Church foreclosures reach record levels

posted at 3:25 pm on March 10, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

This is one of those titles which should have immediately lent itself to a discussion of a war on religion or some other social conservative prospect. But the reality turns out to be considerably more mundane. A recent study indicates that churches are being foreclosed upon in record numbers, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the faith or denomination of the property owners in question. They just can’t make the loan payments.

Since 2010, 270 churches have been sold after defaulting on their loans, with 90 percent of those sales coming after a lender-triggered foreclosure, according to the real estate information company CoStar Group.

In 2011, 138 churches were sold by banks, an annual record, with no sign that these religious foreclosures are abating, according to CoStar. That compares to just 24 sales in 2008 and only a handful in the decade before.

The church foreclosures have hit all denominations across America, black and white, but with small to medium size houses of worship the worst. Most of these institutions have ended up being purchased by other churches.

The highest percentage have occurred in some of the states hardest hit by the home foreclosure crisis: California, Georgia, Florida and Michigan.

Many of the stories being told here don’t sound much different from the problems that homeowners have faced. This is particularly true of the Solid Rock Christian Church near Memphis, Tennessee. They took out a nearly $3M loan in early 2008 to construct a new, larger church as their congregation was expanding. Unfortunately, we all know what happened later that year. Another was the Charles Street African American Episcopal Church in Boston, who took out a long term loan. They made all the payments, but to get a low rate they structured the arrangement with the bank to include a million dollar balloon payment at the end, which came due last year. They are unable to make the large payment and are in pretty much the same situation.

While this doesn’t represent some sort of specific attack on churches by the banks, it does reflect the economy of the country at large. During periods of strong growth and plentiful jobs, if a church got into trouble, their economically sound congregants could pitch in to save the day. But when more and more of the faithful are out of work, they simply may not have the extra cash to donate and pay off the bank.

Everyone is feeling the pinch, and the banks can’t make many distinctions just because the borrower is a church. But I imagine selling off a church is more difficult than residential or standard commercial property. Tough situation all around.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Who might that be? Obama, the Pope, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Actually, I like and get along fine most of the religious people I meet, including priests and rabbis, even if their religious beliefs are absurd.

Annar on March 10, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Yeah sure, I believe you. ///

I think people who think they know everything are absurd. Now a truly rational person searches for the truth, regardless of the answers. That person is not you.

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 6:02 PM

God permits it so it must be part of the “Everything happens for a reason” panacea.

profitsbeard on March 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Too bad people have been turned away from God and true religion due to bad experiences with hypocrites, some mean and nasty nuns, and blind, obnoxious believers. In real religion one doesn’t follow God to avoid punishment or hell, but to please the One who created and sustains you – gave you free will.

mbabbitt on March 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

They ought to be paying taxes. The last time I checked, if a church catches fire, the FD responds to put it out. And if a crime is committed against a church the PD responds. And the roads are paved in front of the church just like they are in front of a grocery store.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Atheists rejoice.

SouthernGent on March 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

So you guys really do take pleasure when your ‘inferiors’ suffer. Check.

Contrast your childish remark with all the well wishes we gave to (and continue to pray for) Christopher Hitchens. Your intellectual capacity to argue for agnosticism is now void.

Squiggy on March 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM

What, no bailout for the faithful?

Kissmygrits on March 10, 2012 at 6:25 PM

What, no bailout for the faithful?

Kissmygrits on March 10, 2012 at 6:25 PM

They’ve been getting one for years. They don’t pay taxes and get all of their municipal services for free.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM

They’ve been getting one for years. They don’t pay taxes and get all of their municipal services for free.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM

They get water and sewer and the like for free?

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

They get water and sewer and the like for free?

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Utilities are not municipal services. They are regulated monopolies but are not paid for through tax dollars. Churches, fortunately, haven’t found a way to compel businesses to shoulder their burden as well. Just governments.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Utilities are not municipal services. They are regulated monopolies but are not paid for through tax dollars. Churches, fortunately, haven’t found a way to compel businesses to shoulder their burden as well. Just governments.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Why not just confiscate their property and be done with it? That way any charities that were being handled by the church can be turned over to the municipality. It’s a great way to increase the welfare base and raise property taxes!

Firemen and Police will rejoice in the massive burden being lifted off of them. It’s well known that they respond at a minimum twice a day to any and all churches.

