From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 10:39:03 EST
Gordon wrote: "However someone who
does not accept his financial support should not be tainted by being on
the same side as he is on some particular issue."
I quite agree; I did not argue that way. The issue I wished to probe was
only this: To what extent is it a moral action for a very wealthy person
to spend that wealth in a political/religious cause? And are there moral
and immoral ways in which that could be done, assiming that it is moral?
Admanson's advocacy of a "Christian State" (is the word theonomy?) is one
I regard with absolute horror, but I also must assume he holds that
peculiar position honestly and sincerely. Such a position, of course,
leads him to naturally oppose the bishop's consecration. But is Admanson
an Episcopal? If not -- is is ethical for him to fund one side in a fight
he has no stake in? And to what extent should he make his funding public?
I don't know the answrs to all this. Full disclosure seems to be a good
goal to work for. Also -- because I have $10,000,000 and you have $100,
should my voice in the debate necessarily be louder than yours?
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 11:04:43 EST