[steve-b]

Having said that, it's important to note that his "holocaust denial" never had anything to do with his excommunication -- and therefore has nothing to do with his reinstatement.

See previous message for why this argument is in error.

To illustrate by analogy: Suppose a drunken lout keeps showing up at your restaurant. Getting drunk and rowdy is not in and of itself sufficient reason for you to keep him out -- but then one day he grab-asses one of your waitresses and that gets him banned. Do you let him back in if he promises only to keep his hands to himself, or do you demand that he behave himself in general?

[Alberta's Child]

That's not a good analogy. Here's a better example:

A guy who regularly patronizes your restaurant has a serious problem with the IRS and is facing tax evasion charges. If he gets drunk one day and grabs one of your waitresses, he may very well face potential criminal charges for sexual assault, etc.

When he stands trial for tax evasion, I can assure you that the assault on your waitress will have absolutely no bearing on how his Federal tax case is adjudicated. The regular customer of yours who keeps his hands to himself will be no better off in tax court than the drunken lout . . . because the charges have nothing to do with each other even if they are strong indicators of the character of the person or people in question.