Popes Squad Coming To Try Stamp Out Free Thought?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I have no problem with people practising a religion, it's just that the leaders of the catholic church are criminals plain and simple and a lot of the institutional practices are supportive of this.

The catholic church needs a secular Martin Luther who doesn't hate the poor, like Luther did, to at least bring the institution up to date.

I don't think secular views on issues regarding condoms, putting paedophiles in jail instead of new dioceses/parishes, etc... is going to fragment the catholic religion, sure don't they change the story every now and again themselves anyway :rolleyes:

Also, the paedophile apologist line is only getting old hat because everybody grudgingly accepts that nothing is going to be done about these criminals, it's like a secret we're all in on and have accepted but that doesn't make it right.

Not all of them are criminals. Also, there are a number of priests in jail for the crimes thay have committed. Anyone else found to have committed crimes will, I assume follow. The law certainly does not take you profession into account when putting you on trial.

ricman

its hard to respect the church at the moment with the present leadership.EG
THE POPE made a statement saying gays were a significant threat to society or a dangerous influence.SO lets not worry about,crime, poverty, corruption ,nuclear proliferation ,middle east wars , we should be worried about gays.Yeah, That makes sense.HE sounds completely unaware of the problems of ordinary people.most catholics in ireland follow their own beliefs re contraception ,living together be4 marriage etc,they dont just blindly follow the local priest.

Min

ricman wrote: »

its hard to respect the church at the moment with the present leadership.EG
THE POPE made a statement saying gays were a significant threat to society or a dangerous influence.SO lets not worry about,crime, poverty, corruption ,nuclear proliferation ,middle east wars , we should be worried about gays.Yeah, That makes sense.HE sounds completely unaware of the problems of ordinary people.most catholics in ireland follow their own beliefs re contraception ,living together be4 marriage etc,they dont just blindly follow the local priest.

The church is particularly sensitive about gays at the moment given most of the sexual crimes committed in the church were of the same sex variety, usually male priest sexually abusing young male teenage boys, something like 80% to 90% of cases were of hebephilia.

moonpurple

for a long time the only choice a gay man could make in ireland was to join the priests...:pac:

philologos

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

IThe catholic church needs a secular Martin Luther who doesn't hate the poor, like Luther did, to at least bring the institution up to date.

I don't think secular views on issues regarding condoms, putting paedophiles in jail instead of new dioceses/parishes, etc... is going to fragment the catholic religion, sure don't they change the story every now and again themselves anyway :rolleyes:

Secular views have no place in any religious organisation, precisely because secular is that which rejects religion and religious considerations. All religious groups (Christian and non-Christian) are concerned with theology.

One doesn't have to be secular minded in any way to see that there is a case for condom use, and putting paedophiles in jail where all people who commit serious sexual abuse against minors should be irrespective of religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs.

All that is needed is a respect for justice and State authority. Christians have differing views to the rest of society regarding sexual ethics, so it is hardly likely that the churches (note plural) will be holding the same view as the rest of secular society. Why? There is something different about Christianity.

owenc

Why don't they grow up and come into reality and change some things, i.e let woman be priests, let priests marry... etc... because this really is getting really old and tiring the way they go on, they should also add a little fun into their services, i.e add new things every week like hymns, because every single week they say the same stuff (everytime i've been there i.e a christiening or whatever they have done the same stuff) "we beleive in one god" etc... it gets boring after a while.

reprazant

owenc wrote: »

Why don't they grow up and come into reality and change some things, i.e let woman be priests, let priests marry... etc... because this really is getting really old and tiring the way they go on, they should also add a little fun into their services, i.e add new things every week like hymns, because every single week they say the same stuff (everytime i've been there i.e a christiening or whatever they have done the same stuff) "we beleive in one god" etc... it gets boring after a while.

If they did that would you believe in god, or, if you do, start going to mass?

I doubt it.

Also, the introducing hymns. Are you actually saying that singing would make you go to mass? Seriously?

