BIG WIN FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN SOUTH CAROLINA
|| By FITSNEWS || South Carolina’s conservative breakaway Episcopalian church won a major victory before the Palmetto State’s circuit court this week – but the big winner in the case was religious freedom.
That the seceding churches in South Carolina’s “Great Episcopal Schism” were conservative – and the national church fighting to keep them in the fold was liberal – that doesn’t matter to us. The underlying issue is the right of individual congregations to decide for themselves how they wish to worship … and South Carolina’s Episcopalians have finally had their choice validated.
In late 2012, FITS broke the story of “rogue Bishop” Mark Lawrence of Charleston, S.C. – the Episcopal priest who was booted from the national church for refusing to adopt its views on gay marriage and the ordination of gay and female clergy.
As a result of the church’s action against him, Lawrence announced his intention to disassociate South Carolina’s Lower Diocese from the national church – a threat he eventually made good on.
The national Episcopal Church (TEC) wasn’t about to let its Diocese go without a fight, though – accusing Lawrence and other leaders of the breakaway diocese of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, trademark infringement and civil conspiracy, among other things. According to the national church the result of these alleged actions has been to “deprive Episcopalians loyal to the Episcopal Church of their property rights.”
Which they valued between $500-$800 million …
S.C. circuit court judge Diane Goodstein was having none of it.
“For over 200 years, the Diocese has governed itself through votes of its parish churches and clergy meeting in conventions,” her ruling stated.
That’s not about to change on her watch …
“With the freedom to associate goes its corollary, the freedom to disassociate,” Goodstein wrote, adding “there is no basis to the claim that the Diocese did not validly exercise its legal and constitutionally protected right to disassociate from TEC in October 2012.”
Accordingly, Goodstein rejected the national church’s bid to retain ownership of the Diocese’s property as well as its name, symbols, seals, etc.
Amen to that …
The South Carolina case is ground zero in a battle taking place all across the country between socially liberal and socially conservative congregations in multiple protestant denominations – typically over issues involving sexual orientation.
Our view on this issue has been consistent from the moment we broke the story …
“As we have stated from the beginning of this process, we believe individual congregations should be allowed to worship as they see fit – associating or disassociating with national denominations as they wish,” we wrote. “If a simple majority of a church’s members determines it wishes to enter or leave a specific denomination, then it should be permitted to do so.”
When do they start bombing each other and cutting heads? Never mind. Episcopalians. Religion of peace.
That still doesn’t answer the question of physical property – who owns that. I am Episcopalian – and in my view – this has schism has destroyed the Episcopal church.
Yes it did, the “breakaways” keep the buildings. http://www.thestate.com/2015/02/03/3967314_court-rules-breakaway-sc-episcopal.html?rh=1
The Radical Homosexual Lobby attacked Jesus Christ and God’s word. If you’re mad, make sure you know what is going on…
The Radical Equal Rights Lobby you mean? Gotta go radical when you want your Constitutional Rights when you are dealing with Constitutional Conservatives
You have NO RIGHT to force your immorality on the Christian Church…
Your sexual preference is NOT a CIVIL RIGHT. Those are already granted to you as an American citizen. Being gay does not expand your rights…Your bedroom habits do not give you Carte Blanche to bully everybody else into accepting what you do, on your terms…
But most in your lobby are too stupid to comprehend who, and what, you are…and what you’re trying to do to everybody else’s rights…
If the Episcopal church really has been destroyed, as you claim, then perhaps it destroyed itself by losing focus and being swayed by the latest fad.
Some of Goodsteins ruling will be overturned on appeal and before the drunk Chief Alcoholic, Jean Toad. And to think, it will be a “published” opinion (not one that gets hidden from the SE Reporter because many unpublished cases would expose CoRrUpTiOn and out of Order rulings.
It’s religion. Everything about it and around it is a fraud.
Liberalism is a religion, so you’re applying your words to Liberalism and Democrat god-Obama, too…right?
That so called fraud is responsible for practically all the advances of the modern world. Science, democracy, education and medicine. It’s responsible for ending slavery in the western world and legal segregation in the US.
You have to be joking. Democracy? Education? Science? The Ancient Greeks and even the Arabs might beg to differ. What it the name of that system of numbering we use in our math again? Oh Arabic, that’s it.
“In late 2012, FITS broke the story of “rogue Bishop” Mark Lawrence of Charleston, S.C.”
FITS: You didn’t break shit. The entire world knew. You reported a story, you did not break a story.
