My Priest made the national news

[Easy Mac]

Based on the bulletin from last week. Evidently it was picked up by the greenville news, now its going national...

Priest: No communion for Obama voters - Faith

Priest: No communion for Obama voters
Priest says it's because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion
The Associated Press
updated 6:45 p.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 13, 2008
COLUMBIA, S.C. - A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Risking their immortal soul
During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back. A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights.

But bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers — and voters — should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from church teaching on abortion. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese. In their annual fall meeting, the nation's Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights.

According to national exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. In South Carolina, which McCain carried, voters in Greenville County — traditionally seen as among the state's most conservative areas — went 61 percent for the Republican, and 37 percent for Obama.

"It was not an attempt to make a partisan point," Newman said in a telephone interview Thursday. "In fact, in this election, for the sake of argument, if the Republican candidate had been pro-abortion, and the Democratic candidate had been pro-life, everything that I wrote would have been exactly the same."

Conservative Catholics criticized Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 for supporting abortion rights, with a few Catholic bishops saying Kerry should refrain from receiving Holy Communion because his views were contrary to church teachings.

Some say move is too extreme
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she had not heard of other churches taking this position in reaction to Obama's win. A Boston-based group that supports Catholic Democrats questioned the move, saying it was too extreme.

"Father Newman is off-base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words."

A man who has attended St. Mary's for 18 years said he welcomed Newman's message and anticipated it would inspire further discussion at the church.

"I don't understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who's a pro-abortion candidate," said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. "You're talking about the murder of innocent beings."

[KWhit]

I saw that story on MSN today.

"Doing penance for their vote?" What an ass.

[Kodos]

Yep. A total idiot.

[Noop]

Your priest is an idiot.

[Marc Vaughan]

So seperation of religion and state is working fine in your neck of the woods ... right?

[Maple Leafs]

Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

I'm so glad Obama's middle name is Hussein. It's like a great little shortcut to let me know when somebody who objects to him doesn't need to be taken seriously.

[lordscarlet]

I have a friend on facebook that keeps spewing about people being evil because they voted for someone that is Pro Life.

[SFL Cat]

Maybe you can go online and look for yourself to find graphic images. *shurg*

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

WARNING: Link to graphic images.

That is just gross and uncalled for. I'm not going to try to make my case for gun control by posting excessively gory pictures of gun shot victims.

And I am fairly moderate on social issues.

[QuikSand]

Maybe it's possible to keep this one in line, eh gang?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I have no problem with this, personally. It's certainly his prerogative to preach what he thinks, and I don't find the leap from supporting Obama->supporting abortion->sin to be extreme for someone in his frame of mind. It's also the prerogative of his parishioners to choose whether to believe him and support him.

Ya, there's room for all kinds of people, and groups, and churches, and if this type of church appeals to people, than they're doing a good service.

The world will always become more socially liberal over time. That doesn't mean we have to insult people and get all threatened by those who still respect tradition and are more conservative (ESPECIALLY when it's in a way that that doesn't impose their beliefs on others). There's plenty of churches. I know the response to that, "If you don't want abortions don't have one". But it's not insane to want to belong to a VOLUNTARY group of people that feel similarly, and have rules that encourage coming in line with that group belief (when you can always leave the group if you want).

Of course, I think I'm the only person that doesn't give a shit about abortion as a political issue.

As for the graphic pictures - bad form to post here of course. Though I the understand the need for some to give us the occasional reminder that abortion is something a little more significant than birth control. Abortion shouldn't be easy, it shouldn't be routine (though it should be safe). It's SERIOUS shit.

[Greyroofoo]

thank god i'm atheist

[BrianD]

Is it too much to think that if the churches want the government to stay out of their business, maybe they should stay out of government business?

[Flasch186]

{shaking head}

anyone see the wife swap with the God Warrior?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Is it too much to think that if the churches want the government to stay out of their business, maybe they should stay out of government business?

I don't think that's a two way street.

Religion should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think that's a two way street.

Religion should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

That is sarcasm, right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That is sarcasm, right?

Well I don't really mean ANYTHING, (like bombing shit), but if they want to restrict membership or participation in any way they have every right to do so, and I think everybody should relax and let them do their thing.

Government can't infringe on religion. Religion can go against government ALL THEY WANT (as long as it's legal).

[BrianD]

Seems to me that if they want separation to work, they should respect it from their side.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Seems to me that if they want separation to work, they should respect it from their side.

Why are you so threatened about what a church (that you don't have to be a member of) does if it doesn't impact you in ANY way?