Mike 1972

moonpurple wrote: »

for a long time the only choice a gay man who wasnt smart enough to leave the country could make in ireland was to join the priests...:pac:

FYP

Nevyn

I am glad this is happening, been waiting from when he became pope.
I think it is just the kick up the hole this country needs to become a properly a secular republic. We have far too many people who are lapsed catholics or have no faith what so ever propping up the church due to tradition while not being observant or adhereant to the laws of the church.

Let the roman catholic church be come iron fisted and rigid in it's rules once again and turn people away from sacrements, so that people will leave and give up the farce or go find a chruch which is more inline with what they belive themselves.

philologos

Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say secular republic?

Do you mean:
1) Religious institutions shouldn't directly interfere with the State, and that religious institutions should be as free as possible.
or
2) People shouldn't publically express religious belief, and that all belief should be a private matter.

sensibleken

All Hail the jewish sky zombie!

moonpurple

+1

Sanjuro

To be honest, whatever the Church wants to preach to it's congregation, it's welcome to. If people are stupid enough to believe in that hokum in the first place, they're not exactly going to quibble on the details. It's when the RCC steps outside the church (so to speak), and tries to preach to the rest of us, and get involved in non-RCC issues that we should really be getting up in arms.

philologos

Sanjuro wrote: »

It's when the RCC steps outside the church (so to speak), and tries to preach to the rest of us, and get involved in non-RCC issues that we should really be getting up in arms.

It would be your right to "get up in arms" as in exercising ones free speech to criticise the RCC in doing so. However, it is also the right of people in general, including the RCC to evangelise. I can't imagine this being too effective if people are merely saying that there is a party line, and their church is beyond question.

If this is the understanding the RCC seeks to apply to itself, I'd question if it has learned anything. The whole problem was started by a mentality that the RCC as an institution is infallible, and unquestionable.

I can't help but think that this is a move in the wrong direction.

sensibleken

Sanjuro wrote: »

To be honest, whatever the Church wants to preach to it's congregation, it's welcome to. If people are stupid enough to believe in that hokum in the first place, they're not exactly going to quibble on the details. It's when the RCC steps outside the church (so to speak), and tries to preach to the rest of us, and get involved in non-RCC issues that we should really be getting up in arms.

id be inclined to agree if they werent still involved in education which makes what they say relevant to us who are non religious.

personally i think they have broken the law by not reporting crimes (conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) as a matter of policy. they are agents of a foreign state that has abused irish citizens. so i think we should declare them an illegal orgainisation and throw them out of the country. a little extremem maybe but if a corporation did the same that they did this is how they would be treated.

Sanjuro

sensibleken wrote: »

id be inclined to agree if they werent still involved in education which makes what they say relevant to us who are non religious.

personally i think they have broken the law by not reporting crimes (conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) as a matter of policy. they are agents of a foreign state that has abused irish citizens. so i think we should declare them an illegal orgainisation and throw them out of the country. a little extremem maybe but if a corporation did the same that they did this is how they would be treated.

Realistically, the last place that's going to declare the RCC an illegal organisation (other than Vatican City!) is Ireland. But the first steps in the right direction would be to prosecute those involved in the sexual scandals, and a separation of church and state. Unfortunately, neither seem particularly realistic at this stage.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say secular republic?

Do you mean:
1) Religious institutions shouldn't directly interfere with the State, and that religious institutions should be as free as possible.

No, they should be bound by law like the rest of us and they should not be the
health and educational institution of this country. Currently it's part of the State with the amount of schools and hospitals which are ran by the church but funded buy the State.

Jakkass wrote: »

or
2) People shouldn't publically express religious belief, and that all belief should be a private matter.

Depends on what you mean by publicly express, it should be bound by the same laws as freedom of speech, which doesn't allow someone to shout 'Fire' in a cinema.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

No, they should be bound by law like the rest of us and they should not be the
health and educational institution of this country. Currently it's part of the State with the amount of schools and hospitals which are ran by the church but funded buy the State.

I never said that they shouldn't be bound by law, that's what I meant by "as possible". I think religion should be as free as possible.

As for the schools, I've put forward the view that the number of RCC schools needs to be reduced, and more alternatives created. As far as I recall, the State has plans already to do this.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by publicly express, it should be bound by the same laws as freedom of speech, which doesn't allow someone to shout 'Fire' in a cinema.

