Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Episcopal Diocese Defends Privileges Of “Migrants”

By Greg L | 27 January 2008 | Illegal Aliens, Virginia Politics | 89 Comments

The Episcopal Diocese in Virginia — yes, the one that is chasing away some of it’s most vibrant and successful congregations as it has rushed to throw away any relationship between the Bible and church doctrine — has decided that the most important thing they could do to save souls and inspire others to faith during a recent council meeting is to weigh in on the illegal alien issue. Not surprisingly they’ve come down on the side of the illegal aliens, or “migrants” as they refer to them. What’s best about this is the rationale for this decision, as reported in the Washington Times:

“Much of what’s being done at the local level is taking away the rights, privileges and programs that apply to children,” Mr. Jones said. “They can’t go to teen programs; in some cases, they can’t go to school or get library cards. Local governments are acting as demagogues and trying to shift responsibility away from themselves.”

This is so pathetically false, such drivel absolutely must be an intentional lie.  No one is advocating challenging Plyer v. Doe in Richmond or at the local level, no one has proposed denying library cards to illegal aliens, nor have teen programs been shut down anywhere over concerns about illegal aliens.  Apparently the easiest place to find folks eager to violate the Ninth Commandment these days would be Episcopal Diocese of Virginia’s Council Meetings.  As a former Episcopalian, I can hardly say this surprises me at all.

The hard left took this church over, and they’ve been working just as hard as they can to become something resembling Unitarians.  The few holdout congregations who actually think that the Bible is what the church should be based on rather than leftist “social justice” dogma, are finding themselves in awfully scarce company these days.

This utter goofiness is not going to help the Diocese of Virginia survive.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

89 Comments

  1. redawn said on 27 Jan 2008 at 10:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    “The hard left took this church over, and they’ve been working just as hard as they can to become something resembling Unitarians. The few holdout congregations who actually think that the Bible is what the church should be based on rather than leftist “social justice” dogma, are finding themselves in awfully scarce company these days.

    This utter goofiness is not going to help the Diocese of Virginia survive.”

    Are we talking politics or faith in God?

    http://www.trustingodamerica.com/NotWorks.htm

  2. dolph said on 27 Jan 2008 at 10:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Man interprets the Good Book in many ways. That is why we have Christian denominations.

    I make a practice of never publically criticizing anyone else’s religion, no matter how foolish and absurd I think it is.

    The Episcopalian Church has a history of concern with social justice. The Church was a forerunner in civil rights activism, just as an example. Additionally, it has treated gay clergy as a Christian civil rights issue. I have found that individual churches may embrace as much or as little church doctrine as the parishoners and clergy want.

    I do not see the Episcopolian Church and the Universal Unitarians as having much in common other than concern for social justice.

    I would suggest that folks who are ill at ease with the religious beliefs of either church to simply not attend services. Fortunately, in this country, we do have religious freedom and freedom from religion.

  3. silverfox said on 28 Jan 2008 at 7:35 am:
    Flag comment

    2 of the Manassas City Council members attend Trinity Episcopal, 2 attend Grace Methodist, 2 attend the catholic church and 1 attends Manassas Presbyterian. With this mix, social justice is a big issue with the denominations they represent. Hopefully, they will be balanced thinkers when it comes to the decisions that are made concerning social justice concerns in Manassas and the distribution of funds to meet the needs.

    It is budget time. We all might want to pay attention and attend budget meetings to learn what is coming in and who is asking for funding and who is getting it. You would be amazed!

  4. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 7:43 am:
    Flag comment

    silverfox said on 28 Jan 2008 at 7:35 am:
    2 of the Manassas City Council members attend Trinity Episcopal, 2 attend Grace Methodist, 2 attend the catholic church and 1 attends Manassas Presbyterian. With this mix, social justice is a big issue with the denominations they represent.

    Just curious, which denominations would be less interested in social justice and would potentially, make better balanced politicians? I am not up to speed on this….

  5. NoVA Scout said on 28 Jan 2008 at 8:34 am:
    Flag comment

    A fairly ignorant and willfully mistated account of what the Diocesan Council said and did, Greg. I was there. I heard no one say that concern over the condition for immigrants was “the most important thing they could do to save souls etc. . .” But addressing problems among the poor, homeless and despised in a society has always been a central tenet of Christianity. I’m sure that the Christians among your readers, whatever their secular political views on immigration policy, are 100% in favor of their churches reaching out to address these sorts of issues.

    Of more concern is the reference to the “hard left” taking over the Church. How is it appropriate or even possible to evaluate Churches, institutions representing a Kingdom not of this World, to be filtered through base secular political lenses? Surely Christians (or others) don’t choose religions or denominations for political reasons. I cannot imagine how shallow that sort of theology must be. Republican Churches? Democrat Churches? Left-wing Churches? Conservative Churches? Talk about dragging religion down.

  6. jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 9:44 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout, unfortunately it is the churches that are taking up a political agenda, wrapped in the fabric of Christian faith. As a devout Roman Catholic, I see this happening at All Saints and throughout our Diocese. The charge for all Christians to feed and clothe the poor has been distorted to provide legal representation and immigration assistance to aliens. Our church also spends countless hours and dollars lobbying politicians to change our “unfair” laws, but is silent when it comes to criticism of the corrupt governments of many countries (Mexico and Central America) that cause immigration to occur.

    I know several Episcopal Church members that have left that church because of their stand on gay rights. I don’t feel that there is any such thing as “Christian civil rights”. This is just a clever catch phrase for allowing current political and social beliefs to enter into churches and change established traditions and teachings.

  7. Patty said on 28 Jan 2008 at 9:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Churches are to be based on God’s Word.

  8. Old Soldier said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:27 am:
    Flag comment

    What Patty said on 28 Jan 2008 at 9:57 am

    What constitutes “God’s Word” is a very subjective thing.

    A little categorical logic:
    If every religion other than yours is wrong,
    and everyone thinks every religion other than theirs is wrong,
    then they must all be wrong.

    I agree with this conclusion.

  9. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Old Soldier…you are wrong. Remember…the Christian God (Holy Trinity - Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit) states that HIS ways and thoughts are higher than our (human) ways and thoughts. Therefore, HE is always right and we are not.

  10. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Everything we need to know is in the Bible in plain language.

  11. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:38 am:
    Flag comment

    When looking at verses in the Bible, you must take ALL the related verses on a related topic and allow the scriptures to interpret the scriptures.

  12. Vigilant1 said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:50 am:
    Flag comment

    jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 9:44 am:
    The charge for all Christians to feed and clothe the poor has been distorted to provide legal representation and immigration assistance to aliens. Our church also spends countless hours and dollars lobbying politicians to change our “unfair” laws, but is silent when it comes to criticism of the corrupt governments of many countries (Mexico and Central America) that cause immigration to occur.

    I agree with you 100%. “Social Justice” has overtaken the place of providing for the poor. That is why I have stopped donating to Catholic Charaties and yesterday’s collection for “the Church in Latin America.” Latin America should be providing for their own churches and not relying on continuous handouts from the U.S. Feed the poor and hungry, YES, but leave social justice and politics at the front door.

  13. Old Soldier said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:56 am:
    Flag comment

    The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:35 am

    Thank you for proving my point. I’m sure those who believe in Islam (1.5 billion), Hinduism (900 million), Chinese traditional religion (394 million), Buddhism (376 million), primal-indigenous believfs (300 million), African Traditional & Diasporic tradition (100 million), Sikhism (23 million), Juche (19 million), Spiritism (15 million), Judaism (14 million), Baha’i (7 million), Jainism (4.2 million), Shinto (4 million), Cao Dai (4 million), Zoroastrianism (2.6 million), Tenrikyo (2 million), Neo-Paganism (1 million), Unitarian-Universalism (800 thousand), Rastafarianism (600 thousand), and Scientology (500 thousand), and my personal favorite Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist (1.1 billion) might disagree.

    I respect all people’s beliefs. I just wish people respected each others beliefs.

  14. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Let me go out on a limb here and say I do not think churches have any business in politics. I think those who dabble should lose their tax exemption. Now what constitutes ‘dabbling’ is the rub here, and on that, Americans do not agree.

    Patriot, your position might work for you, but obviously there is difference of opinion, which is what I believe Old Soldier was trying to say. And it is that ‘plain language’ that isn’t always so plain. If it were all that plain, we would all be one religion.

  15. Old Soldier said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:08 am:
    Flag comment

    What dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:00 am

    Well said (and more eloquent than my belabored attempt at making a statement).

  16. jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:41 am:
    Flag comment

    We’re getting off topic here. This is not a debate about the world’s religions or fundamental Christianity. The point is that a Christian group in the area is choosing to intermingle a political doctrine (social justice) with their religious beliefs to justify their point of view. Even more importantly, a spokesperson for this group may have lied, making it sound as if services where being refused to illegal aliens, when in fact those services are being provided. This is fear mongering, and this person is either ignorant of the facts or is purposefully distorting the facts to push their agenda. Either way, it’s reprehensible.

