Religion in the news

[chuck83]

Catholic Bishops Trash Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Passing

https://www.newsweek.com/catholic-bishops-trash-trump-big-beautiful-bill-passing-2094831

[trottigy]

Pastors who endorse political candidates shouldn’t lose tax-exempt status, IRS says in filing | CNN Politics

 

https://share.google/NFILrBBDGsX0jE8UP

 

 

[Mike047]

Another reminder of Church and State, and a reminder if who the churches put their faith and trust in. Thankful we are apolitical and will continue to remain so.

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, trottigy said:

Pastors who endorse political candidates shouldn’t lose tax-exempt status, IRS says in filing | CNN Politics

 

https://share.google/NFILrBBDGsX0jE8UP

 

 

They are only saying that because pastors tend to support the current administration 

[Tortuga]

9 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

They are only saying that because pastors tend to support the current administration 

[just1-4all]

10 hours ago, trottigy said:

Pastors who endorse political candidates shouldn’t lose tax-exempt status, IRS says in filing | CNN Politics

 

https://share.google/NFILrBBDGsX0jE8UP

 

 

This is kind of a big deal isn't it? 

 

Seems the headlines as of this evening on this are declaring churches now won't be losing tax-exempt status from here on, versus what sounds like someone's opinion that it "shouldn't"?

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/08/irs-churches-tax-exempt-00441992

Edited July 9 by just1-4all

[Dark King]

Trump administration says federal employees can encourage co-workers to "re-think" their religious beliefs

By 

 

The Trump administration on Monday told federal workers they can talk about religion at work, including by trying to "persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views."

 

I'm wondering how this will work out for us. 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-says-federal-employees-can-encourage-co-workers-to-re-think-their-religious-beliefs/

 

[Shawnster]

2 hours ago, Dark King said:

I'm wondering how this will work out for us. 

We do this now, don't we? It's called informal witnessing. 

[careful]

i cant remember anyone thats not a witness ever taking the initiative to discuss with me whether my religious choices are correct....like this news item suggests.

[grain of mustard]

it will be an opportunity to bear witness  

[LeolaRootStew]

7 hours ago, Shawnster said:

We do this now, don't we? It's called informal witnessing. 

 

My online job prohibited me from discussing religion in the public chat - this change might have allowed me to do that.

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

My online job prohibited me from discussing religion in the public chat - this change might have allowed me to do that.

Are you a federal employee? 

[LeolaRootStew]

Just now, Shawnster said:

Are you a federal employee? 

no

[Dark King]

9 hours ago, careful said:

cant remember anyone thats not a witness ever taking the initiative to discuss with me whether my religious choices are correct....like this news item suggests.

I have had several coworkers who talk to me about religion and try at times try to convince me their religion is better. 

 

I really don't think it's uncommon. I think it happens like a lot just not to everybody.

[trottigy]

As a local government employee for the last 30 years, I can confirm that religion has been pushed on me, but not in ways anyone thinks of as pushing religion. I regularly get notices of blood drives, I regularly get asked to sign Birthday cards, go to the Christmas party, dress up for Halloween, participate in the pumpkin/ jack-o'-lantern contest, Easter, etc. 

As for someone actually wanting to discuss religion - other than these religious celebrations - I've never had that happen, unless I started th conversation.

 

I don't understand the need for an Executive Order to do what has been done for decades already.

[Mike047]

7 hours ago, trottigy said:

As a local government employee for the last 30 years, I can confirm that religion has been pushed on me, but not in ways anyone thinks of as pushing religion. I regularly get notices of blood drives, I regularly get asked to sign Birthday cards, go to the Christmas party, dress up for Halloween, participate in the pumpkin/ jack-o'-lantern contest, Easter, etc. 

Although I worked for a bank in London, my experience is very similar to yours, Jerry. All of the usual events and occasions were regularly discussed, but only religious matters when I initiated them.

 

On one occasion, because of the need to show balance I took an un-birthday cake to work. It was a follow-up to one of the staff discussing Alice in Wonderland with his children. I said to the team I worked with ' see, I can bring a cake in for you all without the need to celebrate something I don't believe in'. My view was appreciated more after that.

[Tronora]

Off topic: I have never seen the movie Alice in Wonderland. But I am curious about it. Is it a no-no film? Or would you recommend it as clean entertainment?