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 6:41 PM

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 6:41 PM

They should pay taxes like everyone else. Why should they get a free ride at taxpayers’ expense? And if they don’t meet their obligations to either governments or lenders why shouldn’t their assets should be confiscated, just like everyone else.

They are privileged above and beyond what other charities are. They are not just tax favored, they are tax exempt. Why should they have special rights? I’ve heard you speak so eloquently in the past about the iniquities of government selectively involving itself in private affairs of its citizens. Why the change of heart?

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM

They are privileged above and beyond what other charities are. They are not just tax favored, they are tax exempt. Why should they have special rights? I’ve heard you speak so eloquently in the past about the iniquities of government selectively involving itself in private affairs of its citizens. Why the change of heart?

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Taxation gives the state power over a church and intrudes on the freedon of religion. That’s the real purpose of not taxing churches. You’re free to disagree.

If you want to complain, complain about unions … they’re also tax exempt. Every penny collected is tax free.

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 6:57 PM

If you want to complain, complain about unions … they’re also tax exempt. Every penny collected is tax free.

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Yes, but unions NEED to be tax exempt to allow for the most efficient money laundering for Democrats.

TugboatPhil on March 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 6:57 PM

No more than it intrudes on my freedom to own land when I pay property taxes.

Here’s an idea, get rid of all the tax favors aside from charity. Churches, like other charitable organizations, should be exempt from taxes on the what they give in charity but not beyond that.

It’s just like those who say they want a flat tax, but then demand that they retain the home mortgage interest deduction. It’s all well and good until they stand to lose their special carve out.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I forgot to say, yes of course unions don’t deserve a free ride. It’s unconscionable that they are not taxed.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 7:04 PM

They ought to be paying taxes. The last time I checked, if a church catches fire, the FD responds to put it out. And if a crime is committed against a church the PD responds. And the roads are paved in front of the church just like they are in front of a grocery store.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Churches pay fire dues just like everyone else (at least in red states), and everyone pays income taxes (including preachers and other church personnel).

You want to change it? Call a constitutional convention and erase the first (and I’d suggest the second) amendment. Good luck with that.

Squiggy on March 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM

What, no bailout for the faithful?

Kissmygrits on March 10, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Jews and Christians have had no special consideration under the current regime. Muslims have been making out very well with a President who has Hussein as a middle name. Just saying.

Happy Nomad on March 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

The idea of not taxing churches has nothing to do with money. Plus churches don’t give to charities, they perform charity. One church where I live has been feeding and taking care of the homeless for over a hundred years.

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Squiggy on March 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM

It’s good that they do. I hadn’t heard of “fire dues” being separate from property taxes. It’s not the case in NC, the “redness” of which is debatable.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM

The idea of not taxing churches has nothing to do with money.

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Huh?

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

some mean and nasty nuns (snip)

mbabbitt on March 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Word

DoubleClutchin on March 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I wonder how many people can’t meet their tithes due to unemployment?

Cindy Munford on March 10, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Tithes are paid from your excess blessings, that’s the nice thing about every Christian church I’ve ever attended.

saltyrover on March 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I’m pretty sure that it wouldn’t be worth the effort needed to tax churches or charities. In many, if not most cases, both types of entities are what I consider ‘self-funded’. That is, the money that each takes in comes from voluntary donations from the congregants or supporters. Now, where do the congregants and supporters get their money, which they choose to spend? Why, from their paychecks of course! Which means that the money donated out of paychecks has already been taxed at the Federal and State levels. So, why tax it again after it’s been given to the church or charity? How does that make sense?

Besides which, we already know (or most people SHOULD know) that religious charities are far more efficient, responsive, and effective at taking care of the poor, the helpless, the unfortunate, than any government agency. Why mess with a good thing?

cvandevoorde on March 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Let the market decide. All entities must compete in the marketplace of ideas. Especially religious entities. No subsidies. No tax breaks. No government aid. If the idea is good, it will succeed on its own merits. If it needs to be propped up because they can’t get enough people through the doors, time to close.

keep the change on March 10, 2012 at 7:35 PM

The idea of not taxing churches has nothing to do with money. Plus churches don’t give to charities, they perform charity. One church where I live has been feeding and taking care of the homeless for over a hundred years.

darwin on March 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

I definitely lean in your favor on this argument. We’ve had the federal income tax since 1913. I couldn’t say when the income taxes, real property taxes, and sales taxes of all the state and local governments were enacted. Nevertheless, I suspect that the underlying theory for tax-exempt status and for the deductibility of contributions is that churches at that time provided a valuable societal welfare function. Churches would commit to assist their members get through hard times. Increasingly, the leviathan has assumed that function, and welfare recipients are much more comfortable collecting perpetual benefits from a mailbox to which they don’t have to account than accepting assistance from those who sit in the pew next to them and who expect you to get off the dole as soon as possible.

