Pulpit Freedom Sunday

[Harlowe]

You fail to see how their influence over people being used to gain political power is abuse?

[Harlowe]

Just to add - being in a position of power - unquestioning power - over people & using the fear of god as a weapon to gain power within a political body is not abuse? It is not only abuse, but religious persecution. You don't agree with the Vatican, you get labeled a bad Christian or Catholic etc. You want to further infuse a religious agenda into our politics? Really? In America? Because at some point BOTH parties will pander to them if that means the greater power. You want our politicians not only falling over themselves to please the Evangelists but now the Vatican as well?

This is all no big deal if we prefer Iran's power structure. The Ayatollah is the supreme word in everything chosen by Mujtahids, not the President who the people elected.

[Ddrak]

So how would you suggest the Vatican presents their disapproval of the Democrat's stance on abortion?

Dd

[Select]

You're a bad Christian/Catholic if you do it but you're not a bad Christian/Catholic if you're okay with people having a choice? Unlikely, though.

[Kulaf]

You fail to see how their influence over people being used to gain political power is abuse?

I fail to see how the Vatican "gain(s) political power".......yes. If anything the Vatican stants to lose influence in the U.S. if they ever take that stand.....not gain it.

[Harlowe]

So how would you suggest the Vatican presents their disapproval of the Democrat's stance on abortion?

Dd

It's not a Democratic stance, there are Democrats that are Pro-life, just as there are Republicans that are Pro-Choice. I think calling either party evil is ridiculous.

[Klast Brell]

The Vatican is not subject to US law because it is not even on this side of the planet. Churches in the US however are subject to the law of the land. They are not foreign soil where US law does not apply. Any non profit that does that looses their tax free status. whether they are a church or a no kill animal shelter does not mater. Churches do not get exemptions from the law just because they are a church. It's not legal to rape kids in a church either. You cant make a law respecting religion, that does not mean religion gets to ignore the law.

[Harlowe]

I just think it's pretty outrageous that an American Archbishop can practice partisan politics from the Vatican.

Vatican officials seldom single out political leaders who differ with the Church on issues like abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research. But now that the Vatican’s highest court is led by an American, the former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, we can expect things to get more explicit in Vatican City — at least when when it comes to U.S. politics.

Burke made headlines as archbishop of St. Louis for his public attacks on public figures who strayed from Catholic teaching. He suggested during the 2004 presidential campaign that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic, should be denied communion because of his views on abortion.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/200 ... -of-death/

[Kulaf]

The Vatican is not subject to US law because it is not even on this side of the planet. Churches in the US however are subject to the law of the land. They are not foreign soil where US law does not apply. Any non profit that does that looses their tax free status. whether they are a church or a no kill animal shelter does not mater. Churches do not get exemptions from the law just because they are a church. It's not legal to rape kids in a church either. You cant make a law respecting religion, that does not mean religion gets to ignore the law.

So are you trying to say that if an American Catholic church were to deny John Kerry communion because of his stance on abortion that they are in violation of the seperation clause?

I cannot wait to hear how you are going to twist that into shape.

[Kulaf]

So how would you suggest the Vatican presents their disapproval of the Democrat's stance on abortion?

Dd

It's not a Democratic stance, there are Democrats that are Pro-life, just as there are Republicans that are Pro-Choice. I think calling either party evil is ridiculous.

The Democratic Party would beg to differ:

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Choice
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

We will lift the current Administration’s ban on using federal funding for embryonic stem cells–cells that would have otherwise have been discarded and lost forever–for research that could save lives.

[Klast Brell]

So are you trying to say that if an American Catholic church were to deny John Kerry communion because of his stance on abortion that they are in violation of the seperation clause?

I cannot wait to hear how you are going to twist that into shape.

A church is unable to Violate the separation clause. It applies to congress.
Now if you just misspoke. A catholic church refusing to offer communion is a gray area. They can refuse to offer communion to anyone for any reason. To make a law to force them to give communion to someone against their will would be a violation of the separation clause. No question about that. But to deny them their tax exempt status would be an interesting case to test in the courts. In my mind the distinction lies in the manner in which the information was released to the public. If they made a press release specifically with the intent to endorse Bush then by all means yes. If they made an internal decision and privately informed Kerry, the church is not responsible for some other party publicizing the information. Just like Palin's church is not responsible for someone digging up the take of their ceremony to protect Palin from witches.