And what do you mean, that they should "respect" government? They should alter their fundamental beliefs based on who the current president is? What does having in-house church rules have to do with properly "respecting" government? Why does a religion need to respect government at all (as long as it's staying legal).

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by molson

And what do you mean, that they should "respect" government? They should alter their fundamental beliefs based on who the current president is? What does having in-house church rules have to do with properly "respecting" government?

Is anyone in Washington a sinner when they don't vote to send troops ASAP to a new war zone to defend lives? No one is pro-abortion. There are plenty of pro-choice people that have pro-life morals; they just can't reconcile those personal morals with how far they believe Government can and should go.

Priests like this should respect Government and their parishioners by ackowledging this and not treating a political pro-choice stance as if the person had or performed an abortion themself.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Is anyone in Washington a sinner when they don't vote to send troops ASAP to a new war zone to defend lives? No one is pro-abortion. There are plenty of pro-choice people that have pro-life morals; they just can't reconcile those personal morals with how far they believe Government can and should go.

Priests like this should respect Government and their parishioners by ackowledging this and not treating a political pro-choice stance as if the person had or performed an abortion themself.

I appreciate your point that someone can be anti-abortion and yet anti-government involvement in abortion.

But a particular church damn well can be viewpoint-discriminatory on the issue of abortion and membership. I can start up a group tomorrow that excludes anyone that that's for corporate bail-outs, that's my right.

It's a nothing argument really - I don't think anyone's actually calling for the government to restrict church membership criteria (I hope), I just appreciate this kind of diversity in the U.S. I'm glad groups/religions can think/feel whatever the hell they want and associate appropriately.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Well I don't really mean ANYTHING, (like bombing shit), but if they want to restrict membership or participation in any way they have every right to do so, and I think everybody should relax and let them do their thing.

Government can't infringe on religion. Religion can go against government ALL THEY WANT (as long as it's legal).

can they infiltrate gov't for their motives to be pushed?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Well I don't really mean ANYTHING, (like bombing shit), but if they want to restrict membership or participation in any way they have every right to do so, and I think everybody should relax and let them do their thing.

Government can't infringe on religion. Religion can go against government ALL THEY WANT (as long as it's legal).

That's fine, but they shouldn't have tax exempt status. I'm for them doing and saying whatever they want, but they should pay taxes like the rest of the businesses in this country.

[Flasch186]

if theyre for profit?

[SFL Cat]

WARNING: Graphic Image



But apparently TPTB don't give a shit. *Shurg*

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's fine, but they shouldn't have tax exempt status. I'm for them doing and saying whatever they want, but they should pay taxes like the rest of the businesses in this country.

Unless they agree with the current president, right?

So government should tax religion if religion doesn't agree with government. Geez, I didn't think support for the inevitable Obama dictatorship would come this soon.

[st.cronin]

more animals

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Unless they agree with the current president, right?

So government should tax religion if religion doesn't agree with government. Geez, I didn't think support for the inevitable Obama dictatorship would come this soon.

All non-profits play by the same rules. Their tax exempt status is a privelege, not a right. Part of that agreement is that they will not use their non-profit to play in politics. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with a President.

Government should tax religion just like everyone else. Why should religions get special treatment in this country but the average businessman not? If they want to be treated like everyone else, then pay taxes like everyone else.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Unless they agree with the current president, right?

So government should tax religion if religion doesn't agree with government. Geez, I didn't think support for the inevitable Obama dictatorship would come this soon.

I dont think that was said. If theyre not for profit than I have no problems with their exemption but when they start to get political themselves than they forfeit that status IMO. But you'll blend openly which is cool.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Government should tax religion just like everyone else. Why should religions get special treatment in this country but the average businessman not? If they want to be treated like everyone else, then pay taxes like everyone else.

Wow, there's apparently a consensus that government should tax the free exercise of religion.

Perhaps they should tax free speech as well.

[molson]

It's cool to hate religion, that's your right, but don't call for government to come down on it because you disagree with their beliefs, that's just creepy.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Wow, there's apparently a consensus that government should tax the free exercise of religion.

Perhaps they should tax free speech as well.

Ill assume youre ignoring my sentiment that they should NOT be taxed until the get political. Ok.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Ill assume youre ignoring my sentiment that they should NOT be taxed until the get political. Ok.

What about speech, should that get taxed "once it gets political"?

And what does religion to to "get political" exactly - have an opinion? Or mention the president in reference to that opinion?

What if jews came out against the Iraq War and George Bush? Should they THEN become subject to taxation?