I agree. The rest of the media may have downplayed it…because it revealed the national liberal- Gay church to be GREEDY and a Bully…but FITS did not break it…
“You didn’t break shit”
Well, maybe he just broke wind . . .
HALLELUJAH….There is a God…..This is BIG. Thank you for reporting it FITS.
This ruling in effect says: If Christians refuse to abandon the Bible, they will not have their property seized by GREEDY, media-pleasing pop culture Relig-ites…
Thank God. And bless you BRAVE former Episcopalians for sticking to Christ…and not the decadent and immoral leftwing…
PS: The liberal national church was NOT fighting to keep them in the fold. The GREEDY National Liberal Church wanted to take what the small, Christ-adhering church had earned…and owned…It was NOT theirs…and the court BACKED the heroes…
Thank you also, GT, for sticking to Christ. Your profanity-laced tirades, ad hominem, and gay-sex references are most certainly from an individual wanting to represent the resurrected King to the fullest.
Stand in Judgment Much? LMAO…
Typical liberal. You hate God. You voted to take him out of the Democrat Platform…but you break your neck to try to use Him to manipulate the people who you hate for standing up for Him…
Kinda ignorant on your part, is it not?
You stick to your religion of Liberalism, and study what is demanded from you by your gods. I’ll worry about me….
For the last time bro, I’m not a liberal, YOU ARE. You don’t even realize it. Only liberals throw out nonsense like “Stand in Judgment Much? LMAO…”
“I’ll worry about me”. That’s a typical liberal, postmodern attitude. Somebody tries to hold you accountable for your hypocrisy and your inability to even care about living up to biblical standards and instead of repenting of your sin, you obfuscate and blame-shift. Then you have the gall to try and build a straw-man that I’m just “typical liberal” and I “hate God”. No, YOU DO. Atleast, you hate the ONE TRUE GOD. You love the god that lets you march to the beat of your own drum and say whatever you want without consequence.
My thou doth labor so intensely, talking yourself into it.
My scorn (and the truth backing it) must really bite you. LMAO…
You are hopeless. You can’t even respond to one word I say. My response (and the truth backing it) must really bite YOU. Liberalism has infected you to the core and yet you masquerade as defender of conservative values (to which I am in agreement with you), all the while using typical liberal tactics of bullying and hate-filled rhetoric. I speak the truth and you obfuscate. I respond and speak the truth, and you obfuscate more. You just don’t care about truth. It has no value to you. The only thing that has value is winning the browbeating battle. It just never ends with you. Lord have mercy on your soul.
My you’re desperate for my validation….
Here you go: Vote for Conservatives, and denounce the failure and damage of the left, and I’ll pat you on the back. Is that fair enough?
“My you’re desperate for my validation….” Ah, there we go again. More pointless and unsubstantiated pronouncements invoked solely to try and cover the fact that you can’t stay on point. I could say you’re desperate for a lot things and go on and on about which ones. But you know what, I would rather not get lost in a sea of childish babble that serves no purpose. My points still remain unaddressed no matter how much you would like to circumvent them. You can try, but my previous points still stand.
Here you go: I already vote for conservatives and, not only do I denounce liberals and liberalism as a whole, but I propose conservative solutions that actually would (and do) produce results. So, thank you for my pat on the back. I appreciate it. Not that it even matters, because that wasn’t even close to the original point of the discussion on this page. You tried really hard to move the goalposts. It was another clever attempt by you to get the discussion onto another subject, or at the very least, to somehow link them. But the fact still remains that you are a profane and uncivilized lemming who is incapable of correction in his conduct, despite you’re contention to be a representative of Christ. No amount of unbiblical “judgmental much?” rhetoric can change that.. “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, But he who hates reproof is stupid.”(Proverbs 12:1)
I await yet another one of your vapid responses.
LMAO…I shouldn’t bother, but this is kinda fun…Because I’m pretty good at human nature…
You’re like one of those Baptist Deacons, who stands by the church door, making pronouncements about who IS and who is NOT clean in the sight of God. I BETTER worship the way YOU deem appropriate…or you will D@*n me to H#!!…Ever been called pious or sanctimonious???…If not people are talking behind your back…no doubt…
I’m sorry pal. I was not raised by some cul-d-sac half-stepper in the burbs. I came up the hard way. I don’t march to norms of the soft and pampered…I’d NEVER need to validate myself through some self-righteous, manipulating judgmental @$$hole like you…
That said: Perhaps it is my penchant for TRUTH, honesty and consistency that has you addled…but for some reason, it seems you know I see you for who, and what you are…and you seem to know it…
But, foolishly, you think if you can denounce me, it changes what I revealed you to be….It may be a good idea for you to let go of the religiosity, and take a look at God. I actually pray that you do…People like you do tremendous damage to the Kingdom of God. And I think that is a very very damaging sin that I believe will be judged harshly because you turn so many away from God, because they do not want to be like you…
No, actually, you should bother. It’s an important subject and it needs to be vetted. I will at least give you credit this time for sticking to the original point. I think there is some incredibly thick irony in the things you say and it’s astounding that someone who regularly points out irony in what others say can’t see the irony in the things he says.
