Yup, works - made the Wall Street Journal even.

Post #315,457 by Andrew Grygus 10/11/09 12:35:48 PM Reply	Yup, works - made the Wall Street Journal even. They also mentioned there were several similar cases in Southern California, including one in San Diego where the appeal has just been turned down by the Supreme Court. And the rights of gays and women are political, whether you try to hide it behind God or not. A multi-congregational move from a more progressive Episcopalian diocese to an Anglican diocese formed specifically to support "socially conservative" sentiments is political.
Post #315,462 by beepster 10/11/09 2:29:41 PM Reply	So much for that church and state thing I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #315,463 by Andrew Grygus 10/11/09 2:58:18 PM Reply	Yup, a nice thought . . . . . but doesn't hold up well in practice. The church will always seek to infiltrate and control matters of state, and the state will always seek to apply the church as a tool of repression.
Post #315,464 by beepster 10/11/09 3:36:59 PM Reply	Doesn't seem to apply here. Seems that they made a ruling (without detail on who actually built the church, etc) that pretty much pushed the state into a church matter. My guess is there is some reason for this that is based on the "business" side of the church. If not, then the state really should have no business getting involved, regardless of the "politics" of the church. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #315,467 by static 10/11/09 6:24:26 PM Reply	Curious situation. I'm actually a little surprised they ruled the way they did. Most churches in Au own their own buildings, whether they're fairly autonomouse (e.g. Baptist) or part of a heirarchy (e.g. Anglican). If they're "just" a church, like most of them, they have a trust organisation in their denomination that helps when they do major building works and borrowing money etc. If they're not "just" a church, they will have a company of their own to do it. But in the end, they still own their building. I wonder if this congregation could have gotten around that problem by setting up a 'transaction' for their new Anglican congregation to 'purchase' the bulding of their old Episcopalian congregation. Sounds messy, business-wise, but it could have satisfied the spirit and letter of the law whilst the congregation changed their affiliation. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #315,471 by Andrew Grygus 10/11/09 7:38:54 PM Reply	Yes, for the courts it was strictly business. A matter of contracts and ownership - just a rather messy one. Religious politics were strictly between the congregation and the Episcopal diocese. God was not involved - many decades ago the courts here ruled that "God has no property rights in the State of California".

Welcome to IWETHEY!