I mean in terms of evangelism and in other respects. Speaking freely about ones beliefs. There is a difference between the operation of the State, and the rights of individuals.

ricman

Protestant priests are married and there s no problem there, it brings them into the community ,a priest thats married is more likely to understand peoples problems than one who has never been in a relationship or brought up a family.The church should not in the business of preaching hate or discrimination against certain groups, eg gay people.
i dont remember jesus discriminating or preaching hate against anyone in the bible.
if i was a priest i,d be criticising fraudalent bankers and corrupt politicians who destroyed the economy and then when they are caught retire on a 1million euro pension .

Min

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am glad this is happening, been waiting from when he became pope.
I think it is just the kick up the hole this country needs to become a properly a secular republic. We have far too many people who are lapsed catholics or have no faith what so ever propping up the church due to tradition while not being observant or adhereant to the laws of the church.

Let the roman catholic church be come iron fisted and rigid in it's rules once again and turn people away from sacrements, so that people will leave and give up the farce or go find a chruch which is more inline with what they belive themselves.

A good article on the present Pope not long after he was elected and relevant to the quoted post above.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/world/europe/29iht-church.html

MrPudding

fontanalis wrote: »

Wasn't the nurse suspended after a patient comaplained? If so, tough titties, do her job. If not then that's out of order.
How is evangelsim being restricted?

It was actually a family member that complained.

Jakkass wrote: »

On the prayer case, all it takes is "No, I don't want to be prayed for". Rather than taking action against someone for it.

She was not suspended for saying a prayer, per se. As I am sure you recall from the rather large thread on this particular incident, the nurse in question had been warned previously about praying or offering to pray for patients. Her contract of employment with her employer specifically stated that employee’s religious beliefs should be kept to themselves.

She was suspended for repeatedly breaching the terms of her employment contact despite being warned about her conduct.

MrP

philologos

MrPudding: What place does prayer have in terms of employment to begin with? It might also be a reasonable extension, to suggest that terms of employment may actually be reasonable. Indeed, and if such terms come into effect in the middle of ones employment, this happens to make the situation more difficult.

It appears that the LibCon government will have to consider the issue over the next while given the comment on it's new Programme for Government. Particularly given that they have said the following:

Each department will respond on the comment themes that fall within their policy areas. They will particularly address issues that raised the greatest level of comments, and they will consider all constructive ideas and suggestions in future policy development.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that they shouldn't be bound by law, that's what I meant by "as possible". I think religion should be as free as possible.

What do you mean by 'free'?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the schools, I've put forward the view that the number of RCC schools needs to be reduced, and more alternatives created. As far as I recall, the State has plans already to do this.

Got any links to that?

I know the church has already moved some schools away from orders into trusts. To protect the assets of the Christian brother's school from legal action due to the abuse perpatrated by member of the order, the schools were put into a trust and are now called Edmund Rice schools named after the founder of the Christian brother's order and that was done in 1999 before the scandals started to break. But that was actions take by the order and the church and not the state.

Jakkass wrote: »

I mean in terms of evangelism and in other respects. Speaking freely about ones beliefs. There is a difference between the operation of the State, and the rights of individuals.

It depends, as ever one person's rights end where the rights of another person starts.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

What do you mean by 'free'?

I mean that churches shouldn't be subjected to unwarranted interference. Free to set up, free to exercise, free to share, free to work within communities.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Got any links to that?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0306/1224265709425.html

Thaedydal wrote: »

It depends, as ever one person's rights end where the rights of another person starts.

I'm not sure. If I am merely talking about handing our promotional material, or talking about the Gospel in public, as many people do. I can't see how there could be any reasonable objection to that. People do have the option of simply ignoring what someone else is saying.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

I mean that churches shouldn't be subjected to unwarranted interference. Free to set up, free to exercise, free to share, free to work within communities.

That is the case for the most part.
There have been a lot of 'churches' and communities set up in the D15 area.
The hard part is getting them legally recognised but there is a process to do so.

Jakkass wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0306/1224265709425.html

There is talk about it but no plans on how to make it happen.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure. If I am merely talking about handing our promotional material, or talking about the Gospel in public, as many people do. I can't see how there could be any reasonable objection to that. People do have the option of simply ignoring what someone else is saying.

