are Catholic, thus the RCC's desire to "accept them"...since that means more money in the coffers.

B. Tax the hell out of 'em. I guess in your opinion, the "liberal answer" also involves breaking laws, since churches aren't allowed to be political in nature, a violation of their ridiculous tax-free status?

TAX 'EM. Then, they can preach whatever they want.


20 posted on 05/16/2006 10:03:34 AM PDT by Blzbba (Beauty is just a light switch away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
TAX 'EM. Then, they can preach whatever they want.

I'm glad you admit to having no concern of the Bill of Rights whatsoever.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion.

But the power to tax is the power to destroy, so you seek to tax speech and tax churches.

21 posted on 05/16/2006 10:18:08 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Happy New Year! Breed like dogs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam; NYer

As a long-suffering Catholic in what passes for the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, I am counting the days until the cardinal is sent packing.

He turns 75 in exactly 4 years, 9 months, and 11 days.

A bottle of Dom Perignon champagne will be opened in this household on that happy day, God willing.


22 posted on 05/16/2006 10:23:38 AM PDT by Deo volente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

A bottle of same in Virginia will be opened for you on that day! Good Catholics like you have already been through Purgatory having Mahony at the helm!


23 posted on 05/16/2006 10:37:19 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (Mexico: America's Palestine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
A bottle of Dom Perignon...

*Donny P? That's FRENCH

Try an American Champagne, or some California Cabernet from the Rutherford area

24 posted on 05/16/2006 10:42:09 AM PDT by bornacatholic (Pope Paul VI. "Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

"But the power to tax is the power to destroy, so you seek to tax speech and tax churches."


Only if they choose to force their politics (not their religion) on their members.

Don't be so melodramatic. These no-tax laws for churches exist for a reason.


25 posted on 05/16/2006 10:47:31 AM PDT by Blzbba (Beauty is just a light switch away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Only if they choose to force their politics (not their religion) on their members.

Religion implies politics. For those who live their faith, there is right and wrong. Or are you trying to dictate what a religion can and cannot teach? That's what it sounds like. You're the worst kind of anti-religious authoritarian.

These no-tax laws for churches exist for a reason.

Yes, and that reason is LBJ.

26 posted on 05/16/2006 11:26:11 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Happy New Year! Breed like dogs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To clarify, the no-tax laws for churches are because of the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, while the restrictions on churches' freedom of speech and threatened taxation comes from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration.


27 posted on 05/16/2006 11:28:37 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Happy New Year! Breed like dogs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

Fine. So change the LBJ law, rather than just blatantly break it, ala illegal immigration.


28 posted on 05/16/2006 11:41:35 AM PDT by Blzbba (Beauty is just a light switch away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
So change the LBJ law, rather than just blatantly break it

No law was broken. Catch a clue.

Even the socialist religion-hating ACLU agrees:

Churches and other non-profit organizations that hold 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status must abide by Internal Revenue Service regulations barring any involvement in partisan politics. The blanket prohibition concerns only races for public office, not issues.

ACLU link

29 posted on 05/16/2006 11:58:10 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Happy New Year! Breed like dogs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

"Churches and other non-profit organizations that hold 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status must abide by Internal Revenue Service regulations barring any involvement in partisan politics. The blanket prohibition concerns only races for public office, not issues."



So...races for public office are NOT affected by this particular church's position?

LMAO


30 posted on 05/16/2006 12:30:04 PM PDT by Blzbba (Beauty is just a light switch away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
With respect, I disagree that conservatives (well, at least alot of the conservatives I listen to and read) would embrace conservative-leaning "Hispanic Immigrants" if they were illegals. Please understand, I just wish to refrain from the characteristically euphemistic evasion.

Your point is interesting, yet clouded by your apparent unwillingness to characterize the problem as being one of illegals, since you used the 'Hispanic Immigrant' tag more than once.

31 posted on 05/16/2006 1:56:25 PM PDT by spankalib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

Mahoney knows the vast majority of immigrants are Catholic, and therefore, like the other businesses that relay on Latino immigrants, he is all for immigration.


