From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: On topic? Right!
Date: 14 Nov 1992 03:55:17 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <roelle.721692247@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>Jimmy Swaggart did it.  So did Jim and Tammy Baker until he went to
>prison.  But this brings us back to your mandate for self-policing.
>When a TEV has a big enough following to go solo (e.g. out from under
>the church that ordained him/her), who does the policing without
>violoating the TEV's newly claimed religious [tax-] freedom?  

At that point, the televangelist is acting as an independent agent, and no
other religious bodies can be held responsible for his actions.  Why didn't the
his church boot him out years before they did?  One can only conclude that they
didn't because they approved of what he was doing (at least publicly).

>>They purport to represent the churches with which they're affiliated.  If the
>>churches don't publicly disagree with those claims, we must assume that they DO
>>indeed represent those churches.  As I said, self-policing is a must.
>
>Even if they do represent the churches with which they're affiliated,
>it does not follow that they represent all Christian denonenations.

To the extent that the churches they represent are affiliated with ecumenical
bodies, then they DO represent all the denominations affiliated with those
ecumenical bodies.

>Simply because Jimmy Swaggart pops up on the boob tube now and then
>does not mean that Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, and
>Pentacostals automatically agree with Swaggart.  Those church's 
>silence does not imply complicity in creed, word, or deed.

Depends.  If the Baptists etc. recognize his church and his church recognizes
him, then there IS complicity there.


>>>I imagine the T.V. evangelists would love the attention.  They would
>>>become victims of religious persecution,
>
>>Bullshit!  Religious persecution because their own church says they don't
>>represent the church?  Give me a break.
>
>Wrong Carl, by a long shot.

Gee.  If the church to which you belong says you don't represent the church,
then you're being persecuted.  Amazing!  Care to tell me how you manage to
rationalize THAT claim?

>>I call them as I see them.  When one Christian says "But those aren't real
>>Christians," yet does nothing to prevent them from claiming the authority of
>>the church, that's pretty undeniably hypocrisy, don't you think?
>
>Wrong again, Carl.  What you have is freedom of religion: "I might
>think my way is better but you have a right to your beliefs."  Your
>well-intentioned suggestion that "the church" do something about those
>who aren't real Christians was borne out in the Crusades, remember?

Do you really have that difficult time reading English?  I did NOT suggest that
the church attempt to suppress anyone.  I pointed out that it's pretty damned
hypocritical to allow someone to continue to claim he represents you, then
later on say, "Oh, but he didn't REALLY represent me."  Perhaps this particular
sort of plausible deniability strategy is so ingrained in you that you can't
even see a problem with it when it's explicitly pointed out to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic