Thank you, Stephanie; I hadn’t heard that any bishops had been that courageous; it’s good to know that Bishop Sheridan was.

You misspelled “wrongheaded”.

Catholic doctrine states that it’s acceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate in the hopes that the candidate will perform other good works. What is disallowed is voting for a pro-choice candidate specifically to favor abortions.

This is typical for you, isn’t it? You support those who say what you like, even when they’re clearly factually wrong.

but you have an 8-min commute to work and you drive? just wondering if you’ve considered taking the bus or riding your bike…

Well spotted. I should have clarified: It’s an eight-minute commute to my office, from which I am then dispatched all over the city. (That just often happens after Thom Hartmann’s show is over.)

I haven’t gotten my bike back from storage yet, at which point I may leave my car at the office and bike to the office on the off chance that I don’t have anywhere to go that day.

Regarding the amount of money possessed by Houses of Worship: I cannot speak in general, but in cases where I have some personal knowledge of finances, I know these operations really are non-profit. A lot of the praying that’s going on is praying that they’ll be enough money to pay the electric bill

But what service do they provide to the public good in return for this tax exempt status? Preaching is not a public good. Those religious groups that want to do social work can open normal non-profit charities and be subject to the same regulations that secular non-profits are subject to. As it is, we are treating all religious organizations as “in service of the public good” by default, just because they’re being religious.

Right-wing “prosperity gospel” churches benefit the most from this, since they have no moral inclination to do social work. The money just lines pockets. They are operating businesses without paying taxes.

One could say we Jews unleashed monotheism on the world and we Jews don’t at all believe that non-Jews are going to hell

I’m aware that the doctrines of Judaism are more subtle and more open-ended on the afterlife than the other Abrahamic religions.

But the statement that a Christian or a Muslim does not automatically go hell, while accurate, does not capture the breadth of the issue. A non-Jew must fulfill the Noahide commandments to enter Gan Eden (hereafter called “heaven” for those unfamiliar with Jewish eschatology).

Most of the Noahide commandments are easy. Adultery’s not at all easy to avoid, but we know these Abrahamic religions have sexual hang-ups, so it comes with the territory.

But two are absurd. Do not commit blasphemy, and do not commit idolatry. Atheists are screwed. Non-Abrahamic religious folk are screwed. You still have to worship the god of Abraham. Though less exclusive than, say, fundamentalist Christianity, this is not an inclusive religion. Do some modern liberal Jews throw those Noahide requirements out, too? Yes, but that’s a political aspect of modern tolerance and multiculturalism, and not something that Judaism per se can be credited for.

Hell was not a concept the ancient Israelites utilized. But that didn’t stop them from writing triumphalist accounts of genocide, committed at the behest of war god Yahweh Sabaoth. Supposedly Saul killed every single man, woman, and child among the people of Amalek, except for their king. God was then angry with him for sparing the life of the king and some of the livestock. The story of Midian is similar. Moses is to kill every man, male child, and non-virgin woman among the people of Midian. His armies don’t kill the women or the boys, though, and Moses is pissed. Some cajoling later, all the boys, infants included, and all the women and girls who didn’t have intact hymens are finally good and dead.

These are not stories of eternal damnation, but they do amount to hell on earth. Did these stories actually happen? Maybe not; it’s likely they’re manufactured or inflated to incite nationalist pride. But the point is clear: there are in-groups and out-groups, and it’s very important that you’re on God’s side (our side).

Screw your “friend”.

The sermon format could have been changed a bit to omit candidate names and the meme about “Jesus wins”, but the rest of the sermon was bog-standard for a mainstream liberal social-justice church.

*

Meanwhile: can I publish a pamphlet entitled “Voters’ Guide for Funny Jews”?

Umm … no that isn’t the point of monotheism. One could say we Jews unleashed monotheism on the world and we Jews don’t at all believe that non-Jews are going to hell and while we do believe that God favors us, we don’t believe that God favoring us is, um, a good thing (or as Shalom Alechem had Tevye put it “I know we’re Your Chosen People, but couldn’t you choose somebody else for a change?”).

*

My $0.02 on the issue at hand. I don’t think church’s should be allowed to engage in advocacy for specific candidates and maintain tax exempt status — the wall between Church and State has to work both ways (and this is for the good of religion as well … if people see religion as being too political, they’ll shy away from it). OTOH, I fail to see how it is wrong for a preacher to merely mention the name of a candidate or party: especially in the context of “neither Kerry nor Bush does what Jesus would support”.

As to “free speech” — to put it shallowly: “you have a right to free speech, not to expensive speech”