Posted by
Republiservative on Monday, March 31, 2008 2:14:22 PM
I had been recalling that old song "Hello Mother, Hello Father!", since some Catholic Church (Fathers) and EWTN (Mother Angelica inter alia) made me think of it; sort of "Hello, Mother Angelica and Fathers so-and-so here to tell you to go forth and pray and be politically active for social justice and social charity" at a time Zogby was polling in what we in politics call a qualitative (Millward-Brown style) survey to see if he could by parallel inferences link Church non-attendance simple to sympathy for terror and thus "need" for HR 1955 that "transcends" even Dennis Kucinich's objections that said bill is just a way to let States and Mayors gag anyone on their own whims.
Then I found this year that at most of the archdiocese of Chicago have their priests at Masses run everything in step with the Pope and say Unites States Council of Bishops, earlier even putting in Bishopric insert flyer "Faithful Citizenship" in weekly bulletins, while priests and bulletins themselves noted "you can't go more than a few yards out your door to find a needy family these days" and such words; all while Zogby types tried to hook up "rabble rousers" seeking social justice and charity as Churches instructed them...and AWAY from the public Mass faces, RCIA Catholic Church groups worked overtime to teach "new recruits" that the Pope is as a heretic on all such things, as he is re gays, the Eucharist "since it's only a cracker", and so forth; also, these days, if you came BACK to the faith and are a nobody, parishes won't keep you on their rolls unless you complete such re-education RCIA training...but don't judge the "tuliping, touching each other IS Communion" folks...see, the priests themselves support YOU but we must be tolerant ya see, now stay a visitor but DO go forth while looking like you're NOT a parishoner as far as records or WE can say, and push that Bishopric social stuff, um, even though we must be tolerant that all those ON member rolls WON'T, and even if their own mere in-church presence implies they support the whole Democrat HR 1995/LOST/HR 6/pro-gay/endless immigration into housing only et al agenda...whether they know it or not. Bye now, and God love you!
Boy, how stinky on that one huh? Then along comes another thought about how all this other-than-at-Mass (try it at St. Vincent DePaul, Maristella, or ANY Catholic adjunct) "re-education" actually supports Democrats and other amorphous elitists across the globe; sure, we've heard how last week a Catholic Vienna cleric said Obama is right about Jesus being FOR homosexual activity not just gays as people, and sure, his priests and parishoners say "HUH??? Widerholen Sie, bitte?"...oh, the joys of European Union and in fact ANY nations or States (today, literally globally) which fund or otherwise direct conduct of religious funds "unless da fadder would like ta sees Bruno an' Tony or sumthin"". Here's another thought on government-funded "faith" not only working for the EU or Chavez' interests, but allowing twists for like-minded USA pols.
Try as I might, at the relevant IRS Code inter alia, I cannot find that per same a religion violates tax-free status unless it passes a hat, data, or activity/exhortation in step with or for any party or candidate(s) or against same. Social justice and social charity and general common sense positioning applicable to all doesn't seem subject.
Thus I propose the following type of litmus test to see if a religion or part thereof should find itself against public policy of government in some administratively or legally punitive way(s):
1. Suppose, say, a Catholic Parish has "face" presentments of liturgy et al that to a visitor seem to indicate they run clockwise with the dicta of their Pope (replace "parish" for congregation re Protestants and non-Christians, and use "highest faith authority on earth" for "Pope"), yet their congregation is allowed or instructed to practice in a manner running counter-clockwise to the highest Church authority as if same were a heretic...yet politically they are the same laity as they've always been.
2. Suppose one or more candidates, office holders, or both, or politicians, have their own interpretations say on the Quran, Talmud, or Sermon On The Mount, as if the highest faith authority had gotten it wrong or were heretical; say such pol or pundit opines that Jesus you see approved of gay activity, wants us to commune as people not through a mere cracker and mouthwash, or both...words to such effect in fill-in-the-blank faith...even if hand-hold prayerful say "huh?" to that.
3. Suppose such item two pol has fingers on an item one congregation's government faith funds, and the congregation LEADERSHIP says its people don't believe that say a Pope's call for social justice or charity (as defined by US Bishops Council "Faithful Citizenship") has any place in their political subdivision, and wish all to know the Pope say is over-reaching.
4. Then, suppose an item two pol further says that a President and opposite party are conducting a pan-Christian Crusade against pan-Muslims, and on opinion at best alone faith fund recipient leadership(s) simply concur with the item two pol...even if lay members say "huh?".
To me, it would seem a scenario as visible through items 1-4 gravamen would indicate that any relevant congregation LEADERSHIP is not necessarily using their office or faith funded pulpit(s) on their majority lay members, but IS supporting a public official, candidate, or both who influences their money regardless of whether or not the congregation wishes it, and thus tricks like not listing a number of parishoners so as to appear the "whole" of a "small" crowd supports the leadership are cute but irrelevant in the first place.
Wherefore, I respectfully submit the within aforesaid proposal of litmus test for IRS religious politics violation, and further respectfully add same to my reasons as to why faith based funding by government should be stopped and otherwise used for the benefit of the whole abstract USA.