What the hell's happening to this country?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's cool to hate religion, that's your right, but don't call for government to come down on it because you disagree with their beliefs, that's just creepy.

How is it "coming down" on religion by asking it to pay taxes like the rest of us? It seems like religion is "coming down" on taxpayers by asking them to cover the costs for everything.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What about speech, should that get taxed "once it gets political".

And what does religion to to "get political" exactly - have an opinion?

So you just want my speech to be taxed while their speech isn't? I don't think you understand. Everyone else in this country pays taxes. Why do you feel that they are above everyone else? All we are saying is that they should be treated just like everyone else.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So you just want my speech to be taxed while their speech isn't? I don't think you understand. Everyone else in this country pays taxes. Why do you feel that they are above everyone else?

They pay taxes on their income, property, purchases, just like you.

They should pay a little extra though, if they belong to a group that disagrees with the government?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

What about speech, should that get taxed "once it gets political".

nope

Originally Posted by "Molson

And what does religion to to "get political" exactly - have an opinion?

yup, when they, from the pulpit support one or another candidate. When they from, under the umbrella of their church's label (BTW could be temple, or mosque, etc), show up on government property as a gathering for agenda purposes (as opposed to being sole individuals) and FWIW Im ok with this if they lose their tax exempt status, when they donate money to one candidate or another from church coffers (as opposed to individually), I think you can see the pattern there....However I also understand that the above was a waste of effort and you'll never ever ever agree and hope to have a Christian agenda pushed in government and it's entities and legislation, which is cool and equally scary to any non-christian in this country and perhaps the world.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How is it "coming down" on religion by asking it to pay taxes like the rest of us? It seems like religion is "coming down" on taxpayers by asking them to cover the costs for everything.

They're not exempt from taxes.

Nobody should have to refrain from religious exercise just to save on their taxes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

They're not exempt from taxes.

Nobody should have to refrain from religious exercise just to save on their taxes.

Yes they are exempt from taxes.

No one is saying that anyone has to refrain from religious exercise. Just saying they should pay taxes just like everyone else.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

They pay taxes on their income, property, purchases, just like you.

They should pay a little extra though, if they belong to a group that disagrees with the government?

Churches have tax exempt status. They don't pay on any of the things you listed there. Read up on 501c3 status.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes they are exempt from taxes.

No one is saying that anyone has to refrain from religious exercise. Just saying they should pay taxes just like everyone else.

You're saying they should pay twice. Once like everyone else, and again if they belong to a church. (the church gets its money from its members).

[Flasch186]

nope

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Churches have tax exempt status. They don't pay on any of the things you listed there. Read up on 501c3 status.

The members pay those things.

[Flasch186]

dont have a problem with the members meeting up as individuals to even pray, if they want. Youre conveniently not seperating the entities and I suspect purposely.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

You're saying they should pay twice. Once like everyone else, and again if they belong to a church. (the church gets its money from its members).

My business does. Are you cool with giving all businesses tax exempt status so that they don't get taxed twice?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My business does. Are you cool with giving all businesses tax exempt status so that they don't get taxed twice?

Maybe you're making some kind of greater statement about the corruption of religion and Catholic Church, and that's cool.

But let's just take a hypothetical.....30 people in my town wish to worship god together as Christians. They get together on Sundays and do it. They pass the plate at the service, and the money goes towards rent for the building, salary for a full-time pastor, etc. The rest goes into a general fund that they hope to use help in the community, and maybe build churches in neighboring towns.

Do you think they should be taxed to do this?

[Mustang]

The IRS can revoke tax exempt status from a church if they start playing in the political arena. (Not the members, but the church itself which would include endorsing a candidate, having the candidate at a function or giving donations to a candidate)

[Flasch186]

no, molson, clearly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe you're making some kind of greater statement about the corruption of religion and Catholic Church, and that's cool.

But let's just take a hypothetical.....30 people in my town wish to worship god together as Christians. They get together on Sundays and do it. They pass the plate at the service, and the money goes towards rent for the building, salary for a full-time pastor, etc. The rest goes into a general fund that they hope to use to expand into neighboring towns.

Do you think they should be taxed to do this?

My company's money goes toward rent, salaries, and other expenses. We have a general fund too that we hope to use to expand our business. The difference is that your Church doesn't pay taxes on that money, mine does.

Seems you feel that Christian businesses should be tax free while everyone else has to pay. Who is the one that is discriminating here?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

no, molson, clearly.

Rainmaker disagrees.