32 posted on 05/16/2006 1:58:52 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spankalib
With respect, I disagree that conservatives (well, at least alot of the conservatives I listen to and read) would embrace conservative-leaning "Hispanic Immigrants" if they were illegals. Please understand, I just wish to refrain from the characteristically euphemistic evasion.

Your point is interesting, yet clouded by your apparent unwillingness to characterize the problem as being one of illegals, since you used the 'Hispanic Immigrant' tag more than once.

I'm sorry my use of incorrect terminology confused you. I was trying to make a point as to how religious identity and loyalty seems always to be completely swallowed up in racial/ethnic identities (witness even rightwing Jews attending meetings dedicated, not to Judaism or Jewish moral teachings, but "white civilization"). I was not trying to fudge the illegality issue and I'm sorry if it sounded like it did. However, the true root of the entire debate is precisely this "clash of civilizations" which completely obscures the fact that both "civilizations" allegedly share the same religion. Yet Latin American immigrants, legal or illegal, make up an ethnic political block allied with abortionism and homosexuality despite their own "retro" form of Catholicism (see my reference to Black Fundamentalists, who are by no means "immigrants" of any kind, and the complete annihilation of the influence of Black Fundamentalism on Black politics).

The fact is that no one is upset with illegal Irish immigrants (except maybe me). The immigration debate is about a "war of civilizations" with English-speaking European Catholics and Protestants on one side and "non-European" Spanish(!!!)-speaking Catholics and Pentecostals on the other.

If people truly lived their religions instead of making them a mere badge of cultural identity the world wouldn't be in the mess it's in today. Instead advocates of morality are joining with atheist racialists to promote "white civilization" and the pro-"gay" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton join together with the anti-"gay" Louis Farrakhan, with nothing joining the groups in either alliance but skin color. I'm sorry, but this disgusts me.

So many "religious" people cast aside their religious identities for ethnic ones that sometimes I wonder if anyone is really religious at all. After all, rural American (white) Fundamentalist Protestants, despite subscribing to a theology in which "race" doesn't even exist, have always become "civilizationists" when the prospect of integration with co-religionists of a different color has been threatened.

No wonder so many liberals think that "G-d" is merely a projection of ethnicity. Too many of us act as if He were (G-d forgive us!).

I don't know what more I can say to get my point across.

33 posted on 05/16/2006 4:21:00 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `al korchekha 'attah nolad . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
He turns 75 in exactly 4 years, 9 months, and 11 days.

LOL! I think nearly 5 years more is going to be too much for LA. But I read some place that the Pope is leaving Roger Dodger there to cope with the problems that he caused/permitted. Law, while he may not have dealt with Boston very well, was not in charge when the things that were the subject of the lawsuits happened and had been sent in to "handle it," which he obviously didn't do very well. But Mahony was there for most of the things that happened, knew about them, and should be the one who has to solve the problem or pay personally for them.

34 posted on 05/16/2006 4:56:45 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

If the Church gets out and speaks to Hispanics, they will be a great conservative force. But if Mahony speaks to them, he's going to destroy them, not only as a force in this country, but personally and individually.

Many Mexicans converted to Pentecostal and Evangelical churches in Mexico because after VatII the Church went over to liberation theology/social gospel garbage. Interestingly enough, many former Protestants are now converting to Islam, because the Muslims are working heavily Protestant territories such as Chiapas.

I think Mahony is being left in place to deal with the mess he created. But maybe he needs a coadjutor bishop? LA is a huge and important diocese, and turning it over to a heretic like Mahony, even on a punitive basis (for him) until he retires in five years could be very dangerous to the faithful there.


35 posted on 05/16/2006 5:03:08 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba; JohnnyZ
It's not coincidental that the majority of illegal aliens are Catholic, thus the RCC's desire to "accept them"...since that means more money in the coffers.

The illegals in my little town must be in the minority. They rarely show their faces in church. They seem to be in pursuit of their own gods, money and sexual license.

They left the restrictions of church and family behind when they came to El Norte.

36 posted on 05/16/2006 5:31:22 PM PDT by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

I might have been inclined to cross out the pre-printed "principles" and fill in five of my own choosing.