  17. monticup said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Am I missing something? What does one’s religion have to do with illegal immigration? Are churches allowed to disregard the law?

  18. Yuf said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m sure if this Church endorsed the expulsion of undocumented immigrants, Greg would be praising it to the heavens…

  19. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Bible states that we are to follow both God’s law and the laws of the land. Read Romans. Dolph, if you actually read the Bible you will know why your position is wrong (to include Old Soldier).

  20. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    For those that don’t believe in property rights…think again….the Bible says “Thou shall not steal”. Clearly God gives people property which others are not to steal or covet. Again, if you actually read the Bible this is very clear.

  21. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Much theft is committed due to illegal immigration. Identity theft, stealing tax payer money, etc. etc.

  22. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Illegal immigrants are not abiding by “love thy neighbor”. By committing the selfish crimes that they do (theft, phony id’s, increased crime, degradation of neighborhoods, etc.) clearly demonstrates this.

  23. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    If an illegal alien was a true Christian, he/she would come through the legal way…because he/she would know that that is the right way to do things.

  24. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Additionally, the true Christian will know that God will take care of his/her needs which doesn’t require the individual to use illegal means to satisfy them.

  25. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    So before you liberals start spouting off “what you think you know in the Bible” (because you choose to use a few well know verses) why don’t you actually READ the whole thing and let the Bible teach you what God actually says with the proper context.

  26. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    jfk,

    Then lets go burn the church down and kill those who are spreading heresy.

  27. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Partial posting. The above was sarcasm.

    The link is not posting correctly.

  28. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patriot,

    I find most of what you have said here just plain old offensive. You are acting as though you think you know more than God.

    If all churches interpreted the bible the same way, we would be one religion. Obviously, that is not the case.

    Patriot (sic), you have no clue what I believe spiritually or what I have or have not read of the Bible. Do not presume to think you do.

  29. Batson D. Belfrey said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    I won’t get into the middle of a Theological discussion. I don’t see this church’s position on illegal immigration any different from that of the Catholic church, or the Unitarians here in Manassas.

  30. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph, what I stated is what is in the Bible (God’s Words not mine). If that offends you…I am not sure how I can help you out with your situation other than keep reading your Bible.

  31. Turn PW Blue said on 28 Jan 2008 at 12:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patriot: Have you ever considered consolidating your posts into one thoughtful entry rather than the stream of consciousness we got from 12:06 to 12:15?a

    I’m not going to get into a religious argument here (because you will dismiss anything I say out of hand). Rather I would point out that within the broad umbrella of Christianity, there are several schools of belief on the meaning of the words in the Bible and just how clear the language is. Different denominations follow each of these.

    Literalist: Those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, to be taken literally word for word.
    Contextualist: Those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, to be interpreted in the light of its historical and cultural context.
    Traditionalist: Those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, to be interpreted in the light of the church´s teaching and traditions.
    Unique book: Those who believe that the Bible is not the word of God but a unique book through which God’s word may come to us.

    My point is not to say one school is better than another but rather to point out that even within the realm of Christianity, there is some “fuzziness” as to just how the Bible is to be used. While there is universal agreement that the Bible contains the foundations of the Christian faith, there is not universal agreement among Christian denominations as to just what that means.

  32. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph, furthermore, you keep saying churches interpret the Bible….that is the problem…they are not letting the scriptures themselves interpret the scriptures. They are letting human doctrine muddy what God actually says in the Bible.

  33. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    jfk,

    I prefer to listen to NovaScout since he was there.

    As for your comment above about Christian civil rights, you know, a church can really do any damn thing it wants to do unless that something is illegal. If it wants to exclude women from the clergy, fine. If it wants to handle snakes to prove one’s faith in God, unless the state forbids it, fine. If it wants to ordain gay clergy, perfectly acceptable. These are all civil rights issues that must be dealt with inside that individual church. It gets a bit dicier when discussing plural marriage. That is considered illegal behavior. These are internal affairs of the church.

    I prefer churches to stay out of politics. Now, I believe you stated you were Roman Catholic. My feeling is that your church is perfectly within its rights to tell its parishoners how to behave on issues of reproduction. I do not feel your church has the right to decide that for me, as a non-Catholic.