“You’re like one of those Baptist Deacons”. Really? Why not a Baptist preacher or a Baptist church-goer. What exactly makes you point out a “Baptist Deacon”? Seems like you may have had a bad experience with one and that is coloring your outlook. Nevertheless, it really is nothing more than an unfair that your starting to build your point on here. I’m not now nor did I ever grow up Baptist. I have respects for many Baptist congregations, but I don’t align myself with them and I have a particular disdain for the Bob Jones brand of Independent Fundamentalist Baptism.
“Who stands by the church door, making pronouncements about who IS and who is NOT clean in the sight of God.” What deacon does this, exactly? This, again, is nothing more than an ugly caricature you’re trying to paint. No “deacon” that I know of does anything of the sort, nor is it the extremist picture you paint of what I’m trying to do. Can you not see that this is what liberals typically do? They take standards that conservatives try to hold them to and then create an extremist picture that makes conservatives seem like fascists and bigots. That’s the same thing you’re trying to do to me. I’m merely holding you up to biblical standards of personal conduct and you respond by making me out to be some fundamentalist that thinks it’s their job to point out everybody’s faults. It’s not my job to make “pronouncements about who IS and is NOT clean in the sight of God”, but it iS my job to hold a fellow brother/sister accountable for their blatant disregard for standards of conduct laid out in God’s word. Not that I can just go around indiscriminately policing it, but we started this conversation talking about the church and your praise of a particular for “sticking with Christ”. I can’t just sit by and let you get away with that kind of hypocrisy when your personal is anything but “sticking with Christ”. You’ve made up your own rules for conduct and I’m merely pointing that out. There is no gray area in your conduct that would preclude from doing so, either. Your profanity-laced, hate filled rhetoric and invective are absolutely NOT fitting as far as personal conduct goes for somebody who claims to be a Christ-follower. That’s the only issue here. Don’t try to make this into something else. Either you’re justified in your conduct, or you’re not. If you are, then just say so. Don’t try to get off topic by telling me what I’m “like”.
“I BETTER worship the way YOU deem appropriate”. Who said anything about worship? I certainly didn’t. It’s seems to be another attempt by you to obfuscate and ignore the real discussion. You want to make it seem like I’m saying something that I never brought up and use it to disregard what I said.
“Ever been called pious or sanctimonious???” Of course I have. Most Christians get called that by non-Christians. Most conservatives get called that by liberals. How exactly does this help your argument? This is another part where you missed the irony that’s incredibly thick. This is what liberals call people with whom they disagree and here you are doing it to me. I feel more and more justified calling you an undercover liberal. You simply keep proving my point.
” I was not raised by some cul-d-sac half-stepper in the burbs. I came up the hard way.” And….? Again, how does this help your argument. Do you know whether or not I “came up the hard way”? It doesn’t matter because this is another spot where you get off point, as though coming “up the hard way” entitles you to be free in regard to godly standards.
“I don’t march to norms of the soft and pampered.” If I understand you right, you think that conducting yourself in a civilized and professional manner means that one marches “to norms of the soft and pampered”. This is another spot where you are simply getting off point and trying to pretend like I live a privileged life of silver spoons in mouth whenever I want one. Expressing yourself with profanity and inflammatory invective does not mean that you’re not “soft”, nor does mean you’re “soft” if you express yourself in a mild and straightforward manner. You have a warped view of what it means to be “soft” and “pampered”. It’s easy to be hateful and use colorful language to prove your points. It’s much harder to do so with civilized points of fact and respectful argumentation. Who is really “soft” here? You’re the one taking the easy route.
“I’d NEVER need to validate myself through some self-righteous, manipulating judgmental @$$hole like you…” It’s not getting validated, nor is it about following man-made rules of religion. It’s about conducting yourself “in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called” (Ephesians 4:1) Talk to the apostle Paul if you think that’s just “self-righteous”, “manipulative”, or “judgmental”. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It’s not up to me. It’s all about what the Word says. You can disagree if you want, but you’re only further proving my point resorting to further name-calling. You’re just being “judgmental” yourself in calling me names and you have specious examples to back it up.
“Perhaps it is my penchant for TRUTH, honesty and consistency that has you addled”. I’ve already said I agree with you philosophically as far as conservatism goes and the lies of liberalism. I have only responded regarding this subject because YOU ignore the truth about standards set for believers. I’m not holding up some tenets of fundamentalism that put every jot and tittle of your life under a microscope (I’ve already expressed my disdain for fundamentalism), but there is no gray area in your blatant disregard for the requirement of being a follower of Christ to ensure daily pursuit of holiness/godliness. That relates to your personal conduct and character. You are right on one point. Your “consistency” in expressing yourself in the ways you do certainly does have me addled, particularly when I agree with you philosophically.
“..but for some reason, it seems you know I see you for who, and what you are…and you seem to know it…” And what would that be exactly, other than the straw men you have made me out to be? Would you not consider this to be “self-righteous” and “judgmental”? Just curious. I know if I said something like this to you regarding your conduct, you would certainly respond with this. Actually, you already have.
“But, foolishly, you think if you can denounce me, it changes what I revealed you to be”. I’m not denouncing you, per se, I’m just denouncing your hypocrisy. There is a difference. You’re getting bent out of shape for my calling you out for it, but that doesn’t change what I revealed YOU to be.
“It may be a good idea for you to let go of the religiosity, and take a look at God.” Another comment straight out of the philosophy of post-modern liberalism. If someone tries to hold you accountable for your willful trampling of the gospel, it must be out of some pharisaic religiosity. It couldn’t possibly be anything else. Being a little “judgmental” again, aren’t we? Do you look at God and God’s Word to be held accountable for your conduct? Doesn’t mean you have to be perfect, but you do have to have some regard for conducting yourself in a holy manner (notice, I didn’t say “holier than thou”). It is not an option for followers of Jesus. You don’t get to just cerebrally believe the right things and pay lip-service to them. You also don’t live on an island where your life can’t be evaluated at all (that’s postmodern philosophy). The scriptures know nothing of the sort when it comes to living your life. What matters is not necessarily religion, but whether one’s religion is true or false.
“People like you do tremendous damage to the Kingdom of God.” I don’t make the rules. I would agree with you if I was just making stuff up based on man-made traditions (like the fundamentalists do), but I couldn’t care less about man-made rules and traditions. I care about the scriptures. You don’t seem to care one bit. In defending yourself, instead of using God’s Word, you used some nonsense about “coming up the hard way” and not being “soft and pampered”. I know you don’t think anything you say or do does “damage to the Kingdom”, so what exactly does? If nothing we say or do matters, we should just stop bringing up what anybody says or does and just “live and let live”.
“I think that is a very very damaging sin that I believe will be judged harshly because you turn so many away from God, because they do not want to be like you…” Holding a professing fellow believer accountable is a “very damaging sin”? We’re not talking about non-believers here. We’re talking about you and your hypocrisy, which you have failed to acknowledge. I understand people not wanting to be like me, but I didn’t want to be like me before I was a believer. Nobody, before they become a believer in Jesus, wants to pursue holiness and be held accountable. Again, how does this make your argument? Do they want to be like you? Does any of your hate-filled rhetoric and profanity-laced tirades make them “want to be like you”? It’s just more incredibly irony. Your whole post is chock so full of it that it’s astounding.
Perhaps you should become a GT scholar, and submit this as your thesis, or dissertation.
You seem to find me VERY interesting. Sorry I cannot reciprocate. But in time you may move forward.
And forgive me for not reading more than the first two or three lines. The more I see some others’ contributions, it flatters me. It helps me understand just how insightful I am…and how well – and concisely – I do things…
I admire those who remain faithful to the Word of God, even when pop culture changes.
“. . . .even when pop culture changes.”
Pop culture? LOL
I admire those who remain faithful to the Word of God and practice the golden rule and are not Holier-than-Thou.
Unfortunately most of those around these parts that constantly prattle on about the “Word of God” are the biggest hypocrites in the whole wide world.
Dear SCBlues, It’s always funny to hear from a big hypocrite like you! LOL
Dear Joan – Go fuck yourself. LOL
Facts are wrong. Canon that was adopted gave each diocese of TEC by authority of the Bishop (i.e. Mark Lawrence as Bishop of South Carolina) the opportunity to accept or decline the sacramental rite marriage to LGBTQ Episcopalians based on the individual concerns of each diocese. Bishop Lawrence had the opportunity to stay and was never forced to adopt the canon within his diocese. Regardless, moving forward, all Anglicans must pray for unity and peace, and that the Diocese of South Carolina will be given a place in the Anglican communion.
