> Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snippage> > > Uhhh..... under exactly what basis is "tax-exempt > >status" a, quote, "right?" > Second, It is a right to have all religions treated > equally and not > make some classified as "not a religion." > > Third, I was using disenfranchise to mean "to > deprive of the rights of > a citizen." That is more than voting rights. The > equal exercise of > rights of religious worship is one of those rights. > To grant some > religions and not others tax exempt status is to > devalue those rights. > The right to spend money untaxed is a right that > has been granted to > religious institutions in this country. To have > religious donations > not go as far for non-approved religions is a > discrimination on the > basis of religion. While it is not of the same > magnitude as requiring > the wearing of special markings, this is a > diminishment of religious > rights not seen since the founding of our country. I think that declaring the Unitarians as 'not a church' is wrong; it's true that some organizations do not deserve that appellation IMO, but I'm guessing that the Moonies and Scientologists, frex, won't be losing their status anytime soon. It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/abortion.reut/ "...In a pastoral letter to the 125,000 parishioners in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Bishop Michael Sheridan also warned that politicians opposed to church teachings on such issues and those who vote for them jeopardize their salvation. "Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the church and so jeopardize their salvation," the bishop wrote in a letter published this week in the diocesan monthly newspaper, the Herald. "Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences," he added... "...Archbishops (Sean Patrick) O'Malley and (Theodore) McCarrick have all said that while they are opposed to abortion and think that not only Catholic politicians but all politicians should be against abortion they would not turn someone away if they come up (for communion)," Reese [Thomas Reese, editor of America Magazine, a national Catholic publication] said. Reese said one of the problems of denying communion is that it puts the abortion issue in the context of religion rather than as a human rights issue. "I think that this kind of thing is counter-productive for the pro-life movement. It's branding abortion as a Catholic issue ... rather than a human rights issue," he said." Politician response: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/religion/article/0,1299,DRMN_61_2888053,00.html http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z36122168 "The pronouncement by a Colorado Springs bishop that Catholics who vote for abortion-rights supporters should be denied communion provoked a widespread reaction among major candidates Friday: silence... ...Like Salazar[D], Schaffer[R] and Coors[R] are Catholic. Democratic Senate candidate Mike Miles, a Colorado Springs educator, is not. But many of his supporters are, and he addressed the subject forcefully Friday. "The notion of clerics or some other religious leaders really controlling a political situation is anathema to democracy," he said. "Right now, we have people fighting to build a democracy in Iraq, and we don't want to see religious clerics controlling their political system . . . I don't think that's too great a stretch or a false analogy" to draw parallels, he said. Grand Junction Mayor James Spehar, one of nine candidates in the crowded 3rd District congressional race, likewise objected to Sheridan's comments. "As a lifelong Catholic, I think this is unfortunate," he said... ...State Rep. Michael Garcia, D-Aurora, also a Catholic, wondered, "Why are we just limiting communion to just these issues?" Garcia suggested expanding the list to ostracizing politicians who don't support a stronger safety net of social programs for the poor, who don't want to relax immigration laws and those who don't want debt relief for Third World countries. Here's another one, Garcia said: the death penalty, which Catholics oppose. "If that were the case, I would suspect Bishop Sheridan would find few if any politicians in Colorado or throughout the nation who could live up to every single one of Jesus Christ's teachings," he said. "And if he were to extend that to the parishioners, he would find very few parishioners in his pews to take communion." Letters to the papers run the gamut, but I agree with this one: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E73%257E2161646,00.html "If Bishop Michael Sheridan wants to withhold the body and blood of Christ from those who sin, then there would be only one person qualified to partake of the sacrament: Jesus Christ. But Jesus didn't come to save Himself. He came to save the rest of us - sinners all - by offering His body and His blood in return for our salvation. Indeed, Holy Communion is His gift to all of humanity. It was not meant to be used as blackmail for the "unholy." That imperfect human beings would deign to sit in judgment of other human beings is perhaps the greatest sin of all because of the presumption of perfection. God is the only sinless one who can make such judgments. There is nothing more "intrinsically evil" than anyone who puts himself above God in overruling His will that everyone be saved. Communion is not humankind's gift to withhold." But that is my Lutheran take, I suppose; this however is one Catholic's view, which I also agree with: "As a lifelong Catholic who majored in theology in college, it is my understanding that an individual is not supposed to take Communion if he is in the state of mortal sin. Further, we were taught not to judge others, that if someone appeared to be engaging in what appears to be immoral behavior, it doesn't necessarily mean he is committing a mortal sin. The alleged offense is classified as "grave matter," but only the individual and our Supreme Being know whether the behavior is sinful. It is a matter of conscience, and only the individual and God know if it warrants punitive consequences. It is not in anyone's purview - cardinal, bishop, priest, whomever - to become a judge and decide who can receive Communion. This is a matter strictly between you and God. You cannot be refused Communion simply because you choose to vote differently than those in the church hierarchy who confuse their political ideology with theology." Debbi It's The Lord's Supper, Not The Lord's Supper Club Maru __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