Another point that I want to make is that since the Catholic Church-contraception standoff arose, I’ve increasingly seen liberals suggest that churches, by virtue of their tax-exempt status and the deductibility of contributions to them really should be subject to federal mandates. It’s an extension of the argument used against Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois where, because those agencies received some form of government aid, they had to accept placing kids with same-sex couples. The agencies said keep your money and closed their agencies. I used to attend a non-denominational church that came up with a neat weekly and in-school program with a public K-8 school in the heart of our inner city. After about four years, the ministry leader decided to merge the program with a local program with a broader reach. Although I quit the program and the church for at least three other reasons, I’ll never forget the ministry leader told me that they decided to abandon the independent nature of the program because they were “hoping to get federal grant money down the road.” Sure enough, I checked the church’s website about a year later and it had a ministry team requesting volunteers interested in completing federal grant applications. Oy!

Ultimately, I think churches and religious-affiliated organizations will have to decide between tax-exempt status and the deductibility of contributions to them if they want to remain independent of federal mandates of all sorts when providing charitable services and, indeed, justifying their refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and their refusal to employ openly gay employees.

It’s coming.

BuckeyeSam on March 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

some mean and nasty nuns,

I’m sure women like that exist, but all the nuns I was lucky to have had in my life were the milk of human kindness (even the “hitters”), and admirable role models.
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM

saltyrover on March 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever heard it put that way, it’s nice to hear. Still, in today situation there probably isn’t as much excess blessings. At least of the monetary kind.

Cindy Munford on March 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Maybe it’s a nit, but churches are not being foreclosed and sold. Church properties are. The church is not the building.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Maybe it’s a nit, but churches are not being foreclosed and sold. Church properties are. The church is not the building.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

.
AMEN.

Someone needed to say it. : )

listens2glenn on March 10, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Maybe it’s a nit, but churches are not being foreclosed and sold. Church properties are. The church is not the building.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

.
AMEN.

Someone needed to say it. : )

listens2glenn on March 10, 2012 at 8:26 PM

The church is the people and they are already taxed. Unfortunately our loud mouth atheists are just full of distortions and hate.

CW on March 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM

I wonder how many people can’t meet their tithes due to unemployment?

Cindy Munford on March 10, 2012 at 4:06 PM

From God’s perspective, it doesn’t matter how poor you are. It’s his money anyway, so tithing should come first. I’ve had more than one personal experience, and many more anecdotes from friends of the faith, where paying tithes FIRST resulted in miraculous provision, even despite desperate need.

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. Malachi 3:10

RationalIcthus on March 10, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Let the market decide. All entities must compete in the marketplace of ideas. Especially religious entities. No subsidies. No tax breaks. No government aid. If the idea is good, it will succeed on its own merits. If it needs to be propped up because they can’t get enough people through the doors, time to close.

keep the change on March 10, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Not taxing churches has nothing to do with “propping them up.” A federal or state tax on a church is a de facto method of controlling what is done within the church, and that is Constitutionally prohibited.

RationalIcthus on March 10, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Hallelujah!

My collie says:

Because, after all, there IS no schadenfreude in Heaven, right CC? So Jazz somehow feels compelled to practice it here.

Our test comes now, collie. If we remain steadfact in our faith, we will receive our reward in Heaven. Things like “schadenfreude” will only be a distant memory there. So much so, it may seem like a bad dream, and we may even find ourselves doubting that it ever existed at all.

My collie says:

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Jazz will still feel like practicing his “schadenfreude” THEN — considering where he may “end up”.

Perhaps that’s how we will know that it was “real”, collie.

CyberCipher on March 10, 2012 at 8:38 PM

all the nuns I was lucky to have had in my life were the milk of human kindness (even the “hitters”), and admirable role models.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Nuns usually make it hard to hate on them, heh.

You said earlier:

I hold today, which are practiced because I want to, not for fear of damnation if I don’t.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Was hellfire and brimstone really driven home in your Catholic schooling?

whatcat on March 10, 2012 at 8:39 PM

MJBrutus hates churches.

Why does this not surprise me?

bw222 on March 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM

MJBrutus hates churches.