There has to be limits, tbh I think that door stepping should not be allowed,
I have gotten sick of the legion of Mary, Jehovahs, mormons and two other smaller christian churches knocking on my door.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

MrPudding: What place does prayer have in terms of employment to begin with? It might also be a reasonable extension, to suggest that terms of employment may actually be reasonable. Indeed, and if such terms come into effect in the middle of ones employment, this happens to make the situation more difficult.

It appears that the LibCon government will have to consider the issue over the next while given the comment on it's new Programme for Government. Particularly given that they have said the following:

Nothing is going to change with regards to state paid nurses offering prayer to patients, human rights extend to the patients as well, not just the religious...

If people are unwell they shouldn't have to put up with some body they entrust only with their medical well-being foisting religious utterings nor be put in the position of risking offending their carer by refusing, it was a wholly unprofessional thing to do irrespective of terms of employment. Considering the terms of employment, plain silly.

dublinguy2004

sensibleken wrote: »

id be inclined to agree if they werent still involved in education which makes what they say relevant to us who are non religious.

personally i think they have broken the law by not reporting crimes (conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) as a matter of policy. they are agents of a foreign state that has abused irish citizens. so i think we should declare them an illegal orgainisation and throw them out of the country. a little extremem maybe but if a corporation did the same that they did this is how they would be treated.

What law do you refer to?

dublinguy2004

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Nothing is going to change with regards to state paid nurses offering prayer to patients, human rights extend to the patients as well, not just the religious...

If people are unwell they shouldn't have to put up with some body they entrust only with their medical well-being foisting religious utterings nor be put in the position of risking offending their carer by refusing, it was a wholly unprofessional thing to do irrespective of terms of employment. Considering the terms of employment, plain silly.

You'd be surprised how many so-called atheists/secularists/humanists cry for a priest on their death bed (not to mention the desire to have their funerals in a church and be buried on sacred grounds). Taking the risk of meeting your maker with final impenitence hanging over you is arrogant at best, downright stupid at worst.

Pittens

they are agents of a foreign state that has abused irish citizens.

That kind of phraseology is a bit sinister. Reminiscent of English puritan, or American know Nothing bigotry. Are Anglicans are agents of a foreign State? Jews with loyalty for Israel? Muslims who pray to Mecca?

As usual with these threads there are reasonable positions - the Bishops should be prosecuted ( the most reasonable), the schools made secular ( reasonable but I worry about getting comprehensives), and then the totally unreasonable almost fascist belief that a religion needs to be turfed out of the Country. No idea what is meant by that, but it is not the most democratic of ideals. And if said about a minority religion, I think that we would be visited by the ghost of Nodin.

The entire thread is of that type, in fact, an ridiculous headline by the Independent (and nonsense written by everybody else ) about the Catholic Churche's modern day ability to curtail free speech, but beyond that demands for the curtailment of fee religious speech by Ireland's angry secularists.

Apples. Trees.

sensibleken

dublinguy2004 wrote: »

What law do you refer to?

conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

Ickle Magoo

dublinguy2004 wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many so-called atheists/secularists/humanists cry for a priest on their death bed (not to mention the desire to have their funerals in a church and be buried on sacred grounds). Taking the risk of meeting your maker with final impenitence hanging over you is arrogant at best, downright stupid at worst.

If I'd be surprised, perhaps you could provide some surprising links?

A patient requesting a priest is one thing, a nurse asking a patient if they want her to pray for them is something else altogether.

dublinguy2004

sensibleken wrote: »

conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

What statute would that fall under?

When you figure that out, perhaps you could give some examples of legal precedent as to how the law might be applied.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

That is the case for the most part.
There have been a lot of 'churches' and communities set up in the D15 area.
The hard part is getting them legally recognised but there is a process to do so.

Nobody said that there shouldn't be a process to get them set up. That would be warranted. I am referring to "unwarranted" State interference that would harm the practice of any community of believers.

Although, it is conceivable that house churches, or smaller groups could be active without going through this process if they are not looking for tax-exempt status.