    I would suggest that if the Catholic Church or the Episcopalian Church wants to cloth and feed the poor, go at it. You certainly will find that behavior supported by scriptures.

    If you do not like the beliefs of the Episcopalian Church, do not worship there.

  34. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Feeding and clothing the poor is one thing…but for the Church to further perpetuate their (illegal alien’s) sinful activity (theft, unlawfully abiding in our country, etc.) is to ignore what the Bible says. Christians are not supposed to do anything that will continue to make our brothers and sisters sin (in fact, to do so would be a sin). The Church should show (via the scriptures) the errors of their (illegal alien’s) ways so that the people can actually start doing the right thing (stop their present sinful activities by being illegal)…and that may mean for them (illegal aliens) to go back to their country of origin and come through the legal route.

  35. Old Soldier said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    What dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Well said (all of our postings)..

    I will point out that the Bible people are referring to is a document created by committee (Council of Trent, 5th Century). This committee, formed for political reasons, selected specific parts of a subset of available texts and crafted them to support the politics at the time. When referring to the Bible, unless you are quoting the original Hebrew (old testament) or Greek (New Testament), you are more than likely reading one of the many revisions created to support a specific point of view. “Subject to interpretation” is an understatement.

    If we really followed New Testament teachings (as we understand them), we would only have one shirt and pair of pants because we gave the rest away; we would have empty kitchens because we would count on God to provide the next meal We would have abandoned our jobs and homes because we would be busy spreading the word (as early Christians did.) We wouldn’t be on this blog because the concerns of this world really don’t matter. Property values? Who cares? We are just passing through to a better place. Crime? A chance to pay our penance on earth. Illegal Immigrants? Potential souls to be saved. Go share the gospel with them. Where they spend this short tenure while awaiting eternity really doesn’t matter.

    Show me a man who is homeless and broke because he gave everything away to do as Jesus told us to in the Beatitudes (Feed the hungry, etc.) and I’ll listen to that man.

    I really like these open threads!

  36. jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph, I don’t get your sarcasm. As for NovaScout, he/she may or may not have been there, but as for me I will let Mr. Jone’s quote from the Washington Times stand.

    You seem to have trouble separating the religious and temporal aspects of this argument. Any church is within its legal rights to do the things you cite, but that doesn’t make it “right” or morally acceptible. As Christians, I feel that there are more things that unite us than divide us. The vast majority of Christian denominations do not accept the practices you cite in your post. Furthermore, we are not talking about simply feeding and clothing the poor; this goes much, much further than that.

    Last time I checked, this website was a forum for voicing opinions; however you always seem to want to be the final authority on any subject discussed. When I first started reading and participating on this site, I took your comments personally. Now I see that you pretty much treat everyone on the site this way with the exception of a few friends that you seemd to socialize with.

  37. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    I believe that Turn PW Blue said it best.

    Patriot, Lets just agree that different churches have different Christian beliefs. You may believe what you wish. I am very uncomfortable with much of what you say. That is not an open invitation to berate me with your brand of Christianity.

  38. Jody Wilcox said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Being a member of The Episcopal Diocese in Virginia and obviously conservative, I trying to work from within to rectify some of these crazy ruling (and get a little queasy around this time.) As stated these are just resolutions, though they have not been reported that way, they haven’t been ratified yet as stated, and this is not an accurate account of what went on by a long shot. The best way to evoke change is from within (my feeling) and not abandon the fundelmental beliefs of the Episcopal Church or Christianity because you disagree with decision that few members get to vote on… Although does seem that I tend to disagree at an alarming rate with the Virginia Diocese as of late… I would disagree with NoVA Scout on one issue and that is that political views tend to come directly from how we believe in God and Jesus’ role and vise versa (not withstanding the hypocrisy of the atheist libertarian that I could talk about for day)….Give a man a fish, he eats for a day (liberal) teach him to fish he eats for a life time (conservatives) thing. We fail to see that Jesus did both and that is where we all miss the boat.

  39. Jane D'oh! said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    monticup,

    Apparently some churches are permitted to disregard the law.

    Remember the one in Chicago that harbored Elvira Arellano after she was ordered deported?

    They’re at it again with a different woman this time.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5917534

  40. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph, I only use the Bible (God’s Word) as the “brand”. I do not let human doctrine influence what the Bible actually says.

  41. jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    This has turned into an open thread, instead of a discussion about the real issue at hand.

