Revenue Canada threatened bishop

[Guest eureka]

Of course they should but that is not the same thing. The issue of separation of church and state is fundamental to the Freedoms afforded by democracy. The limits must be clear and they must not make either separate in peoples' lives. That is why I deplore what is happening in American politics now but I do not say the people should not have their say based on their beliefs; or that they hould not have guidance.

However, the separation is broken when the current President uses his"faith", if he really has one, to guide his political decisions.

[maplesyrup]

Whew!

I'm out of Greg's right wing purgatory.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The church or any other charitable organization is not allowed to campaign politically.  Read the story.

Who says they were? If I say Paul Martin is a jerk that's a political campaign? Churches have a right to inform their membership about the morality of life choices. The only people who worry about such things are those who are opposed to freedom of speech, expression and religion - which in Canada is most of the left.

I gather from your post that you feel tax-charities should be allowed to participate in political activity. Right?

In my opinion, the church heirarchy needs to focus on doing its job, like properly supervising the sick priests that have been sexually abusing little boys.

[Greg]

In my opinion, the church heirarchy needs to focus on doing its job, like properly supervising the sick priests that have been sexually abusing little boys.

If this is a joke, or some way to make a point out of maplesyrup's suspension, then you're playing with fire. This type of post is an obvious troll and I will not allow it to disrupt the flow of discussion in this thread.

Keep the discussion respectful and intelligent ...

Greg

Admin

[maplesyrup]

Greg...yopu are acting too much like the thought police.

Chill man!

You are abusing your powers and you haven't a clue what the word troll means.

Ban me if you wish, but just bear in mind you will be acting like a fascist!

[The Terrible Sweal]

In my opinion, the church heirarchy needs to focus on doing its job, like properly supervising the sick priests that have been sexually abusing little boys.

If this is a joke, or some way to make a point out of maplesyrup's suspension, then you're playing with fire. This type of post is an obvious troll and I will not allow it to disrupt the flow of discussion in this thread.

Keep the discussion respectful and intelligent ...

Greg

Admin

I enjoy participating here, unfortunately, I am unable to discern what makes this comment an "obvious troll", and so, your directive leaves me unable to reliably comply with your request going forward.

Please clarify what constitutes and "obvious troll" so that we can all censor ourselves to suit your preferences.

Thanks.

P.S. "respectful" of who/what?

[Greg]

Come on guys, this isn't rocket science.

The statement,

In my opinion, the church heirarchy needs to focus on doing its job, like properly supervising the sick priests that have been sexually abusing little boys.

has nothing to do with the topic at hand (political speech in the church) and is more disruptive than useful. If you read the rules and guidelines of this forum, you'll see it clearly states,

No Trolling/Flaming

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all. 

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

I find it puzzling that you're having such a hard time dealing with this straightforward concept, but perhaps before "going foward" you should read over the rules and guidelines again and take what it says to heart.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I actually looked for a link to the rules before posting my query, but couldn't find it.

Anyway, thank you for your reply. It contained the information I was seeking.

[JWayne625]

I think a church or any other chartible group has the right to point out certain facts which could influence the way some people vote. An issue that comes to mind is the fact that it was 14 years ago that the federal government under the P.C.'s made a committment to eliminate child poverty in Canada. Today child poverty is worse than it was back then, and getting worse every year. Under the strict guidelines imposed on the charitible organization I am involved with (food bank), it would violate those terms if we were to point out that certain candidates or parties are doing nothing to eleviate this problem, if the same Revenue Canada Agent were to use the same interpretation as has happened in this case.

I think both churches and other chartible organizations have an obligation to keep issues in front of the people, so that people have a clear understanding of the issues and how certain candidates or parties have or are dealing with those issues, before they place their votes. Some politicians would love to be able to keep certain issues from surfacing, especially at election time. I'm quite sure if that same Bishop were giving acolades as to the favourable accomplishments of this candidate or his/her Party, nothing would have been said, but since the comments were negative this Agent felt the need to intervene. If their Agent, Revenue Canada can threaten someone into not talking about how certain candidates handled or ignored issues, it is to the politician's advantage to have that done. Is that being political, or is that simply informing the public?

I feel that as long as we are not campaigning to vote against a specific individual candidate or Party, and are simply informing the public , that is not involving ourselves in political activity. Free speech allows one to inform others as to facts, unless of course one is living in a country like China, Cuba, North Korea, or some other totalitarian country where people are not allowed to speak out, and the people are too afraid of the consequences to do so.

[caesar]

I feel that as long as we are not campaigning to vote against a specific individual candidate or Party, and are simply informing the public , that is not involving ourselves in political activity

That is the same thing. It is political involvement. informing / campaigning where is the line??