Talk:Episcopal Church in South Carolina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Explaining a little about my changes today, I think when there is a legal dispute, it is problematic to say that one side "claims" or "argues" something, unless you also say what the other side "claims" or "argues." Saying that somebody "claims" or "argues" something can be a subtle way of implying that they are wrong. If they were right, they wouldn't have to make claims or arguments. They could just state things as facts, and it would be self evident. While the dispute is unresolved, if we want to describe it in neutral terms, we shouldn't say what one side "claims" without saying what the other "claims." So in this case, it's not just the ECISC that "argues" it has the right to use the name that EDOSC is using. BOTH groups "argue" that they have the right to use the name. We won't know who is right legally until the lawsuits are over. Dunncon13 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Diocese of TEC and member of Anglican Communion[edit]

I just undid a revision that incorrectly claimed the ECiSC is not a diocese of TEC, and also not a part of the Anglican Communion. These claims were not sourced, and the change was clearly not neutral. It is NOT true that TEC has never admitted ECiSC as a diocese. The diocese was admitted centuries ago, although under a different name. The only reason the Episcopal Church's diocese in South Carolina is not using the name it historically used, is that there has been a schism. The group that left TEC currently has the legal right to use the historic name "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina." The Episcopal Church in South Carolina views itself, and is viewed by TEC and the Anglican Communion, as the same entity that has been a diocese of TEC since TEC's founding. They don't need to "admit" it to the Episcopal Church. It has always been a part of the Church, and remains a part of the Church today. Dunncon13 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Effects of Supreme Court ruling[edit]

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that 29 parish properties legally belong to the continuing diocese. But the congregations (the church members who worship in those buildings) do not automatically become TEC congregations again. I think it's too soon to say what's going to happen - we'll have to wait and see. For now, the ECiSC still has 30 congregations. It also has legal control over 29 additional buildings, which up until now have housed ACNA congregations. Those congregations are still, as of right now, ACNA congregations. At least that's how I see it. Dunncon13 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Episcopal Church in South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)