Fine line v. blurred line, or crossing the line -- Notes from Zarahemla Political Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:00:56 12/10/05 Sat
Author: Deborah
Subject: Fine line v. blurred line, or crossing the line
In reply to: Chuck in ND 's message, "It's a fine line" on 07:49:23 12/09/05 Fri

There is an element of adhering to the laws as they stand and another of testing them to make a change.

All Saints Chuch, in Pasadena, California, holds tenets and beliefs I herald as "good and of God," if you'll allow me that statement, whatever that means. They speak of, and have officially proclaimed peace. Additionaly, they appear unshy in asking awareness of needs across our globe, for all people at this place we call earth. Allow me, Debbie, to extend that sameness to our President, George W. Bush, as one among us.

Speaking to what I wonder are trespasses of our churches, walking into the political arena:

I have read the All Saints sermon in question and disagree it serves only as Manna from Heaven. Similarly I have disagreed with your own church's choice to engage itself in politics. One church may do well with a cadre of attorneys to develop a private fund for contributions toward initiatives like Proposition 22 in California, where another goes straight to the microphone. Neither impress me.

Yes, we may not always succeed to compartmentalize ourselves, but I continue viewing chapels, places of worship as important for a unique part of our beings. Quiet, soulful, spiritual worship. It otherwise becomes at risk for a blur. IMO

Here in California a member of your chuch, and his wife, were both disciplined for speaking their hearts on a ballot issue. They were counselled as to the correctness of stating their opinions so far as it was not stating disagreement with the church's stance on that ballot initiative.

Personally, I prefer no member of any church need feel placed in allegiance to the politics of a church. If, as stan's good to say, you get my drift. Teach them correct principles, yes. Like any good parent a church teaches...

Now a question about the moral imperative issue, Charlene. Are you comfortable with your church's involvement, from Salt Lake City, to rally forces, on official church stationary for the California initiative?

Feel free to not answer.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

The part of your post -- Chuck in ND, 06:16:59 12/10/05 Sat