![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Time for some fun..
Jun. 6th, 2008 03:27 amI decided that folks need some cheering up. Thus a link to The Virtual Filksing
Jun. 6th, 2008
Churches and politics.
Jun. 6th, 2008 03:31 am(sparked by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
codecattx's LJ post...)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202591.html?nav=hcmodule
Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.
His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president.
My take is that it's legal and quite within a church' (or other religious institution's) rights to announce "if you support X, you may not receive [some particular religious service] or participate in [some religious rite]"
That leaves it between the worshipper and their God(s).
They can also preach about such things being wrong.
If they take someone aside that they *know* has made public statements of that sort and tell them not to try getting the "service" or participating in the "rite", that's ok.
If the *politician* announces that he's been told not to, that's *his* choice and the church hasn't crossed the line.
But as soon as the church or priest/priestess start making *public statements* about some political figure who is a member being denied, they've crossed the line about preaching for or against a particular candidate.
And there goes the tax exemption... or that's how it should work.
codecattx's LJ post...)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202591.html?nav=hcmodule
Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.
His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president.
My take is that it's legal and quite within a church' (or other religious institution's) rights to announce "if you support X, you may not receive [some particular religious service] or participate in [some religious rite]"
That leaves it between the worshipper and their God(s).
They can also preach about such things being wrong.
If they take someone aside that they *know* has made public statements of that sort and tell them not to try getting the "service" or participating in the "rite", that's ok.
If the *politician* announces that he's been told not to, that's *his* choice and the church hasn't crossed the line.
But as soon as the church or priest/priestess start making *public statements* about some political figure who is a member being denied, they've crossed the line about preaching for or against a particular candidate.
And there goes the tax exemption... or that's how it should work.
attention Californians
Jun. 6th, 2008 04:11 amYou might want to talk to your state representatives and state senators about this bill.
California's porn tax
It's the same old "everybody knows" myths about adult related businesses causing problems.
Studies show that there aren't any such correlations. The *appearance* of such is probably because so many places won't *allow* "adult" businesses to operate except in the seamier parts of town.
California's porn tax
It's the same old "everybody knows" myths about adult related businesses causing problems.
Studies show that there aren't any such correlations. The *appearance* of such is probably because so many places won't *allow* "adult" businesses to operate except in the seamier parts of town.