#1 No amnesty. It was a disaster in 1986 and it won't work now.


37 posted on 05/16/2006 5:35:43 PM PDT by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius; wideawake
Thanks for your thoughts.

It is most dismaying that the Creator of the Universe dwindles away to a mere localized idol of "hearth and home" whenever politics rears its head. But the sad fact is that the vast majority of new Hispanic residents of the US (legal or illegal) will live their lives out in segregated and ethnic ghettoes where their conservative religious beliefs will be completely swallowed up by their alliance with abortionists, homosexuals, Communists, etc. It is also troubling that the only alternative to this that people like Pat Buchanan can come up with is not G-d's laws but rather "European civilization."

"Palaeos" often lament the declining birthrate in the US. There aren't enough Americans, they tell us. Yet the idea of millions of new Americans belonging to the wrong "civilization" to them is nothing but a tragedy.

When the primary political dispute of our age is between co-religionists (Pat Buchanan and most Mexicans) then G-d and religion have become very small issues indeed.

I sometimes wonder if extreme "Europeanist" Catholics would prefer to see non-European Catholics practice birth control, contraception, or abortion?

Wideawake: see also my previous posts to this thread.

38 posted on 05/16/2006 5:37:58 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `al korchekha 'attah nolad . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
But the sad fact is that the vast majority of new Hispanic residents of the US (legal or illegal) will live their lives out in segregated and ethnic ghettoes where their conservative religious beliefs will be completely swallowed up by their alliance with abortionists, homosexuals, Communists, etc. It is also troubling that the only alternative to this that people like Pat Buchanan can come up with is not G-d's laws but rather "European civilization."

Truly excellent points.

39 posted on 05/16/2006 5:47:19 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
40 posted on 05/16/2006 6:01:51 PM PDT by Antioch (Benedikt Gott Geschickt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

Thank you.


41 posted on 05/16/2006 7:39:18 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `al korchekha 'attah nolad . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Basic Rules

501(c)(3)

Organizational requirement

Assets must be dedicated to charitable purposes

Social activities must be insubstantial

Legislative activity must be insubstantial, or <20% if election made

Absolute prohibition against political activity

Must serve public purposes

Donations are deductible as charitable contributions by donors on their tax returns

Eligible for low cost non-profit bulk mailing permit

Must take care to generate enough public support to avoid classification as a private foundation

Exempt from Federal income tax unless the organization has unrelated business income


42 posted on 05/17/2006 11:15:25 AM PDT by franky (Pray for the souls of the faithful departed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Draco

###"Get the church's tax free status challenged. That will prevent this in the future."###

"church's" means all churches. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish. Are you suggesting all churches? You tax one you tax them all.

Taxes would probably break most churches therefore creating a bigger secular hole for all of us to fall in.



43 posted on 05/17/2006 11:25:25 AM PDT by franky (Pray for the souls of the faithful departed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
The Spanish community my church administers to has as many sinners as the other communities. One of the problems faced is the lack of catachetics in the Spanish community.

One of the newbies to the Church came to the Rectory and asked if she could get money for her abortion.

It is estimated that very few of these new people have been practicing Catholics in their old country and approach the Church specifically for social reasons.
44 posted on 05/17/2006 11:33:50 AM PDT by franky (Pray for the souls of the faithful departed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: franky

Frankie, peace be with you. But Sheesh --- read the post. My post CLEARLY said "Get the church's tax free status ...." The use of the singular possessive DOES NOT mean all churches, either in the context of the sentence or the article. Moreover, if I intended (as I did not) to revoke the tax free status of "Catholic, Protestant and Jewish" churches (plural), etc., then I would have used the plural "churches" (which means multiple churches), not "church's." No, you are wrong. You said "'church's' means all churches." It does not. Please don't mischaracterize what I clearly wrote. Are you a member of the MSM?


45 posted on 05/17/2006 11:56:31 AM PDT by Draco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: franky
The Spanish community my church administers to has as many sinners as the other communities. One of the problems faced is the lack of catachetics in the Spanish community.