Why does this not surprise me?

bw222 on March 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM

The reprobate mind is easy to identify.

tom daschle concerned on March 10, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Utilities are not municipal services. They are regulated monopolies but are not paid for through tax dollars. Churches, fortunately, haven’t found a way to compel businesses to shoulder their burden as well. Just governments.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM

A lot of church folk donate their own time and money to homeless shelters, give out free food and clothing and toys to the less fortunate or to those in impoverished nations. It’s not like they’re a bunch of slackers just sucking like leeches off society.

TigerPaw on March 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM

“The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.” (Proverbs 22:7) Simple question: why is the Bride of Christ (e.g. the Church) making itself a slave to anyone? The bank cannot foreclose if you actually own the property. Solution: follow God’s teachings, save your nickels and pay cash.

Send_Me on March 10, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Those that give to PETA and militant environmental groups that do nothing except pay lawyers have been getting the same “bail out” for years.

blink on March 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Don’t expect to get a rational or honest response from dailykos reprobate mjbrutus.

That dude went full retart a long time ago.

tom daschle concerned on March 10, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Was hellfire and brimstone really driven home in your Catholic schooling?

whatcat on March 10, 2012 at 8:39 PM

We were familiar with hell (mostly to scare us out of bad stuff like eating meat on Friday, or failing to return a borrowed pencil). Guess I was thinking more of my sister’s Assemblies of God church, where Satan’s apparently trying to get his flaming mitts on congregants every second of every day.
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Was hellfire and brimstone really driven home in your Catholic schooling?
whatcat on March 10, 2012 at 8:39 PM

We were familiar with hell (mostly to scare us out of bad stuff like eating meat on Friday, or failing to return a borrowed pencil). Guess I was thinking more of my sister’s Assemblies of God church, where Satan’s apparently trying to get his flaming mitts on congregants every second of every day.
:)
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Ah, I see. I am somewhat aware of Catholic beliefs, but I have no experiential knowledge of Catholic school-doings. Yeah, the hellfire stuff is more often delved into at fundamentalist-leaning churches, such as Baptist and the AOGs, as you mentioned. Scaring little children with threats of brimstone can be both traumatic and turn out counter-productive as time goes along.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM

I think Catholic schools are better at instilling guilt than fear. “Horror of the body” was the worst, to me. If you want to see sex and the flesh–your own or anyone else’s–as something so vile, even husbands and wives ought to abstain unless they’re ‘doing the necessary‘ to fetch a young’un, let me put you in the Wayback Machine set for St. Andrews H.S. circa early 70s.
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Scaring little children with threats of brimstone can be both traumatic and turn out counter-productive as time goes along.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM

‘Traumatic’ and ‘counter-productive’ compared to what, exactly? I don’t claim to be a good Christian, so I’m no expert on either theology or child psychology, but children who have reached an age of decision should know the truth insofar as it’s given us to know the truth. From a Christian perspective, the truth is we live in a fallen world, that there is sin and a price to be paid if we don’t repent of it. It is also true God loves us, that each of us matters, and that our lives have significance and meaning.

Children are more resilient than many would think, and certainly more open to the truth than are most adults. So no, I don’t believe in fear tactics as a path to God, but it is also wrong to cherry-pick the Gospels, leaving out those parts you don’t think fitting or right. Look at the Song of Solomon in the OT, for example. There have been efforts in the past to excise that book because of its sexual imagery and connotations (hence the term ‘Bowdlerize’). The Book says what it says, and some of the truths contained within it are hard truths to bear.

Again, this is solely my opinion, just my take on things. When I rediscovered my faith as an adult, I didn’t attempt to terrorize my children with the threat of eternal damnation. What I did do was attempt to show them by example how a Christian man leads his life, with both greater and lesser degrees of success.

troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 1:00 AM

‘Traumatic’ and ‘counter-productive’ compared to what, exactly? I don’t claim to be a good Christian, so I’m no expert on either theology or child psychology, but children who have reached an age of decision should know the truth insofar as it’s given us to know the truth.
troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Frightening children is, by definition, traumatic. And when you have so many leaving the faith when they reach adulthood, that’s pretty counter-productive.

What is the “age of decision”?

