Freedom of Speech Part II

I guess I did not make myself very clear in my previous post. I was not saying that I don’t think that these guys should say what they want, by all means say what you want. But just know that there are consequences when we do say what we want.

If we wish to have something from the government then it comes with strings attached and those strings say that we are not allowed to endorse or not endorse from the pulpit. Speak on the issues, and like Fr. Eresto said warn the people of the excesses of crazy people but we can do it without naming anyone. Don’t forget these are the same people that said aids was God’s plague on the gay community and that the hurricanes hit New Orleans because of their behavior.

Freedom comes with responsibility and we need to use it correctly. I agree with Huw that maybe we should not be holden to the government. For example I think we should get out of the marriage business. Have church weddings sure, but have the couple get married by the JP first then come and have the church wedding. I do not like the idea of signing a government contract on behalf of the state!

So speak out if you want just don’t cry about the consequences when they come, and please do not use something as serious as the election to make a point.


  1. It seems that the only two options that you and Huw leave open are either freedom of speech with taxation or no taxation and no freedom of speech. So, Huw and Fr. Peter, does that mean that only non-profits have freedom of speech and no taxation? I know many non-profits that quite openly advocate various political viewpoints and even candidates. That is, it sounds to me as though taxation were being used as the stick to get those persnickety churches to behave.

    Neither of you sees the possibility that the society might wish to encourage churches to speak and churches to be exempt. And, that is my problem. That is exactly the viewpoint that began to be pushed forward only 40 years ago. This is not our traditional policy; this was a new one brought in under President Johnson to silence VietNam dissenting churches. It seems odd to me that both of you would be agreeing with President Johnson.

  2. Fr. Ernesto that is not what I am saying at all. We have rules and there is a process to have the rules changed and breaking the law is not one of them. What kind of example are they setting by breaking that law. Not a very good one I would say. But it is done and that is that. Did you endorse anyone today?

  3. I’m all for CHurches breaking the law. I think that’s a good thing.


    But, Fr E, I don’t envision a world where gifts from the state can be to our advantage. You are right in your critique of my point of view. Sure, I like a place where that was possible.

    But I don’t imagine it to be so.

Comments are closed.

error: Content is protected !!