IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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.
New 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.
New 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.
New 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".
     Conservatives get their due. - (Andrew Grygus) - (10)
         Dear Lord: - (Ashton)
         You are learning - (beepster) - (6)
             Yup, works - made the Wall Street Journal even. - (Andrew Grygus) - (5)
                 So much for that church and state thing -NT - (beepster) - (4)
                     Yup, a nice thought . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                         Doesn't seem to apply here. - (beepster) - (2)
                             Curious situation. - (static)
                             Yes, for the courts it was strictly business. - (Andrew Grygus)
         Similar things have happened in VA. - (Another Scott)
         I'm assuming boring technicalities - (mhuber)

Hello, boys and girls, this is your old pal Stinky Wizzleteats!
42 ms