 

[Jwanon]

6 minutes ago, Tronora said:

Off topic: I have never seen the movie Alice in Wonderland

 

I have seen the 1951 version

 

6 minutes ago, Tronora said:

But I am curious about it.

 

It's a good movie

 

6 minutes ago, Tronora said:

Is it a no-no film?

 

No

 

6 minutes ago, Tronora said:

Or would you recommend it as clean entertainment?

 

Define 'clean entertainment'

Edited 14 hours ago by Jwanon

[Tronora]

2 minutes ago, Jwanon said:

 

I have seen the 1951 version

 

 

It's a good movie

 

 

No

 

 

Define 'clean entertainment'

 

Nothing occult. 

[Jwanon]

Just now, Tronora said:

 

Nothing occult. 

 

Define occult

[Old]

9 minutes ago, Tronora said:

Off topic: I have never seen the movie Alice in Wonderland. But I am curious about it. Is it a no-no film? Or would you recommend it as clean entertainment?

 

Several movies by that name. try reading the book.

[Tronora]

13 minutes ago, Jwanon said:

 

Define occult

 

Really? 0K, maybe 'okkult' in Norwegian is less unclear. Demon-inspired.

 

From Meriam Webster: occult

 

: matters regarded as involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge of them

 

—used with the

 

Will that do? Anyways, I will check out the 1951 movie  some time.

 

Sorry for the off-topic!

Edited 14 hours ago by Tronora
Added definiton

[just1-4all]

3 hours ago, Tronora said:

Off topic: I have never seen the movie Alice in Wonderland. But I am curious about it. Is it a no-no film? Or would you recommend it as clean entertainment?

 

I liked the 2010 version directed by Tim Burton, which had a really great cast. IMO it's simply a surreal adventure story. There are potions that make Alice change in size, which is one element that drives the fantasy aspect, as well as talking animals: a rabbit, a mouse, dog, and caterpillar and more-or-less human other zany, quirky, characters.

 

Winnie the Pooh, and many (most?) children's stories, of course, have talking animal characters in them.  So, therefore ______ idk ... 🤔? Should everything that delights the imagination be based in non-fantasy story-telling? It's what makes a fantasy story a fantasy story, isn't it? Anyways ... 

 

My conscience allows for The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) — [with Gene Wilder, hands down the only version worth seeing (imo 🙂)]. And, that said, IMO Alice in W. story is pretty similar in style/genre, etc., as the aforementioned children's stories adapted to film.

 

As mentioned, other than the potion thing for changing Alice's size, and the fulfilling of "prophecy", which foretells the coming of an Alice to Wonderland ... which is part of the story as the plot moves along, the question eventually is put to Alice—which everyone in the story is also wondering—is she the Alice foretold, or just a regular (non-heroine) young lady who happened to show up named Alice.

Edited 11 hours ago by just1-4all
clarity

[Dark King]

19 hours ago, trottigy said:

 

 

I don't understand the need for an Executive Order to do what has been done for decades already.

If he can issue an executive order like this. He also can also issue another executive order banning the same action.

[Tronora]

8 minutes ago, just1-4all said:

I liked the 2010 version directed by Tim Burton, which had a really great cast. IMO it's simply a surreal adventure story. There are potions that make Alice change in size, which is one element that drives the fantasy aspect, as well as talking animals: a rabbit, a mouse, dog, and caterpillar and more-or-less human other zany, quirky, characters.

 

Winnie the Pooh, and many (most?) children's stories, of course, have talking animal characters in them.  So, therefore ______ idk ... 🤔? Should everything that delights the imagination be based in non-fantasy story-telling? It's what makes a fantasy story a fantasy story, isn't it? Anyways ... 

 

My conscience allows for The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) — [with Gene Wilder, hands down the only version worth seeing (imo 🙂)]. And, that said, IMO Alice in W. story is pretty similar in style/genre, etc., as the aforementioned children's stories adapted to film.

 

As mentioned, other than the potion thing for changing Alice's size, and the fulfilling of "prophecy", which foretells the coming of an Alice to Wonderland ... which is part of the story as the plot moves along, the question eventually is put to Alice—which everyone in the story is also wondering—is she the Alice foretold, or just a regular (non-heroine) young lady who happened to show up named Alice.

 

Thank you so much ❤️ I would also like to see the wizard of Oz. Love surrealism. And Gene Wilder - what a great actor. (See no evil, hear no evil)