Posted on 12/30/2002 9:39:02 AM PST by boromeo
Interesting point. The root of the problem is in some special legal status for religious broadcasting. I read something about it a few years ago. The one thing I remember is that all of this fundamentalist broadcasting followed on the heels of the passage of a piece of legislation which granted special status to religious broadcasting.
The other problem is the tax-exempt status of religious and quasi-religious groups. I think it's better to tax them all. It will take money away from the Benny Hinns of the world and will help to smarten up the liberal clergy of every religion.
I wish I heard some of those conversations. It makes me think of my poor sister who attended a teacher's college in the early '80s. She didn't have a hint of a whiff of a clue about the festering pile of doo doo that was her "psychology" textbook. It boggles the mind to think how these books come together.
I happened to read through it a few years ago. It explains a lot about our culture and explains why I think most people would be better off not going to college at all.
And don't forget the most important function of The Church: to bring everyone the grace that leads to salvation primarily through the Sacraments.
Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body.
We in protestantism have mixed feelings about this. The 501 c(3) tax exempt status has been seen as of late as a tool for unwarrented interference in religious activities by government, and the restrictions have not been consistently enforced. It depends on what the "politics" of the group in question are. Some of us have rejected the 501 c(3), other larger ministries have considered it (such as Focus on the Family). Unfortunately, it is easier to get rid of AIDS than the 501 c(3), as the end result is that the ministry usually forfeits all of it's assets.
If you are Catholic and knowlegable in these matters, perhaps you can answer a question for me. It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church in the US is not organised under the 501 c(3), rather under older, eccliastical law. Is this correct? If so, what is that provision?
On the general issue, you may want to give that matter some consideration. It seems to me as if such a provision as removing tax exemption is much like sawing off the branch we are sitting on!
Sorry, I don't know.
On the general issue, you may want to give that matter some consideration. It seems to me as if such a provision as removing tax exemption is much like sawing off the branch we are sitting on!
The priests that I know tend to be more liberal than the general population particularly regarding economic issues. Part of it is that many have never worked in the business world. Another reason may be that the Catholic Church receives a lot of money from the federal government. Catholic Charities receives as much as 65% of its budget from the government.
Two-thirds of Catholic Charities' $2 billion annual budget comes from public sources. Most, though, have set up non-profit arms to abide by federal non-discrimination guidelines.And there's the rub. The Church has lost its missionary zeal and converted its Mother Theresa's into faceless bureaucrats. The State is killing the Church with "kindness."
I've thought about the issue a lot and it's a tough call, but I think losing tax-exempt status would be for the best. Suffering tends to purify and has always strengthened the Church. And I also don't want my Church beholden to the government.
I also think that lots of people are always searching for something and never satisfied with what they actually have, even if it is the real thing - love, companionship, jobs, marriage, God. It's a curse as far as I can see.
Not only is this suggestion practical, but it's Christian as well. Mother Theresa was famous for her policy of spending each day whatever donations they received and relying on Providence to take care of them tomorrow. Kind of like the manna in the desert.
When the government attempted to get complience to the "party line" by theatening to take tax exemption, the only sound heard in the church would be laughter at the foolishness of the heathen.
That sound you hear is my laughter -- thanks for the good suggestions and the humor.
Well, the "proof is in the pudding." We'll find out eventually whether he's one of the good guys or not.
I'm not willing to go beyond the evidence to make a judgement either good or bad. We have evidence of the living situation, we have the "cheesehead miter," we have his complimentary comments regarding Weakland. None of these are conclusive evidence of his involvement in the homosexual conspiracy. But neither do they inspire confidence.
If there is evidence of decisions he has made which were tough and unpopular with the PC crowd, then I'll be happy to consider that information as well.
He also states that some information was obtained from interviews with adults about their childhood memories of sexual experiences. Lots of holes and even a couple of admissions that Kinsey had intimated some things that were found to be untrue. Lot of it based on the observations of one man who Reissman,in her article,said was German and had either died in prison or was executed because after submitting all these observations he was later convicted of sexually abusing and killing a little girl,I believe.
I can tell you if I were defending my department,and most of the information came from the Chairman of the Kinsey Research Institute,I would have been embarrassed to have submitted so little of import. But I am sure he doesn't have to worry about funding because those who are intent on animalizing the world will continue to pour money into these psuedo-scientific studies that show what they want shown,true or not.
This is totally off the wall,but I would not be surprised if some of his data on children came right from Nazi files on experiments carried out in the concentration camps.Margaret Sanger was loosely connected somehow with Germany's pre-war plans for the Aryan nation.
Finally,there is one piece of information which does not look too good. The report says that Judith Reissman either sued or countersued the Kinsey Institute. The article says her lawyer dropped her and the suit was dismissed without prejudice,which it says means she can not file again. I would like to know the particulars on that.
The articles only dealt with the children and sex parts of the study,the poor research data and methodologies on adults was not addressed at all.
Which blog sites carried these articles?
Anyhow, the article and the person who thinks the linked articles demolish Dr. Reisman posted on Dominic Bettinelli's blogspot . Mark Shea's blogspot took it up a few days ago but that conversation seems to be over.
I'm going to try to find out more about that lawsuit... that is kind of weird.
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.