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:05 AM

I think Catholic schools are better at instilling guilt than fear. “Horror of the body” was the worst, to me.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 12:52 AM

LOL, you take me back! I had CCD, and there was this one nun, man, not only was the body our enemy,,she had us all scared of the host. Really, and I mean Really made us little uns think it was actually the body of Christ. I was so scared I would bite him, I was terrified of communion for quite a while. :-)

DoubleClutchin on March 11, 2012 at 1:05 AM

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM

I think Catholic schools are better at instilling guilt than fear. “Horror of the body” was the worst, to me. If you want to see sex and the flesh–your own or anyone else’s–as something so vile, even husbands and wives ought to abstain unless they’re ‘doing the necessary‘ to fetch a young’un, let me put you in the Wayback Machine set for St. Andrews H.S. circa early 70s.
:)
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Ah, well, that’s always been the Catholic way – I mean the part about families & morality. I have no beef with them on that account. It’s part of the package.

But on guilt-tripping – from what I’ve heard, it’s Jewish mothers who have that market cornered.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Frightening children is, by definition, traumatic. And when you have so many leaving the faith when they reach adulthood, that’s pretty counter-productive.

What is the “age of decision”?

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:05 AM

You’re being disingenuous in hopes of luring me into defending quasi-child abuse, and I’m not playing. You’re also telling me you’ve never heard the term, ‘age of decision’? The age varies from child to child but generally we’re talking about the age at which they can understand conceptually certain essential moral truths. I would leave it to parents to decide for themselves what age that might be for their child.

And again, I’m not talking about terrorizing children. You know this if you read anything of what I wrote. Preaching some New Age, rainbows and unicorns God Is Love pap does not convey the core of the Christian message. That’s the equivalent of spiritual cotton candy, and I would have no part of it, nor would I feed it to my children.

In any event, I seem to have stumbled into the middle of a Catholic discussion, and I frankly know next-to-nothing about Catholic teachings or dogma in this regard. There was never a hateful nun with a ruler hovering over my shoulder in grade school, so I don’t have those associations–or those resentments.

troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:09 AM

“Jewish guilt” was almost the comparison I reached for…But the nuns never stuck their heads in the oven when we disobeyed like Mama in Bye Bye Birdie.

ps, LOL at your “horse diaper” on the Tesla Santorum thread.
:D

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM

The age varies from child to child but generally we’re talking about the age at which they can understand conceptually certain essential moral truths.
troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM

That’s a meaningless definition. It would be especially cruel to parents who have had a child die in an accident, or one who was murdered, to give them the notion that if their lost child had not met such a meaningless definition, the child was thrown into non-stop torture for eternity at the moment of the child’s death. It’s a doctrine that is not only gibberish, but also extra-biblical and anti-biblical.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:31 AM

LOL, you take me back! I had CCD, and there was this one nun, man, not only was the body our enemy,,she had us all scared of the host. Really, and I mean Really made us little uns think it was actually the body of Christ. I was so scared I would bite him, I was terrified of communion for quite a while. :-)

DoubleClutchin on March 11, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Hahaaaa! Just a few years back I was listening to Catholic Radio, and there was a priest on telling this story about a woman who went to Communion with Sin on her because she’d skipped confession. It ended like the spooky campfire tales at CYO camp. The priest’s quaking voice intones, rising: “And the Communion wafer turned into flesh IN HER MOUTH!”

Good times, man…
;D

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 1:32 AM

“Jewish guilt” was almost the comparison I reached for…But the nuns never stuck their heads in the oven when we disobeyed like Mama in Bye Bye Birdie.
ps, LOL at your “horse diaper” on the Tesla Santorum thread.
:D
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Haven’t seen that for years and years from when it was first broadcast on TV – prob mid 60s when I was a little what-kitten. Our family had the soundtrack album (why, I don’t know), the only song on it I remember is “One Last Kiss”. I think by Richard Gautier (sp)?
I wouldn’t want to be the one that had to put a diaper on a horse – one kick from them and it’s lights out!

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM

There was never a hateful nun with a ruler hovering over my shoulder in grade school, so I don’t have those associations–or those resentments.

troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Oh, I’ve had enough hovering nuns with ruler/yardstick/pointer/ping pong paddle, etc. But I loved every one of them and truly believed that everything they did was because they cared about who I would grow up to be (thank goodness!).
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 1:40 AM

That’s a meaningless definition. It would be especially cruel to parents who have had a child die in an accident, or one who was murdered, to give them the notion that if their lost child had not met such a meaningless definition, the child was thrown into non-stop torture for eternity at the moment of the child’s death. It’s a doctrine that is not only gibberish, but also extra-biblical and anti-biblical.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:31 AM

You’re employing a straw man since I clearly, provably didn’t write anything implying anything of the sort. No, I don’t believe innocent children are subject to eternal torture, and no, it isn’t up to me or anyone on this planet to predict or decide the fate of anyone upon leaving this life.