    “Much of what’s being done at the local level is taking away the rights, privileges and programs that apply to children,” Mr. Jones said. “They can’t go to teen programs; in some cases, they can’t go to school or get library cards. Local governments are acting as demagogues and trying to shift responsibility away from themselves.”

    This is so pathetically false, such drivel absolutely must be an intentional lie. No one is advocating challenging Plyer v. Doe in Richmond or at the local level, no one has proposed denying library cards to illegal aliens, nor have teen programs been shut down anywhere over concerns about illegal aliens. Apparently the easiest place to find folks eager to violate the Ninth Commandment these days would be Episcopal Diocese of Virginia’s Council Meetings. As a former Episcopalian, I can hardly say this surprises me at all.

  42. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    jfk,

    I actually try not to stand in judgement of other people’s churches or religious practices and I hope they do the same to me.

    I consider NOVAscout a reliable source mainly because he has a reputation, at least with me, for being thoughtful and insightful. I consider him a learned man and to be one possessing a great deal of integrity. I base this on reading his posts for 6 months and also from the opinions of those who know him personally. That works for me.

    jfk, I know I will never be the final authority. That is more than I could ever hope for. But as for the practices I cite, that is my point. Different Christian churches have different beliefs. I don’t know that forbidding women from the priesthood is any more morally right or wrong than ordaining gay priests. I have my own opinions however. I think we are safe in saying that most Christians do not handle snakes as a religious practice. However the first 2 are not absolutes by any means.

  43. 999 said on 28 Jan 2008 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jane D’oh! said on 28 Jan 2008 at 1:51 pm:
    monticup,

    Apparently some churches are permitted to disregard the law.

    Remember the one in Chicago that harbored Elvira Arellano after she was ordered deported?
    Their stories are similar, but there are differences between Arellano and Chrisostomo. Arellano stayed in the church with her son, Saulito. Chrisostomo has three children, but they all live in Mexico. She sends money home.
    ……………………………………………………………………………..
    I guess she won’t be sending any money back to Mexico any time soon.
    TOO BAD!

  44. CONVA said on 28 Jan 2008 at 2:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Nonsense argument.

  45. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 3:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mary was an un-wed mother. She broke a few laws. So much for the APPEARANCE rules and tradition.

  46. jm said on 28 Jan 2008 at 3:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Mr. Jones said. “They can’t go to teen programs; in some cases, they can’t go to school or get library cards.”

    Of course, Mr. Jones does not give any specifics regarding laws, policies, bills or the names of the local governments who are alledgedly involved in doing such things. By doing so, he avoids backing up his statements with any facts. This leaves me to guess about which local governments are doing what.

    Teen programs–I haven’t read anything about any teen programs that specifically exclude illegal residents.

    Library cards–Again, I don’t know of any local governments that are denying library cards to anyone based upon immigration status. Libraries do ask for proof of residency, but that can be a piece of mail sent to you at your PWC/Manassas/Manassas Park address if you are seeking a PWC Library card, for example. They are only seeking to determine that you live in the area that the library serves, not if youlive there legally. It is true that the PWCBOS did consider denying library services to illegal aliens, but decided that the cost of checking immigration status would cost more than the service provided. However, there is no Federal law requiring any local government to offer library services to illegal aliens, so it is likely within the county’s rights to do so.

    Schools–No one is denying an education to students at the K-12 level that I know of, and as Greg stated, this would be against the law per Plyer vs Doe. There is no Federal law requiring states to allow illegal aliens to attend collge, and HB 14 and HB 123 seeks to bar illegals from attending Virginia state funded colleges and universities (in other words, prevent illegal aliens from steling a spot in a scholl that would otherwise go to a legal resident). HB 1010 and SB 434 seek to bar in state tuition for illegal aliens.

  47. jm said on 28 Jan 2008 at 3:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Vigilant1 10:50 said:

    “That is why I have stopped donating to Catholic Charaties and yesterday’s collection for “the Church in Latin America.” Latin America should be providing for their own churches and not relying on continuous handouts from the U.S. Feed the poor and hungry, YES, but leave social justice and politics at the front door.”

    My husband and I do the same thing, and in addition we do not support the Bishop’s Lenten Appeal for that reason and because we think the bishop is a sad and evil man who asserts his authority to increase his own power keep the clergy under his thumb, rather than for the good of the church. Do a web search on “bad bishops”, Paul Loverde’s name will come up every time!

