[freedumb2003]

The parishoners are the church and innocents will pay along with the guilty. The only ones who should pay for a crime are the ones who commited the crime and those who covered for them.

Stockholders and employees in Enron and Worldcom and Anderson paid pretty dearly. So they should never have been prosecuted.

How will the parishioners "pay?" Drive another 1/2 mile to the next church? It is not like they will be hit up for "their part" of the judgment.

[DJ MacWoW]

Stockholders and employees in Enron and Worldcom and Anderson paid pretty dearly. So they should never have been prosecuted.

They were churches? Who knew?

How will the parishioners "pay?" Drive another 1/2 mile to the next church?

WoW! You have churches every half mile? And of course there are no ties to a "church family" so they can just shutup and attend any ole church, right?

It is not like they will be hit up for "their part" of the judgment.

Who supports a church?

Again, only the guilty parties should pay for a crime.

[Jack Black]

Stockholders and employees in Enron and Worldcom and Anderson paid pretty dearly. So they should never have been prosecuted.

IMHO Anderson should not have been prosecuted as a corporate entity. A miniscule percentage of Anderson employees were invovlved in the Enron accounting. I don't believe it was shown that the entire company, or a significant portion of the company were involved in the scam. Any company with 1,000 employees is going to have criminals among them. Certainly with 10,000 employees there is no escaping it. IBM has almost 400,000 employees. If 10 or 20 or even 100 of them in some particular geography commit a crime should the entire company be destroyed? Who does this benefit?