One of the newbies to the Church came to the Rectory and asked if she could get money for her abortion.

It is estimated that very few of these new people have been practicing Catholics in their old country and approach the Church specifically for social reasons.

So much for the traditional Catholic missionary policy (you notice I didn't say "position!") of converting an entire culture and expecting it to stick for hundreds of years.

46 posted on 05/17/2006 12:43:33 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `al korchekha 'attah nolad . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
converting an entire culture and expecting it to stick for hundreds of years.

The Old Testament provides a wonderful example of how well that policy works ...

47 posted on 05/17/2006 12:51:48 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
converting an entire culture and expecting it to stick for hundreds of years.

The Old Testament provides a wonderful example of how well that policy works ...

I suppose then that Catholics, Jews, and Eastern Orthodox spend so much time condemning Protestant missionaries out of a sense of inferiority.

48 posted on 05/17/2006 2:22:35 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `al korchekha 'attah nolad . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
You can suppose anything you like.

The rest of us can measure your suppositions against reality, and determine their worth.

It's not difficult.

49 posted on 05/17/2006 2:26:22 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
I'm sorry my use of incorrect terminology confused you.
Thanks for the clarification....
I was trying to make a point as to how religious identity and loyalty seems always to be completely swallowed up in racial/ethnic identities (witness even rightwing Jews attending meetings dedicated, not to Judaism or Jewish moral teachings, but "white civilization").
Color me ignorant....I didn't know that! If it doesn't trash the thread direction, I'd like to at least find out; Is there a name for such activity?
However, the true root of the entire debate is precisely this "clash of civilizations" which completely obscures the fact that both "civilizations" allegedly share the same religion.

And here I thought the true root of the debate was whether we are a nation of laws, or not. You know, like, can I just pick one of our country's law(s) to disobey?

Yet Latin American immigrants, legal or illegal, make up an ethnic political block allied with abortionism and homosexuality despite their own "retro" form of Catholicism (see my reference to Black Fundamentalists, who are by no means "immigrants" of any kind, and the complete annihilation of the influence of Black Fundamentalism on Black politics).

But whether or not, the 'true root'...that is truly a fascinating observation. Indeed, this is true of one of my most trusted friends, who happens to be black. He knows where I stand regarding abortion....he sees it as a 'woman's right' yadayada, yet he is the most fundamental (I am not using this pejoratively here) Christian I know.

The immigration debate is about a "war of civilizations" with English-speaking European Catholics and Protestants on one side and "non-European" Spanish(!!!)-speaking Catholics and Pentecostals on the other.

Fascinating. That sentence alone makes me glad I read this thread. I'll stick to my guns, though, and respectfully disagree, while allowing that that is very insightful, and 'worth pondering', for sure!....
the "Are we a nation of laws or not?" question rings more strongly to me.

After all, in the end, it is my belief that the entire future of humanity will revolve around whose laws will one choose to obey; God's or Man's. I'm a bit biased I suppose.

If people truly lived their religions instead of making them a mere badge of cultural identity the world wouldn't be in the mess it's in today. Instead advocates of morality are joining with atheist racialists to promote "white civilization" and the pro-"gay" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton join together with the anti-"gay" Louis Farrakhan, with nothing joining the groups in either alliance but skin color. I'm sorry, but this disgusts me.

You could start a lively thread or two I'd reckon!

So many "religious" people cast aside their religious identities for ethnic ones that sometimes I wonder if anyone is really religious at all. After all, rural American (white) Fundamentalist Protestants, despite subscribing to a theology in which "race" doesn't even exist, have always become "civilizationists" when the prospect of integration with co-religionists of a different color has been threatened. No wonder so many liberals think that "G-d" is merely a projection of ethnicity. Too many of us act as if He were (G-d forgive us!). I don't know what more I can say to get my point across.

You did fine. I very much appreciate your observations and viewpoints. You have neatly and profoundly 'rolled' a few of our most knotty societal issues 'into a ball' as Prufrock would be wont to say.
FRegards

50 posted on 05/17/2006 3:23:32 PM PDT by spankalib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson