Judge in Episcopal schism trial: It's a civil matter

Jul 23, 2014 Full story: Post and Courier 19

The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, joined by the Presbyterian Church and the United Method Church, is among those asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Texas case similar to the schism in South Carolina.

Full Story

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1 Jul 26, 2014
So, according to this recanting of current schismatic events in TEC, the question boils down to a matter of Constitutional principle in our federal Republic vs. State's rights and the application of neutral, secular law at the local level.

But, I think it is more than just a question of "religious freedom." These questions of religious freedom, including the recent ruling regarding claims of this principle by Hobby Lobby, are showing that there are actual conflicts of interest arising within the structure of the Constitution.

I think you have to take the issue into a step beyond the "right" of religious practice. For instance, does "religious freedom" give the local Imam the right to apply Shariah Law if such application is in conflict with American Civil Law?

Recently, in Philadelphia, I believe, the local Muslim authority was found attempting to cut the hand off of a man they determined to have stolen some property. Do they have the right to do this? Under the principle of "religious freedom" they say they do.

I believe that TEC has a legitimate question for the SCOTUS.

Where does and to what extent does the authority of a national or interstate Church reside? Because, if it is determined that such authority is or can only be determined within the matters of State's Rights, then that Church is effectively broken apart along State's boundaries, freeing the local Church diocesan units to be self-determinative under the laws of the particular State.

In the extreme, does this also apply, in question, to the Roman Catholic Church?

Is there a partial answer to this in the case of the St. Louis, MO, St. Stanislaus Kostka Church, an independent Catholic Church that successfully broke out of its purview under the Roman Church Diocese?

Rev. Ken
George

Jacksonville, FL

#2 Jul 28, 2014
RevKen wrote:
I believe that TEC has a legitimate question for the SCOTUS.
Where does and to what extent does the authority of a national or interstate Church reside? Because, if it is determined that such authority is or can only be determined within the matters of State's Rights, then that Church is effectively broken apart along State's boundaries, freeing the local Church diocesan units to be self-determinative under the laws of the particular State.
Rev. Ken
If TEC wants to claim ownership of the properties, it can simply send a deed to each parish and have them execute it in favor of TEC or it can provide them with a Trust Agreement that gets executed by the party holding legal title agreeing to hold title in trust for the national church.
The Jones decision said as much. The US Supreme Court told every religious institution that in resolving property disputes, states could apply neutral principles of law to avoid having the
courts entangle themselves in doctrine. TEC either chose to ignore the law or it got bad advice from its attorneys who suggested that TEC could unilaterally claim a trust interest in property titled in someone else. That worked in states that agreed to decide disputes based on hierarchical/congregational analysis (although they still got it wrong as the facts don't demonstrate that TEC is really hierarchical in structure). It does not work under neutral principles of law requiring the application of the same law to churches as is applied to everyone else.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#3 Jul 29, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>
If TEC wants to claim ownership of the properties, it can simply send a deed to each parish and have them execute it in favor of TEC or it can provide them with a Trust Agreement that gets executed by the party holding legal title agreeing to hold title in trust for the national church.
The Jones decision said as much. The US Supreme Court told every religious institution that in resolving property disputes, states could apply neutral principles of law to avoid having the
courts entangle themselves in doctrine. TEC either chose to ignore the law or it got bad advice from its attorneys who suggested that TEC could unilaterally claim a trust interest in property titled in someone else. That worked in states that agreed to decide disputes based on hierarchical/congregational analysis (although they still got it wrong as the facts don't demonstrate that TEC is really hierarchical in structure). It does not work under neutral principles of law requiring the application of the same law to churches as is applied to everyone else.
LOL!!!.... You retreat into an assertion of the peculiarities of State's Rights and you deny the effectiveness of the Dennis Canon.

Lots of luck, buddy.

Holler all you like. But, when the axe falls to cut off the funds and properties that have been purloined, expect the weeping and gnashing that is due.

In the meantime, please offer your legal services to the absconders.
George

Jacksonville, FL

#4 Jul 29, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!.... You retreat into an assertion of the peculiarities of State's Rights and you deny the effectiveness of the Dennis Canon.
Lots of luck, buddy.
Holler all you like. But, when the axe falls to cut off the funds and properties that have been purloined, expect the weeping and gnashing that is due.
In the meantime, please offer your legal services to the absconders.
It is not a "States' Rights" issue at all. It is a Federal Constitutional law issue. How can Courts resolve title to property issues involving religious institutions without enmeshng themselves in doctrinal issues of the particular religion? That is not an issue of States' Rights at all. The US Supreme Court answered the question under US Constitutional jurisprudence. TEC either wasn't listening or, it ignored it. One of the pemissible ways annonced by the Supreme Court is to decide the case as if the parties were entities/individuals without an overlay of religious doctrine. That is how the Supreme Court of South Carolina told TEC it was going to resolve property cases at least ten or more years ago and TEc sat on its duff and did nothing to implement an approach consistent with neutral principles of law. I for one am glad they didn't. Sue the PB and the Chancellor for not having read the writing on the wall 'cause in S. Carolina at least (and likely in Illinois as well), it is the PB and you who will be doing the gnashing and wailing.
BTW - S. Carolina's legal counsel have done a fine job and are in need of no help from me.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#5 Jul 29, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not a "States' Rights" issue at all. It is a Federal Constitutional law issue. How can Courts resolve title to property issues involving religious institutions without enmeshng themselves in doctrinal issues of the particular religion? That is not an issue of States' Rights at all. The US Supreme Court answered the question under US Constitutional jurisprudence. TEC either wasn't listening or, it ignored it. One of the pemissible ways annonced by the Supreme Court is to decide the case as if the parties were entities/individuals without an overlay of religious doctrine. That is how the Supreme Court of South Carolina told TEC it was going to resolve property cases at least ten or more years ago and TEc sat on its duff and did nothing to implement an approach consistent with neutral principles of law. I for one am glad they didn't. Sue the PB and the Chancellor for not having read the writing on the wall 'cause in S. Carolina at least (and likely in Illinois as well), it is the PB and you who will be doing the gnashing and wailing.
BTW - S. Carolina's legal counsel have done a fine job and are in need of no help from me.
Actually, I personally do not worry too much about this. We chose to go the way of the Courts and so did the people who left TEC taking assets with them.

Let both sides spend ALL their money with the lawyers in this scrap.

The decision to sue in pursuit of the "absconders" was made by the Houses of Bishops and Deputies. The PB, though influential, does their bidding in this matter.

She is not our "pope."
George

Jacksonville, FL

#6 Jul 31, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>

Let both sides spend ALL their money with the lawyers in this scrap.
"
In any situation where the Courts are inclined to side with TEO and find that because of its claimed "hierarchical"struct ure, TEO holds some kind of interest in the property of parishes or dioceses that leave, I would agree since leaving it in the hands of TEO almost assuredly results in the loss of the asset for any Kingdom work. Might as well spend those assets on litigation.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#7 Jul 31, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>
In any situation where the Courts are inclined to side with TEO and find that because of its claimed "hierarchical"struct ure, TEO holds some kind of interest in the property of parishes or dioceses that leave, I would agree since leaving it in the hands of TEO almost assuredly results in the loss of the asset for any Kingdom work. Might as well spend those assets on litigation.
LOL!!!.... You attempt to make the lawyers look like they work for the Devil, no matter which side they advocate.

And you are one of THEM!

I don't speak for the Church in these matters. I just post my opinions. My opinion, and ex-bishop Lawrence's behavior is a verification, is that the "absconders" planned to leave TEC and conspired to take all of the assets they could as they left, even to the extent of squatting in property and declaring their "Diocese" to be intact and no longer of TEC.

However, they declare the right to "use" the authority being lended by TEC in order to further declare that they HAVE the authority to leave and take from TEC. That is why Lawrence continues to claim the rights to symbols and identification insignia belonging to the Diocese. The moment he admits to denying the authority that he held IN TEC, by identifying his renegade group as something other than TEC, he has lost.

You mention the Diocese of Quincy. I was there. I sat in the meeting as they discussed their options and planned their exit strategy, many months before the rupture.

Rupture - not Rapture.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

#8 Jul 31, 2014
Thou Shalt Not Stael. Once again. The property belongs to the DIOCESE.
George

Jacksonville, FL

#9 Jul 31, 2014
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
Thou Shalt Not Stael. Once again. The property belongs to the DIOCESE.
Yup -- they belong to the Diocese of South Carolina and Bishop Lawrence is its Diocesan.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#10 Aug 2, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup -- they belong to the Diocese of South Carolina and Bishop Lawrence is its Diocesan.
So say you and a lot of people.

But, that claim IS the crux of the question.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

#11 Sep 12, 2014
Getting married next Friday in the Diocese of Washington, DC.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#12 Sep 12, 2014
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
Getting married next Friday in the Diocese of Washington, DC.
Roger that!
Listen to the Word

Kingman, AZ

#14 Sep 16, 2014
Legalities are interesting. TEC as church laws and states have state laws and the federal government has federal laws - altogether too many laws. God managed quite nicely with ten short laws encompassed on one law - the law of love.
TEC has made the mistake of legalism - defending its rights be church laws and civil laws, but continues to ignore God's law. The question is what is scriptural in keeping with God's law of love. Who should get property rights of departing TEC churches and dioceses - TEC or those departing, those who neither paid for them or took care of them or those who did? How does God want just issues resolves in a righteous and just way? He will judge in the end. TEC still hasn't caught on.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#15 Sep 18, 2014
Listen to the Word wrote:
Legalities are interesting. TEC as church laws and states have state laws and the federal government has federal laws - altogether too many laws. God managed quite nicely with ten short laws encompassed on one law - the law of love.
TEC has made the mistake of legalism - defending its rights be church laws and civil laws, but continues to ignore God's law. The question is what is scriptural in keeping with God's law of love. Who should get property rights of departing TEC churches and dioceses - TEC or those departing, those who neither paid for them or took care of them or those who did? How does God want just issues resolves in a righteous and just way? He will judge in the end. TEC still hasn't caught on.
You wrote, "God managed quite nicely with ten short laws encompassed on one law - the law of love."

LOL!!!.... This, above, from the one who Does Not Listen and apparently doesn't read, either!

When was the last time you read Exodus (beginning with chapter 20), Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy?

So much for the Ten Short Laws.

TEC has caught on quite nicely, in fact.

Short Law #8: You shall not steal.

Oh, and by the way,... There was a Supreme Court in that time and place. The Chief Justice was named Moses.

Rev. Ken
YouuoY

New York, NY

#16 Sep 18, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Roger that!
Homosexuality and the colonel.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

#18 Oct 7, 2014
Well, WE DID IT! Happily Married!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#19 Oct 8, 2014
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
Well, WE DID IT! Happily Married!
The very best to you and your Spouse, Sel !!!

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

#20 Oct 19, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The very best to you and your Spouse, Sel !!!
Being married is the best!
Soory 4 Your luck

Wilmington, OH

#21 Nov 1, 2014
Stupidfaggots...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charleston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jim Christman 1 hr curious 37
Illegal Mexicans In Charleston Are Felons Sun Stan The Felon 3
Why are white women so insecure (Dec '11) Feb 26 yeah yeah 28
Lauren Lewis Feb 26 Seen It 1
Moving to the area soon.... Feb 24 brandi 5
South Carolina Police Arrest 'Frozen's' Elsa Fo... Feb 24 Spotted Girl 2
James Christman Feb 21 curious 7
Charleston Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Charleston People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:35 pm PST

Yahoo! Sports 3:35PM
Agent: Panthers' Hardy seeking reinstatement from NFL
Bleacher Report12:46 PM
Jacksonville Jaguars: Latest Free-Agency News and Rumors
Bleacher Report 1:44 PM
Jaguars' Final Free-Agency Outlook and Predictions
Yahoo! Sports 4:45 PM
Peterson just 1 of the players left in limbo by ruling
ESPN10:41 AM
Panthers bring back DT Cole, 34, for 1 year