[Trollbait]

A church is unable to Violate the separation clause. It applies to congress.
Now if you just misspoke. A catholic church refusing to offer communion is a gray area. They can refuse to offer communion to anyone for any reason. To make a law to force them to give communion to someone against their will would be a violation of the separation clause. No question about that. But to deny them their tax exempt status would be an interesting case to test in the courts. In my mind the distinction lies in the manner in which the information was released to the public. If they made a press release specifically with the intent to endorse Bush then by all means yes. If they made an internal decision and privately informed Kerry, the church is not responsible for some other party publicizing the information. Just like Palin's church is not responsible for someone digging up the take of their ceremony to protect Palin from witches.

The Catholic Church is a bad example for any seperation argument since it is not only a church but a sovereign nation.

[Harlowe]

Kulaf I was using the communion situation as memory-jogger as to who this Archbishop is and his publicity stunts prior against a particular party. If a Catholic church decides to not give someone communion, that is entirely up to them. He simply used it as a political ploy as he is now in the Vatican.

As for the DNC platform; there are Pro-life Democrats, just as there are Pro-Choice Republicans. That was my point. Not all members of a party are going to be 100% on board the entire party platform. I was not speaking to what the platform is, but the individuals within the party.

[Kulaf]

A church is unable to Violate the separation clause. It applies to congress.
Now if you just misspoke. A catholic church refusing to offer communion is a gray area. They can refuse to offer communion to anyone for any reason. To make a law to force them to give communion to someone against their will would be a violation of the separation clause. No question about that. But to deny them their tax exempt status would be an interesting case to test in the courts. In my mind the distinction lies in the manner in which the information was released to the public. If they made a press release specifically with the intent to endorse Bush then by all means yes. If they made an internal decision and privately informed Kerry, the church is not responsible for some other party publicizing the information. Just like Palin's church is not responsible for someone digging up the take of their ceremony to protect Palin from witches.

The Catholic Church is a bad example for any seperation argument since it is not only a church but a sovereign nation.

The Vatican is a soveriegn nation. It also is the seat of power for the Pope.....i.e. the head of the Catholic faith. It changes nothing with respect to seperation. If the Pope ordered American priests to start preaching politics from the pulpit the church would lose all tax breaks for all of its interests within the U.S.

[Kulaf]

So are you trying to say that if an American Catholic church were to deny John Kerry communion because of his stance on abortion that they are in violation of the seperation clause?

I cannot wait to hear how you are going to twist that into shape.

A church is unable to Violate the separation clause. It applies to congress.
Now if you just misspoke. A catholic church refusing to offer communion is a gray area. They can refuse to offer communion to anyone for any reason. To make a law to force them to give communion to someone against their will would be a violation of the separation clause. No question about that. But to deny them their tax exempt status would be an interesting case to test in the courts. In my mind the distinction lies in the manner in which the information was released to the public. If they made a press release specifically with the intent to endorse Bush then by all means yes. If they made an internal decision and privately informed Kerry, the church is not responsible for some other party publicizing the information. Just like Palin's church is not responsible for someone digging up the take of their ceremony to protect Palin from witches.

A church places themselves in violation of the seperation clause by speaking politics from the pulpit. Since the government cannot mix religion and politics it cannot offer tax breaks to churches that do so.

The church can speak out against abortion.......and its derivitive issue embryonic stem cell research wihout involving politics. Tomorrow the Pope could issue a stand that the church will refuse to grant communion to any and all individuals that engage in or support the practice of abortion. That would do it in a nutshell.

[Klast Brell]

Kulaf?
you are making less and less sense.
The church would not lose it's tax exempt status because it is a church. It would loose it's tax exempt status because it is a non profit.

[Kulaf]

Kulaf?
you are making less and less sense.
The church would not lose it's tax exempt status because it is a church. It would loose it's tax exempt status because it is a non profit.

Umm.......what? Churches are not non-profits.......far from it. And there are plenty of non-profits that engage in political activity. Nearly every political organization is a non-profit.

Churches are not taxed because they are exempt from income tax. The State does not tax them due to the seperation (Establishment) clause.

[Ddrak]

The State does not tax them due to the seperation (Establishment) clause.

Wait... what? The only thing the establishment clause says is that they can't give any religion preferential treatment. The interpretation of that statement has been that a religion is an apolitical organization, which is a pretty difficult definition as churches will necessarily favor one party over the other due to the alignment or non-alignment of party principles with the church's.

In short, it's been an uneasy truce. The church stays out of government while the government doesn't tax the church. If the church starts sailing too close to being a PAC then they get taxed because they fall outside the establishment clause by getting involved in politics.

There would be no violation of the establishment clause if all religions were taxed, which I think is a perfectly acceptable solution.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

Wrong Kulaf

They can speak to issues all they want as long as they don't ask you to vote one way or the other.
And if the separation clause applied laws could not be passed exempting them from property taxes.

[Kulaf]

Ok don't believe me. Go look at the IRS code coverning tax exempt organizations. I'll wait here.