    We tend to focus our giving on ministries that we can support and earmark the gifts for that purpose. The Catholic allows the laity very little input, and our pocketbook is pretty much the only way we can send a message. If the Church chooses to aid, abet, and harbor illegal immigrants, then I am determined not to be made an accomplice by having my gifts used to that effect.

  48. jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 4:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Amen jm and Vigilant1. My wife and I feel the same way about giving to the Lenten Appeal and Catholic Charities. It’s a shame that it has to be that way, but I can’t agree with how the money is spent. A significant portion of last years Appeal went to Hogar Hispano and provided legal and immigration services to illegal aliens. I don’t recall legal fees being part of Christ’s directive to feed and clothe the poor. Last year we contributed to Saint Vincent DePaul’s Katrina fund and the Mandeville Parish in Jamaica.

    I am still waiting for the outcry and politcal pressure on the countries that produce these illegal immigrants. The Catholic church and all other major denominations are silent, except when it comes to lecturing the US about our “obligations”.

    I assume you both go to All Saints? I would be interested in seeing your thoughts on the building fund debacle.

  49. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 5:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM,

    You know, I have all the respect in the world for your method you just described. Additionally, you are criticizing your own church, rather than someone else’s. You obviously believe enough in the basic beliefs of your church to stay and work around what you perceive to be their silliness. My hat is off to you.

  50. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 5:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    We stopped giving to the Bishops Lenten appeal when Keating was Bishop. He did not think there were enough smart children outside the beltway to benefit from a catholic high school. :)

  51. Vigilant1 said on 28 Jan 2008 at 5:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 4:53 pm:
    Amen jm and Vigilant1.
    I would be interested in seeing your thoughts on the building fund debacle.

    Sorry to say but I stopped giving to that particular collection when the original money collected to build a new church was used to build the school.
    There was never a mention of a new school being built at the outset. The original concept was to build a new church and all of a sudden we were told that a school was going to be build first.

  52. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 6:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Which school are you referring to? My thoughts on the diocese is that they have the luxury of selling their property and re-locating unlike the public school system. They could sell any one of the now free tuition schools in NOVA and build new ones where needed, use St. Agnes school and former convent as a retirement home instead of asking us to fund a new on in Front Royal ……….. Oh they need a civilian to look at their funding streams and captial improvements…. :)

  53. monticup said on 28 Jan 2008 at 6:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Where is the church in Mexico and Central America? Why aren’t THEY taking care of their poor? Oops, I forgot–they send their poor to the USA.

  54. monticup said on 28 Jan 2008 at 6:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Illegal aliens go to the library all right–to get work! Can’t go to Centreville Library anymore. Infestation.

  55. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 6:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yup, just to annoy you Mr. Monticup. They’ve heard about you and send them on up to Manassas on purpose…

    I’ve heard them talking in Latin. :)

  56. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 6:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am STILL waiting to find out which denomination practices less social justice than those mention in the statement below. Really curious……

    2 of the Manassas City Council members attend Trinity Episcopal, 2 attend Grace Methodist, 2 attend the catholic church and 1 attends Manassas Presbyterian. With this mix, social justice is a big issue with the denominations they represent. Hopefully, they will be balanced thinkers when it comes to the decisions that are made concerning social justice concerns in Manassas and the distribution of funds to meet the needs.

  57. dolph said on 28 Jan 2008 at 8:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    One Voice,

    Maybe we could have a contest. People could nominate their church as THE church that practices less social justice. The winner would receive….hmmmm…what seems like a fair prize?

  58. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, it would have to be an earthly prize….. I would lose so it matter not to me.

  59. jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    My vote would be for the Presbyterians or the Methodists, only because I don’t know where they stand on the issue of social justice. I am all too familiar with the Catholic stance, and thanks to Greg I have a little insight into where the Episcopalians stand. The social justice philosophy is not limited by faith or denomination. It failed in Central America, and now it has spread to the US.

    One Voice, in answer to your question about the school, we were referring to All Saints School. We have been in building fund mode for the past 15+ years. Our former pastor decided to build a new school addition before the new church was built. We are still waiting for the new church, and hopefully next year we will start construction. At least that is what we have been told for the past four years. The current pastor has really kept us all in the dark for the past several years. The building fund committee is an insular group, and information flow is limited.

    Dolph, I am surprised you are not Catholic, as you like to pontificate quite often on this site.

  60. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Now is it just a coincidence that the banner above this thread reads:

    THE DARK HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
    7 Great Myths of Organized Religion; The Unvarnished Truth.

