Angry dad Representative Tom Pischke (R-25/Dell Rapids) got some help from the Holy Father in his strong first-place finish in the District 25 Senate primary:
I’m glad the Sioux Falls Diocese is loosening up on the Catholic position that divorce is a sin. But Tom, I don’t think tagging Father Shane Stevens’ endorsement with “unofficial” and quote marks will insulate your diocese against IRS questions about its non-political non-profit status. When you invoke the priest’s title and uniform to boost your campaign, you invoke the Church, which needs to stay out of partisan candidate politics to keep from paying taxes.
You fellows already know what I say. Mr. Pischke does not.
I hate it when I have to agree with Grudz. ;-)
I’m always pleased to help diverse citizens coalesce around the proposition that churches ought to stay out of partisan politics… or, if they can’t resist, at least start paying taxes and engage in some philosophical consistency.
I suspect that the Father can endorse anyone he wants as a private citizen.
If he does it from the pulpit that would be different. That’s my view.
I don’t know if the law specifically addresses that situation.
He can if he’s not wearing his church uniform, Mr. Ardnt. No Overgodding!!
Edwin, as Grudz notes, Father Stevens does not appear in either post as a private citizen. Pischke invokes the priest’s official title, and the priest appears in his official uniform. He’s using his official authority from the church to give credence to a candidate. Inappropriate legally and theologically.
I remember when Tom Pishke used to be a nice kid. What the heck happened to him?
Well…I think the parish priest is walking on the edge of propriety of his when providing pastoral care to his congregant that way….I’d be more concerned about Pischke’s need for such care.
That priest has an ick factor of 9.4 on a ten point scale: white, rotund and unctuous.
Gosh, they simply want women in the kitchen, hopefully preggers, and certain other people back in the closet. It’s the Republican way.
Mark Anderson, you assume women don’t want to be Stay-At-Home-Mothers.
For most women, that isn’t an option. They aren’t in the workforce because they want to be, they are working because they have to. Democrats want to put women to work as slaves, in meaningless, repetitive jobs they hate, so that their lives are so miserable they’ll vote for anybody who makes empty promises to improve their situation.
Of the 25 best states for women 22 of them are blue according to the latest rankings from WalletHub. My home state of South Dakota still holds 51st place for the number of women who own businesses, 49th in percentage of women who voted in 2020 but tied for 1st with North Dakota for lowest unemployment among women.
huhhhh?
“Democrats want to put women to work as slaves, in meaningless, repetitive jobs they hate, so that their lives are so miserable they’ll vote for anybody who makes empty promises to improve their situation.”
To algebra, what’s your backup for your claims that Dems want women to be slaves in jobs they don’t like? It’s Republicans who don’t want fair wage laws.
Low paying minimum wage jobs keep familkies in poverty and both parents slaving away because thgey have to. Magats don’t want good paying jobs for anyone except the wealthy. Simple fact oflife. Stop blaming Dems for magat policies.
Thanks to magat policies pregnant women get almost no maternity leave and usually without pay.