For another, you seem eager to argue the point, which doesn’t work when the other party is equally determined not to engage in such an argument. You clearly have issues with faith–as do most of us at various times in our lives, which doesn’t happen to those with no faith at all. Godspeed working it out.

troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 1:44 AM

“One Last Kiss”. I think by Richard Gautier (sp)?

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Can’t recall the dude who played Conrad Birdie, but my fave song was his ironic ‘Sincere’ sung by the famous scuzzball.

Oh well. Back to the “horse diaper” thread!
:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Just so you know, I’m not dissing you. Some of your notions, maybe, but not intending to insult you.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

There was never a hateful nun with a ruler hovering over my shoulder in grade school, so I don’t have those associations–or those resentments.

troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Oh, I’ve had enough hovering nuns with ruler/yardstick/pointer/ping pong paddle, etc. But I loved every one of them and truly believed that everything they did was because they cared about who I would grow up to be (thank goodness!).
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Yes they certainly hovered, but never hateful! I think they have gotten somewhat of a bum rap from the movies.
A ping pong paddle eh CV, that’s funny.

DoubleClutchin on March 11, 2012 at 1:51 AM

“One Last Kiss”. I think by Richard Gautier (sp)?
whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Can’t recall the dude who played Conrad Birdie, but my fave song was his ironic ‘Sincere’ sung by the famous scuzzball.
Oh well. Back to the “horse diaper” thread!
:P
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

I think that was Dick Gautier, I’ll cheat and Google it….no, it was some guy named “Jesse Pearson” as Conrad Birdie in the film. It was Dick Gautier on the Broadway version LP we had. I’m more of a “Breakfast At Tiffanys” type for early 60s movie-stuff.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Just so you know, I’m not dissing you. Some of your notions, maybe, but not intending to insult you.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

That’s okay. No harm no foul. Like I said: what I wrote is solely my opinion. I was an atheist for much of my adult life until I had a very profound and personal experience convincing me of His presence (and His love). Mine is not the God of eternal torture chambers for children, but neither is He some feel-good, warm-and-fuzzy phantasm. From a human, mortal perspective, fear is as appropriate as love and adoration to the absolute certainty of His existence.

troyriser_gopftw on March 11, 2012 at 3:00 AM

Yes they certainly hovered, but never hateful! I think they have gotten somewhat of a bum rap from the movies.
A ping pong paddle eh CV, that’s funny.

DoubleClutchin on March 11, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Bum rap? Like Sister Mary Stigmata?

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 3:11 AM

I’m more of a “Breakfast At Tiffanys” type for early 60s movie-stuff.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Yeah, but I never did buy the big “reveal”–that Holly Golightly was married to Jed Clampett.
:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 3:14 AM

Yeah, but I never did buy the big “reveal”–that Holly Golightly was married to Jed Clampett.
:P
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 3:14 AM

Well, then he was just “Doc”, her ex. and actually, it was that role that got Buddy Ebsen the attn for the Clampett gig.

whatcat on March 11, 2012 at 3:26 AM

Bum rap? Like Sister Mary Stigmata?

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 11, 2012 at 3:11 AM

LOL!!!!! Perfect!

DoubleClutchin on March 11, 2012 at 3:31 AM

What hasn’t been said is that the Church showed the bank its cash in the “building fund” and all the “pledges” it had received from its members. The bank made the loan based on those “assets” plus the “property value” after the construction. The economy tanked, people became Unemployed or Underemployed. The “pledges” went unpaid. The loan went unpaid. The bank foreclosed.

You know the Economy is bad when banks start foreclosing on Churches.

RADIOONE on March 11, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Hey, Jazz…what’s with the “Hallelujah”? You do realize you’re employed by a site that was founded by a Christian Reagan Conservative, right?

kingsjester on March 11, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Not to worry. I believe God is capable of accomplishing His desires in multiple ways. Church building or no church building.

sdbatboy on March 11, 2012 at 10:21 AM

IMHO, the financial difficulties of many churches can be traced to the infection of many religious institutions with left-wing partisanship disguised as teachings of Jesus. This infection ultimately corrupts and destroys the original purpose of the church.

You can easily tell where this has happened by applying the Matthew 7:19 test:

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

landlines on March 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2