    Greg, now how DO you do that!!! :)

  61. jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    One Voice, try going to the Centreville Library and using a computer sometime. Maybe you will feel Monticup’s pain.

  62. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    I feel the pain - avid reader use the libraries about once per week. I just was trying to lighten up the religious thing.

    You could go and learn about Virginia. :)

  63. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    PS. Mr. Monticup knows I was not picking on him - he is my history guru. :)

  64. jfk said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    What do you think I need to learn about Virginia?

  65. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just teasing…. didn’t you goof and mention Kaine should not run again or something to that effect.

  66. Archimedes said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Nope, I meant that I would not vote for him to be re-elected to any office. It seems the job succession in Virginia is to be governor, then US Senator until you die or utter a stupid racist remark and can’t get re-elected.

    By the way, I didn’t mean to be harsh with my remark to you, or to Dolph. Sarcasm mode was in full effect!

  67. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Archimedes, are you jfk? Did you just blow your cover?

  68. Archimedes said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yep, I decided that if I changed my name I could be a math wiz like all the other folks on the Guinea Pig string. Apparently being a Harvard professor doesn’t give one enough clout to have a valid opinion. So…I kicked it up a notch, as Emeril would say.

  69. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, if you are one and the same, I didn’t take anything badly.

    I too am a Catholic and decided long ago not to bother defending my religion to anyone. I am content with it. I view it as a long term thing like the stock market; has it’s ups and downs, bad investments, bad managers but eventually it will get me to where I want to go. Depsite the management, I have a healthy respect and understanding of God, peace of mind and a nice quiet life. :)

  70. One Voice said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think Archimedes died at the hands of the Romans completing a problem in the sand?

    Good pick - he was fierce to the end :)

  71. Templar Knight said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    As a Poor Fellow-Soldier of Christ and the Temple of Solomon I have been fighting these immigration battles since the Siege of Acra. If not the Hitites then the phillipians. If not Saladin then Phillip The Fair.

    I am very, very tired of outsiders coming to the land I conquered and then annoying me. My armor, shiled and braodswoard will soon put an end to this acrimony.

  72. Templar Knight said on 28 Jan 2008 at 11:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Baphomet! Baphomet! Baphomet!

  73. josh said on 29 Jan 2008 at 1:48 am:
    Flag comment

    patriot,

    I totally agree…that’s all you need! Just a bible and you are all set. Everything you do need to know is in there. That is one of the main issues I had with the Mormon Church before I split with them. I really enjoyed the bible study portion, however the other texts of the church didnt leave a very good feeling inside. I’m of personal belief that the bible was meant to be interpreted by the person reading it i.e. yourself and that you dont need anyone to interpret it for you.

  74. Archimedes said on 29 Jan 2008 at 6:59 am:
    Flag comment

    At least I didn’t drown in the bathtub.

    I agree with your comments on Catholicsm. I have no issue with any of the core beliefs, and don’t think they need to be defended. I just hate the attempt to inject political views into the process.

  75. Bridget said on 29 Jan 2008 at 7:25 am:
    Flag comment

    http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=7764342&nav=menu606_2

    Sue the employers AND the churches for the costs.

    Someone who feels indebted to society is too often wanting and willing to use your money(and infringe on your rights) to accomplish his lofty goals.

  76. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 29 Jan 2008 at 8:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Josh, actually, the Bible interprets itself…without need of human doctrine meddling. If you look at any given topic in the Bible and find ALL the scriptures in the Bible that relate to the topic, the scriptures will interpret the scriptures. This is what a lot of people ignore or forget when they study the Bible. They take one or two verses out of context because they don’t allow the other related scriptures to help build the entire picture.

  77. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 29 Jan 2008 at 8:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Decisions of a Church should only be made based on what the Bible says. Therefore, if a Church needs to make a decision on how to handle certain situations, they need to bounce the ideas off the Bible to see how the Bible says to handle the situation.

  78. One Voice said on 29 Jan 2008 at 8:21 am:
    Flag comment

    jfk - agree about the political process. Some priests are better than others in being all encompassing and not being so speficic in their thoughts. It’s like praying for a sepcific event as opposed to praying for the right/best thing to happen.

    Fortunately for us, they move around so we don’ have to!

  79. JM said on 29 Jan 2008 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    jfk and Vigilant1

    Yes I am a parishioner at All Saints, but have lmited input on the building fund debacle. I have only been a member of the parish for 7 years, so I wasn’t there when the school addition was built. When I first joined, the building fund was being used to pay off the remainder of the school loan, but I was aware of that. I also knew that a new sanctuary was in the works, but the school loan had to be paid before the parish began saving the down payment for sanctuary construction.

