Letter to the faithful on the Notification sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Why assume that?

 

Today I learned that Invictus is a better American than George Washington

What part of your description doesn’t apply to the Anglican tradition? Even the Episcopal
Church which was always the most liberal (in a bad sense) of the sister churches has had cases of barring notorious heretics from communion and excommunicating notorious evil-doers

 

Are you suggesting that the Church of ENGLAND should interfere in US politics, as the Church of ROME seems to be trying to do? (Though you agree with it's political position on the matter under consideration, do you ACTUALLY accept the principle that it has a right to threaten an elected member of your Legislative Assembly in this way)?

Is America to become a Theocracy controlled by Roman Catholic Dogma?
.

 

I cheer it on for a couple of reasons but the most important to me is that I like it when organizations start to actually stand up for what they believe in not just the catholic church. This even goes for civic clubs in my local area.

 

I think that a church should do this with all its members. Enforce your boundaries and beliefs. If one of them happens to be a politician so be it.

 

As far as we know, neither actually chopped down cherry trees and George Washington was no more 'honest' than Invictus seems to be.
.

 

No I am suggesting that the US Province of the Anglican Communion should (and has) interfere with American politics, when Christian teachings are at stake

 

I am not sure personal attacks are useful. I respect Invictus even though we don't agree on a lot of things.

 

I was not trying to do a personal attack so if that came off I am sorry.. I merely reflected on his comment that the founders of this country were less American than he himself is

 

I was merely expressing my emotion, how I feel about the Episcopal Church's stance on the issue. It makes me feel .

 

So define a church. - Would you like Mormon Theology and practice to become US law, or Jehovah's Witness dogma to hold sway over all their members if elected to the Legislative Assembly? (In view of their own refusal to engage in US or any other 'politics' this is of course a rhetorical question only).
.

 

If you live in Utah or Idaho, this already happens (regarding Mormons, anyway). Mormons have a great deal to say about how state law plays out in those two states. And if you believe that the modern version of messianic leftism is a religious system (which I do), then the states of Washington, Oregon, and especially California are essentially theocracies at this point. As I said previously, religious practice inevitably becomes political -- it cannot be otherwise.

One of the enduring controversies in history departments is whether the Roman Empire was Christianized under Constantine because the center of gravity had shifted that way in the Empire (demographics) or whether the political elite in the Empire had become Christianized and imposed it without regard to the population. Either way, the fact is that the Christianization of the late Roman Empire (hence Europe and Byzantine Asia) was a political feat as much as a religious one. A rightly-ordered government advances God's kingdom on earth, and as governments are human institutions, it is humans who bring their faith to the fore in politics. To consider these two spheres of influence as separate and unconnected is both ahistorical and unbiblical.

 

No I just want churches to enforce their boundaries elected official or not.

 

It seems to me that those who agree that it is a good thing for churches, (and by that one presumably would have to include sects, heretics and other Religions, if they are seeking to influence the way their members vote or what legislation they support if in your Legislative Assembly), accept in principle the right for Muslims to insist any Muslim should try to legislate to bring all American Citizens under Sharia Law, whatever their religion or non religion happens to be. I'm pretty sure THAT would not go down well in the USA, WASP community, however much they might like to see their religious beliefs enshrined in US Law.
.

 

That's already true of Jehovah's witnesses. Their members are strictly forbidden to be involved in any kind of secular politics. I think you must accept that if all religious groups adopted your approach, there would be very few Christians allowed or willing to engage in politics in case they infringed any of their church's rules and regulations. Also some denominations would be happier at exercising puritanical, control freak, draconian rule over their members, like happens already in the more 'brain washing' sects and heresies, commonly to be found in the (religious freedom) of the USA. You are in danger of opening up a can of worms that would destroy your democracy and 'religiously' hamstring your politicians. Better to leave it all to their own conscience and judgment of what is the best legislation for the entire population of the USA, not just the religious views of a few sizeable minorities or even majorities.
.

 

Tiffy, doesn't the title of fidei defensor still apply to the British Sovereign? And is not the Church of England a Christian church? Are these not political as well as religious arrangements?

 

I certainly wouldn't want Episcopalian abortion theology to become US law, that's for sure! But if a bishop of TEC were to say to a US senator, "Your your longstanding stance and actions on issue X are openly sinful under our doctrine and theology, you attend a church in my diocese, and you have refused to be counseled and taught, so I forbid you from receiving communion as a sign that your soul is imperiled by your unrepentant sinning," I would support the action taken.

There is a question of how this letter from the archbishop was delivered, though. Generally such a communication is kept between the parishes of the archdiocese and the parishioner in question. In this case, the letter seems to have been promulgated rather publicly, and I can fully understand why some might construe this as a 'political act' on the part of the archbishop. But there are other reasons besides politics which could have been at play in the decision to make it public. One is to send a message to all Roman Catholics who are pro-abortion (against RC teaching). Another could be the geographically mobile nature of Pelosi's lifestyle and a desire to make sure other archdioceses are aware of this archbishop's decision in the hope that they will join cooperatively in disallowing Pelosi at holy communion. A third reason is the fact that the RCC does not see abortion as a political issue at all, but as a moral issue with serious consequences (i.e., human lives are at stake); labeling the action as "politically motivated" is a cheap shot against deeply held faith-based belief in the sanctity of life and the immorality of abortion (which the RCC teaches and RCs should hold dear), and under their doctrine a person who encourages abortions is in such sin as to be out of God's saving grace (headed to hell barring repentance). In the case of Pelosi, under RC teaching she is not only hell-bound if she dies in this sin, she also is publicly leading (by example) and demonstrating to millions of US RCs a course of action that could lead them to hell also. In other words, because Pelosi influences millions of people to think their sin is not sin (under RC belief), it is appropriate and needful (for the spiritual well-being of the millions) to make her discipline public as well.

 

The difference between the UK and the US is that the Church of England is 'Established'. The USA has no 'Established' church and avowedly does not want one. Of course if the USA were to change it's mind and come under the aegis of the UK again, after so many years of vehement 'independence', things might be different for you all.
.

 

Are you saying that having an 'established' Christian church is a good thing, and that America should have one too?

 

Legislation to restrict terminations of pregnancy by providing strict guidelines concerning the circumstances under which the State will allow such operations to be carried out, is NOT promoting or encouraging the practice. It is seeking to protect against harm and regulate indiscriminate terminations which would otherwise take place outside the law anyway. A total ban on terminations of pregnancy under all and any circumstances would be completely unworkable and usher in a coercive and controlling society along the lines of that portrayed in The Handmaids Tale.
.