or any church for that matter......

Amen!

I wouldn't judge an entire religion because of a few bad people. Human beings can be nasty, but I've also seen religion bring the best out in people.

I drew the line at their priest "relocation program" to cover up their indulgences with little boys.

Don't get me started on religion. I did attend Bill Maher's movie Religulous and it captures much of what I think. I'm more impressed with people who are good because they believe it's the right way to live, rather than out of coercion from a fear of eternal punishment.

Maher covered the fact that religions from before Christianity had the identical story lines of virgin birth, son of God, crucifixion, resurrection after 3 days, baptism in the river, etc….but of course Christians don’t want to know about that. Or that the Garden of Eden story was taken from earlier faiths complete with the snake and the tree and the concept of paradise. One earlier faith even has the head religious guy raising someone from the dead whose name translates to Lazarus. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Religious people are the least curious about their religion's true origins because they’re not in it for the facts - they’re in it for the feeling. That’s why they can accept that the people who wrote about Jesus did it from decades out and never met him, oh, and my, it just so happens they incorporate all these other earlier fables. Gee, I thought this was spirit-breathed from God to their ears. But here’s the best part: After reading the earlier prophecies, it turns out that when they write their version, the prophecies come true. Well, that’s good enough for me. Who needs more proof before we go halfway around the world and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because President Bush was listening to God?

Bill Maher spent a lot of time ridiculing all the craziness because it is funny and entertaining – especially when they talk in tongues – and brought his point home with a plea not to let religions finish off humanity. That’s how I feel. Look, humanity has a lot of faults, but we invented rock and roll, football and high definition TV. We’ve done a lot of things right on this planet and we deserve to live.

What many Evangelical Christians leave out when they talk about Iran threatening Israel is the part where these same Christians want all of us to get wiped out in the End Times. There is a check list of things that have to happen and they are scheming to bring these about. I'm sorry but if this is really God's unchangeable plan why do we have to do anything? Shouldn't it just happen on its own?

The movie has a shot of the exact spot where Armageddon is supposed to take place, and it would be fascinating stuff if these religious End-Timers weren't so dedicated to bringing it about.

If anyone else talked about finishing off the human species they'd be viewed as a threat - not celebrated for their self-righteousness and allowed free reign to try and trigger the End of the World.

I wouldn't judge an entire religion because of a few bad people.

But it was a bishop who said this, and it would be reasonable to assume that because of his position, he was officially speaking for the church.

There is one way out of this - denounce his letter quickly and in the strongest terms, and discipline him appropriately. But alas, the church hierarchy doesn't seem capable of taking such actions. So we'll likely see the usual circling of the wagons, re-interpretations of what he really meant, etc. But never an admission of "we were wrong".

If it wasn't for funeral masses

So because one idiot from one division of Christianity shot off his mouth, that means that all Christians are redneck idiots?

You do realize that it is possible to have faith, and not be a Bush-esque dumbass, right?

And the DNC wonders why they can't ever get the faith vote. The linked article is from an organization trying to keep the line between the Church and government, and some of you commenters are going exactly in the predicted leftist direction - "church is bad and faith in higher power is based in ignorance."

Who the hell am I to say what is ignorant? Who are you to do the same?

Getting back on topic: the only difference between what this Bishop did and what labor unions do every single election is that the church is a nonprofit. If there is indeed a violation of that nonprofit status (determined by courts, not an activist group), there should be repercussions.

Bill McD beat me to it, but I saw Bill Maher's Religulous last night and came away with the same reactions.

I encourage people to have an open mind and go see it. His central point is, we don't know anything... fallible humans have embellished and attached certainty to stories throughout time; knowing this we should work to humble and temper ourselves. Seems pretty reasonable to me, considering the atrocities committed in nearly every religion's name.

That, and it's just funny.

So because one idiot from one division of Christianity shot off his mouth, that means that all Christians are redneck idiots?

No, one *leader* of a division of Christianity is campaigning for a political race, which means we get to judge them based on their actions. Take a deep breath.

Personally I think the Mormons keeping Prop 8 afloat in CA is a more egregious example, but the Mormons pay their taxes so I guess it's legal.

"Why I'll never, ever again set foot in a Catholic Church"

By your logic I could say the city comissioners are a reason to never set foot in Portland again.

"fallible humans have embellished and attached certainty to stories throughout time;"

yeah, like global warming today.
Now there's a screwed up religion.

Why is it that churches or church leaders have no free-speech rights, while everyone here can condemn them for speaking out? I don't join the speaker's opinion and I don't attend the catholic church, but except for Lyndon Johnson's pet peeve about pulpits and politics, free speech from the front of the church was long an American right and tradition. Why not have free speech and freedom of religion? Let the people decide whether the speaker is a nut or not?

Mark

They can give up the 501c3 status any time they want, pay taxes, and say WHATEVER they want.

Mike,

There are non-profits that advocate and don't lose their 501(c)(3) status. For example, Earthjustic is tax-exempt and donations are tax-deductible. If it can advocate, why can't someone from the Catholic Church stand up and say Obama is brilliant and not endanger the church's tax-status?

Mark

From: ReligiousTolerance.org

In the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) grants non-profit status to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other religious organizations. This is of tremendous financial benefit. Meanwhile, clergy and other employees are guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are free to voice their opinions and beliefs, and advocate changes to legislation. They can attack women's freedom to obtain an abortion. They can advocate that special rights be reserved for heterosexuals, and not extended to gays and lesbians, including the right to marry. Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and everyone else are free to engage in hate speech against women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, immigrants, and other groups. A pastor in Texas recently called on the U.S. Army to round up and execute area Wiccans with napalm. The tax exempt status of his church was not threatened. Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar "hot" religious topics, from spanking children to the death penalty and physician assisted suicide. They are even allowed by the IRS to contribute small amounts of money and resources to the fight for changes in legislation. In the words of the IRS regulations: "no substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." Unfortunately, the term "substantial" is not defined precisely in the service's regulations.

However, there are some strings attached. Non-profit religious institutions cannot give financial or moral support to specific political candidates. Thus, a clergyperson cannot deliver a sermon in which she or he recommends that the members of the congregation vote for a particular candidate or a particular political party. To do so would endanger their non-profit status. A clergyperson can probably suggest that they vote for or against a state proposition, because no great expenditure of money would be involved. But a church cannot make financial contributions to a candidate's political campaign.

Quite simply, the church can endorse a specific candidate if they want to, but there are consequences