    I do agree that the building committee sends out limited and false information, and that they limit input from the rest of the parish. Several times we have been given a percentage or dollar amount needed to begin construction, and every time we meet that goal our evil and lying bishop raises the amount. We are supposed to begin constrcution this year, but we’ve been told that before. I’ll believe it when it happens.

    About 5 or 6 years ago the parish was given comment cards at mass asking for input on the new church. I filled out a comment, and received a phone call to attend a meeting about the new church. Turned out it was a meeting for the “Rooted in Faith, Forward in Hope” fundraising effort, and they wanted us to call parishioners to get them to pledge funds for the next five years. I refused to do it, and when I received the call I told them that I would not pledge because the money went to the bishop, who would send back only a portion to All Saints, I also said that I could not trust our bishop to do what he promised and do the right thing with our pledges.

    I am a library volunteer at the church, and Father Bob did ask our library what we wanted for the library room in the new building. Don’t know if we’ll get it, but he did accept our wish list.

  80. Patty said on 29 Jan 2008 at 11:32 am:
    Flag comment

    Patriot,

    “The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 29 Jan 2008 at 8:06 am:
    Josh, actually, the Bible interprets itself…without need of human doctrine meddling. If you look at any given topic in the Bible and find ALL the scriptures in the Bible that relate to the topic, the scriptures will interpret the scriptures. This is what a lot of people ignore or forget when they study the Bible. They take one or two verses out of context because they don’t allow the other related scriptures to help build the entire picture.”

    I agree with you. The method of interpretation you describe is called exegesis in which the text speaks for itself. The other method of which I’ve seen indirect references to on this thread and others (Ex. you can interpret the Bible anyway you want …) is called eisegesis. Eisegesis - the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas - Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. In other words, one would take their own biases and reinterpret Scripture based on their biases.

    God judges our actions based on His truth which never changes. We are all accountable. We all have fallen short. That’s why He sent Jesus to save us. He did it because He loves us very much and we are precious to Him.

  81. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 29 Jan 2008 at 11:44 am:
    Flag comment

    Patty, that is correct.

  82. Just Saying... said on 29 Jan 2008 at 2:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Archimedes–Ted Kaczynski was a Harvard man…

  83. Krusty said on 29 Jan 2008 at 2:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    You guys are just toooo much!

  84. 999 said on 29 Jan 2008 at 5:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just Saying… said on 29 Jan 2008 at 2:32 pm:
    Archimedes–Ted Kaczynski was a Harvard man…

    Al Gore was too!

  85. One Voice said on 29 Jan 2008 at 9:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    So were Jack Lemmon, T.S. Eliot, E. E. Cumnings and Leonard Berntstein and Once Voice’s Uncle and cousin. Should we keep going or is there a point to this?

  86. jfk said on 29 Jan 2008 at 10:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM-Your comment about the Rooted in Faith campaign reminded me of a funny story. I received a call from one of the volunteers when that campaign started. He’s a prominent parisoner, but I won’t name names. Anyway, he stated he was calling on behalf of Father Bob, and wanted to come by and explain the program and get a “committment” from my wife and I. After listening to this for several minutes, I explained that my wife and I would be giving what we could afford, but didn’t want to name the amount or make a multi-year commitment. This person became rather huffy, and said that he would tell Father Bob what I said, and I could expect a call from him soon. I said I would welcome the call, and that I would tell Father Bob the same thing I told this him. Six years later, I am still waiting for that phone call!

    We’ve all given a lot of money to this campaign, only to watch other parishes get all the loan money while we wait. I recently heard that St. Veronica in Chantilly was not making their loan payments, and that was the reason we could not build our church two years ago. Meanwhile, the cost of materials goes up about twenty percent per year. I think we are chasing a moving target.

    One Voice - Sometimes the waiting is tough. Getting a good priest is a mixed blessing, because you know his time with you will be short.

  87. jfk said on 29 Jan 2008 at 10:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Archimedes went to Syracuse…or was it SUNY?

  88. One Voice said on 30 Jan 2008 at 3:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    jfk - maybe that’s why patience is a virtue. :)

  89. Bridget said on 31 Jan 2008 at 6:10 am:
    Flag comment

    http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/01/30/religious-left-alert-new-baptist-covenant-with-immigration-enthusiasts/print/

Comments are closed.


Views: 2513