Thaedydal wrote: »

There has to be limits, tbh I think that door stepping should not be allowed,
I have gotten sick of the legion of Mary, Jehovahs, mormons and two other smaller christian churches knocking on my door.

You can tell them kindly to leave, or just don't answer the door?

dublinguy2004

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If I'd be surprised, perhaps you could provide some surprising links?

A patient requesting a priest is one thing, a nurse asking a patient if they want her to pray for them is something else altogether.

Catholic nurse says she'll pray for a sick person in Catholic hospital. Shock horror! :eek:

Pittens

You can tell them kindly to leave, or just don't answer the door?

In that case I agree with Thaedydal, as her property is private she has a right to put up a sign asking people to not call.

sensibleken

Pittens wrote: »

That kind of phraseology is a bit sinister. Reminiscent of English puritan, or American know Nothing bigotry. Are Anglicans are agents of a foreign State? Jews with loyalty for Israel? Muslims who pray to Mecca?

As usual with these threads there are reasonable positions - the Bishops should be prosecuted ( the most reasonable), the schools made secular ( reasonable but I worry about getting comprehensives), and then the totally unreasonable almost fascist belief that a religion needs to be turfed out of the Country. No idea what is meant by that, but it is not the most democratic of ideals. And if said about a minority religion, I think that we would be visited by the ghost of Nodin.

The entire thread is of that type, in fact, an ridiculous headline by the Independent and nonsense written by everybody else about the Catholic Churches modern day ability to curtail free speech, but beyond that demands for the curtailment of fee religious speech by Ireland's angry secularists.

Apples. Trees.

if they are in the pay of a foreign state an answer to those serving a foreign state their jobs include collecting money for that foreign state then yes they are agents of that state, you can substitute employee if you like.

i try to be reasonable in most situations but with the catholic church i cannot be.
i am not advocating curtailing religious free speech at all. the catholic church is an organisation whose members have broken laws and those members should be punished individually. however, as this was covered up and facilitated by the policies of the organisation itself then that is a whole other thing. if it was a secular organisation i would like to have seen then run out of the country and just because they are a religious institution i do not see why they should be judged any different.

Pittens

if it was a secular organisation i would like to have seen then run out of the country and just because they are a religious institution i do not see why they should be judged any different.

So bascially because some of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and some priests, are involved with this you are

1) Going to stop (effectively) the right of Ireland's Catholics to see their priests or bishops, attend shcools or attend sacrements.
2) Seize the property of the Catholic church and hand it to the State ( or another religion?)
3) Ban priests from schools, churches and other proselytizing.

I see. Thats been done before.

It didnt work.

philologos

Pittens wrote: »

In that case I agree with Thaedydal, as her property is private she has a right to put up a sign asking people to not call.

Of course she does. I never said she couldn't put up a sign or anything else. What being discussed was whether or not the practice should be 100% illegal, not whether or not she is within her rights to put up any sign in her garden.

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody said that there shouldn't be a process to get them set up. That would be warranted. I am referring to "unwarranted" State interference that would harm the practice of any community of believers.

Such as?

Jakkass wrote: »

Although, it is conceivable that house churches, or smaller groups could be active without going through this process if they are not looking for tax-exempt status.

There is still an issue if staff/pastors are being paid a stipend from the community.

Jakkass wrote: »

You can tell them kindly to leave, or just don't answer the door?

I've had to lodge letters with the two kingdom halls in the area, telling them to not call to the door, apprently a non Christian and non Judaic religion household was seen as a challenge.

I am entitled to enjoy my home peacefully with out someone calling here at least once a week to try and talk to me about their Christ and usually knowing less about thier bible then me.


If those of a faith are organising get together or worship or what ever that's fine, each to their own, but it's an issue when it intersects with the rights and lives of others.

Why should I have to put up a sign and mark my house out as different?
Should I have to wear one on my clothes as well?
If people want to know about a religion or spiritual path they will go seek it out.

Pittens

Well it should be 100% illegal if people have said sign. Including canvassers.

Nevyn

dublinguy2004 wrote: »

Catholic nurse says she'll pray for a sick person in Catholic hospital. Shock horror! :eek:

Which is funded and ran by the State in what is meant to be a secular republic.

