Comments on: Breakaway Episcopalians look to US high court

By: Southernhemisphere

Southernhemisphere — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:38:14 +0000

“GERRYMANDER”

By: Southernhemisphere

Southernhemisphere — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:36:46 +0000

“And My House shall called a House of Prayer for ALL People.”

By: JerryM70

JerryM70 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:57:33 +0000

Church or no church, it’s all about money and always has been. You can see the same thing in any family where a member dies without leaving a will. It gets nasty, and it happens in the best of families.

By: superplus7

superplus7 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:43:28 +0000

Gee, I wonder how the Catholic arch conservative justices Thomas and Scalia would rule if these were breakaway denominations from the Holy, Roman, Catholic Church? Ruling in the breakaway denominations in that instance would be tantamount to letting schismatics go wild.

By: Raymond H. Clark

Raymond H. Clark — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:31:30 +0000

The first rector appointed after they joined the Nigerian Anglicans (or whatever) was deposed for boffing his (female, I presume) secretary.

So much for biblical morals.

BTW, their “beloved” building is BRAND-NEW … building it was an act of DEFIANCE. They re-used the stained glass and some furnishings from the old church … that’s all.

Ahmanson, the money behind the conservative caucuses in SEVERAL main-line churches, is a member of St. James. The American Anglican Council of anti-gay fascist reich-wing religionists was founded at St. James, and the rector at the time is now “bishop” and head of the AAC.

Ahmanson is a disciple of Rushdoony and the Dominionists / Reconstructionists.

Look it up.

Bud Burgoon-Clark
San Diego CA USA
(former Orange County resident)

By: Drewski

Drewski — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:29:20 +0000

It’s primarily a thoelogical discussion. Even though there’s money and property at stake, I don’t see the Supreme Court being all that eager to step in. If there were donations which came with very specific stipulations (gift is revoked if women are ordained, for example), those could be in play, but I doubt there are many circumstances like that. Then again, people like Scalia can’t stop themselves from mixing religion and government, so this could be interesting.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:33:00 +0000

Julia Flowers,

I totally agree with you about the separation of church and state. The US Supreme should state its refusal to take up this kind of case for that reason.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:26:02 +0000

Rick Lapham,

I see two themes in your posting on this thread and I will address them.

As a liberal Episcopalian my belief is that not that “God is in charge”. But that God gives men and women a capacity for or a likelihood of good minds, kind hearts and the ability to getting moving, do for themselves and for others in many different human endeavors for improving one’s life and that for one’s loved one.

Be it human rights or learning a career, etc. Some see God as I do as co-pilot in one’s life but only in God gave you life, heart and mind and that what you do with those things is up to you, your successes and failures in life are up to you. God did not guarantee you a life free from difficulties to overcome, but gave you the means to try to get through things as gracefully as you can.

This is 2009, no longer the 1950s. Attitudes in many people have changed over many decades including my own as I gained more experience with living in multi-ethnic and diverse communities.

Years ago as a pre-teen, I lived in a midwestern community of largely white people. I now live in the DC suburbs of Maryland. My own church has people born in Thailand and Cambodia, Trinidad, Morocco, Ghana, Liberia, and people of European, European ancestry etc. Straight and gay go there. Young couples with children attend there. It is a growing church with people of all kinds of backgrounds. One of my best friends from church are the kindly older women of color from places like Ghana and Trinidad.

By: Tom in Long Beach

Tom in Long Beach — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:27:38 +0000

People in Orange County can be so narrow minded. I am glad I left in 1988. They really think they are God’s choosen.

By: ps2os2

ps2os2 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:08:06 +0000

This is slightly different in my opinion as there is a states interest in how untaxed property is accorded. But I can also see the US Supreme court not wanting to get mixed up in the disagreement.

I think a reasonable stanch would be if the majority want to go one way and the minority go another then any “property” should be split up and if one side wants to buy out the other then they should be able to. In any case the property should be valued at the time it was given not current value.

If either of the parties do NOT want to split then a 3rd party (of both choosing) should make the decision. Then and only then if it can’t be resolved the church should be dissolved and the money split up between the two groups.

To me that seems utterly fair.