“Priesthood of all believers”. Remember that guy? Don’t lose sleep over the little stuff.
There were many other issues involved in the decision to leave, too. Bishop Lawrence was NOT given “the opportunity to stay”. He actually tried very hard to keep the Diocese “Intact and In TEC”, and then TEC accused him of abandonment – that’s when the diocese voted to withdraw from TEC.
At least this first round of the court battle is finally done. Thanks be to God!
Why are there Southern Baptists, as distinct from simple Baptists? Because the Southerners split off due to issues connected with slavery. In the 1840s some Christians swore by the biblical inerrancy of slavery. Now it’s the biblical inerrancy of homosexuality. Some things don’t change much. I say: Reject mythology. Embrace free thought.
Free thought is what the court embraced. Faith is free thought. Communism started as free thought, then when it came to power it denied free thought to others.
You might say the same about our Republic form of government. Most politicians bought off and expressing the thoughst of their handlers instead of that of the electorate.
Faith within the context of a particular religion is based on an adherence to dogma — the polar opposite of free thought. By presenting the options as free thought or Communist suppression you have provided an excellent example of a false dichotomy.
“With the freedom to associate goes its corollary, the freedom to disassociate,”
Now if someone could get the Supreme Court to agree….
‘Tax the churches.Tax the fuck out of the churches.’ Frank Zappa
Don’t eat the yellow snow
He certainly was the deep thinker. A genius in our time.
You right. I got to go tend to my dental floss bushes. That shit don’t grow by itself you know
Move to Montana
He was nothing more than a weirdos weirdo, couched in a supposed intellectual superiority. His music sucked too.
He had above average intelligence but below average compassion and outright disdain for the common man, which is why mostly Liberals loved him. He thought he knew best on everything and championed government deciding everything for everyone, as long as government agreed with him.
A hypocrite extraordinaire.
He’s often misunderstood,and has a huge body of work.If you couldn’t read music,it was hard to get in his band.There’s a great deal of his music I don’t like,but the mainly instrumental stuff is brilliant,and every night somewhere in the world,his music is still being played by ‘serious’ musicians.For your edification(Zappa’s last appearance onstage-prostate cancer):
“Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.”
Don’t know if Frank Zappa said it…but this dude (TBG) abides.
So, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, if you go for all these fairy tales, that “evil” woman convinced the man to eat the apple, but the apple came from the Tree of Knowledge. And the punishment that was then handed down, the woman gets to bleed and the guy’s got to go to work, is the result of a man desiring, because his woman suggested that it would be a good idea, that he get all the knowledge that was supposedly the property and domain of God. So, that right away sets up Christianity as an anti-intellectual religion. You never want to be that smart. If you’re a woman, it’s going to be running down your leg, and if you’re a guy, you’re going to be in the salt mines for the rest of your life. So, just be a dumb fuck and you’ll all go to heaven. That’s the subtext of Christianity.
— Frank Zappa
Tax the NAACP? The Nature Conservancy? The Islamic mosques? The Democratic party? The high schools and universities? The labor unions? The homeowner associations? The Girl Scouts? The Gay and Lesbian Alliance? The cities and counties? The hospitals and nursing homes? And definitely tax the orphanages!!
‘Be quiet.You’ll hurt your throat.’
As always, the real winners are the lawyers.
People starving to death, people killing each other, people who need medicines or surgeries, the homeless, the disabled, the mentally ill, orphans…
There’s so much to do in this world besides worrying about who’s boning who. Religious freedom? That’s bullcrap. This is just churches fighting amongst themselves over “the gays” and pissing tons of time and money down the drain in the court system over something trivial in the grand scheme of things.
If those churchgoers really want to feel closer to God, they should send their 10% to a few good charities instead of to their church’s legal team.
“The underlying issue is the right of individual congregations to decide for themselves how they wish to worship”
Do this and you are a Baptist church.
Come join Trinity Episcopal in Abbeville. We are a Gothic beauty with all the age and beauty of an historic church and traditional worship and hymns. We are a little bit High Church. We are progressive and open to new ideas. No one should be barred from God’s fold. Jesus loved everybody, gay or straight.
Yes, Jesus loved everybody! (And we should too!) But Jesus also hated sin.
th’ secession of da low countrie church is a mighty fine thing.
they entered into th’ national (sic) church (???) freely an’ left freely when dey changed th’ programme.
why should they have t’ stay in an unhappiie union?