Pittens

Which is funded and ran by the State in what is meant to be a secular republic.

Is it?

dublinguy2004

sensibleken wrote: »

if they are in the pay of a foreign state an answer to those serving a foreign state their jobs include collecting money for that foreign state then yes they are agents of that state, you can substitute employee if you like.

i try to be reasonable in most situations but with the catholic church i cannot be.
i am not advocating curtailing religious free speech at all. the catholic church is an organisation whose members have broken laws and those members should be punished individually. however, as this was covered up and facilitated by the policies of the organisation itself then that is a whole other thing. if it was a secular organisation i would like to have seen then run out of the country and just because they are a religious institution i do not see why they should be judged any different.

Just like the HSE and the Department of Children. Right?

Lux23

Well that will be a wasted trip. Its amusing that they think this would actually still work in Ireland.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

I've had to lodge letters with the two kingdom halls in the area, telling them to not call to the door, apprently a non Christian and non Judaic religion household was seen as a challenge.

I am entitled to enjoy my home peacefully with out someone calling here at least once a week to try and talk to me about their Christ and usually knowing less about thier bible then me.

Agreed. I would also think that they are entitled to do this if they will. Pittens' solution seems most reasonable to me. Inform them that you don't want to be visited, that should be the end of it. If not that's disrespectful of them.

Thaedydal wrote: »

If those of a faith are organising get together or worship or what ever that's fine, each to their own, but it's an issue when it intersects with the rights and lives of others.

I don't know about that. I don't think faith should of necessity be a private matter, and that people should be free to promote their beliefs in a respectful manner like is the case in most countries at the minute.

Pittens

Just like the HSE and the Department of Children. Right?

The English State should run the English State out of England.

dublinguy2004

Pittens wrote: »

The English State should run the English State out of England.

Ah yes... The elusive Secular Utopia.

moonpurple

france and usa are good examples of the separation of church and state, france in particular for us,

Motivations
There are a number of proposed reasons to support a separation of church and state:
The rights of the minority have historically been violated by the rights of the majority. Members of a non-majority religion often find themselves persecuted, socially shunned, and harassed.
The church might harm the state. For example, religious conviction might cause the state to become involved in a disastrous war, or to remain pacific when force is necessary for the preservation of the state. It may also influence public policies in a manner detrimental to those who do not follow all the church's teachings; for instance, a ban on homosexual activity (see sodomy law) or abortion, decided for religious reasons, harms those who feel they have the right to such practices. In addition, religious conviction may make political debate difficult, it being impossible to contradict arguments which, essentially, arise from personal faith. Granting them official status allows politicians to use religion as an argument of authority.
The state might harm the church. For example, the state might dictate a religious ceremony that the church's dogma declares is wrong; or, the state may force the participation of religious people in some aspect of civic life in a manner that offends their religious convictions and offends their conscience; or, the state may discriminate in favor of one church and against members of other churches.

Pittens

Good one moon purple. Moving the thread along from "banning the Catholic Church" to a secular State is a movement to sanity.

sensibleken

Pittens wrote: »

So bascially because some of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and some priests, are involved with this you are

1) Going to stop (effectively) the right of Ireland's Catholics to see their priests or bishops, attend shcools or attend sacrements.
2) Seize the property of the Catholic church and hand it to the State ( or another religion?)
3) Ban priests from schools, churches and other proselytizing.

I see. Thats been done before.

It didnt work.

comparing what im suggesting to the penal laws is a bit silly as it ignores the historical context of the penal laws.

if it was some of the heirarchy of the church that could be dealt with. but it is the fact that it was the policy of the church from the top down to hid these criminals that is the problem.

yes, i recognise that theres difference between throwing out the church and throwing out some other organisation for such appauling behaviour. I do not think they should be treated any differently that an equivalent company just because they have allot of customer loyalty.

and since so much property was given to the church for education, which they ballsed up, i would have no problem and having that seized by the state

but what i say will never come to pass. so ill tow the moderate line and call for a complete separation of church and state while hoping members of that stupid club will come to thier senses