|
Attn: VivianC | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
I believe I answered that... | by esbita | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| sort of. |
by unjust |
2005-10-06 09:34:19 |
you're looking at 2 distinct scenerios.
allow me to give examples:
a paid secretary at the office of a catholic -probably- is a member of the catholic church, however the church has a LONG history of hiring persons of differing faiths to perform various tasks for them, including the preperation and manufacture of specifically liturgical materials.
the volunteer secretary in the local parish is most certainly a member of the parish, as a random stranger would have no reason for donating their time charitably to an unknown/unaffiliated/uninteresting church.
if the position is paid, it's professional irreguardless of if you agree or disagree with the nature of the work. now preists for example are paid, however they are a different ball of wax.
should habitat for humanity prohibit hindu's from helping to build a house? most people would see that as discrimination, which if you actually have read a bit of the christian bible you would know to be immoral.
i will not disagree that administerative expenses and direct costs (say the cost of fuel and food and advertising for a soup kitchen) could reasonably be reimbursed by the gvt, however, costs that would only apply in a position where the gvt was appropreiately cited as the funding source. i.e. 1st lutheran church's soup kitchen with uncle sam's soup.
as soon as you do not disclose the funding source, you are inherently advocating that entity by granting them publicity, which imho is prohibited under seperation of church and state.
remember ethics and morality is NOT just what is legal or illegal. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
But Uncle Sam wouldn't be distributing the soup... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 09:48:00 |
|
so here is the question: | by unjust | 2005-10-06 09:59:47 |
|
It's so they can do more. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 10:45:56 |
|
no. you entirely missed my point | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:39:09 |
|
The legality has already been covered before. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:46:16 |
|
you still miss my point. | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:14:43 |
|
The main focus of the article I posted... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:22:29 |
|
no, personally i think afirmative action | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:38:58 |
|
You've been taking an absolutist position... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:47:09 |
|
you misconstrue my point | by unjust | 2005-10-06 15:06:50 |
|
A note on the legality issue. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:24:41 |
|
actually i was arguing wether | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:45:30 |
|
A point of agreement: | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:35:21 |
|
Yes, but consider what the current laws say. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 10:49:11 |
|
True. It doesn't mean the judge was right | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:56:31 |
|
Just heading off at the pass. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 11:00:47 |
|
actually | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:21:58 |
|
Internal functions? | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:25:44 |
|
you're confusing my arguments | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:41:51 |
