Author Topic: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics  (Read 3760 times)

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« on: June 02, 2009, 05:04:33 PM »
It is about time the church took the government head on, on what they can do.

State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
Official contends church must register as 'lobbyist' to speak out

By Drew Zahn
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99836

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport in Connecticut has filed a federal lawsuit following assertions by a state official that rallying church members at the Capitol in Hartford constitutes a violation of lobbying law.

Six weeks after 4,000 Catholics in Connecticut rallied in opposition to a proposed state law known as Bill 1098, which dictated local parishes reorganize their governing structures to substitute lay leaders for priests in oversight of finances , the Diocese of Bridgeport received a letter from Connecticut's Office of State Ethics informing it that an investigation was underway to ascertain if the diocese had violated state law by failing to register as a lobbyist organization.

"Following the surprise introduction of Bill 1098," said Diocese Bishop William E. Lori in a statement, "a proposal that singled out Catholic parishes and would have forced them to reorganize contrary to church law and the First Amendment, our diocese responded in the most natural, spontaneous, and frankly, American, of ways: we alerted our membership – in person and through our website; we encouraged them to exercise their free speech by contacting their elected representatives; and we organized a rally at the State Capitol. How can this possibly be called lobbying?"

Nonetheless, the lawsuit states, in a meeting with church representatives one month following the investigation letter, the ethics enforcement officer of the state OSE, Thomas K. Jones, told church representatives that the rally in Hartford and statements on the diocese website constituted a sufficient basis to file a complaint.

Consequently, a complaint from Jones could lead to imposition of a $10,000 fine and even possible criminal charges against the diocese. Furthermore, to become a registered lobbyist, the diocese would have to comply with reporting requirements, submit to audits and wear badges at the Capitol.

(Story continues below)


The lawsuit filed by the diocese in U.S. District Court last week contends that Jones' actions result in a direct "chilling" effect on the church's First Amendment rights.

"(Jones') application of the state lobbying laws is pressuring the (diocese), which from time to time is compelled by its faith to take stands on legislation, to tailor its communications and scale back its religious mission to avoid being treated as a 'lobbyist,'" the lawsuit states.

In a letter sent to diocese churches over the weekend to be read at services, Bishop Lori made an even stronger argument.

"This new action cannot be seen as anything other than an attempt to muzzle the church and subject our right of free speech to government review and regulation," Lori wrote. "This government action tramples on the First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly and religion, and should shock the conscience of all citizens of the Constitution State."

He concluded the letter by calling for church members to contact state legislators this week "to discuss why state lobbying laws, which are designed to protect the integrity of the legislative process and monitor and control backroom manipulation of that process, are now being used to stifle our freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly."

According to the lawsuit, Jones contends the diocese acted as a lobbyist organization in two ways: first, by listing the actual bill number of RB 1098 and second, by spending in excess of $2,000 – an amount established by Connecticut lobbying laws – to bus Catholics to the Capitol.

Carol Carson, the executive director of OSE, has declined to make comments to the press, citing the pending litigation.

Both the diocese and the state, however, have drawn criticism from others willing to comment.

Kim Harrison, a lobbyist for the United Church of Christ, told the Hartford Courant that religious organizations are "just like any other group, and we have to abide by the rules of the state of Connecticut."

Alan Neigher, an attorney and First Amendment expert, on the other hand, questioned the OCE's actions.

"There's a difference between petitioning as a citizen and lobbying as a lobbyist and I don't blame the diocese one bit for going after the state," Neigher told the Courant. "The state seems to be going down a slippery slope here. On its face this seems to be a very, very questionable investigation by the state."


zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,799
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2009, 05:08:36 PM »
I don't understand the legal aspects of church organizations anyway. It all seems very, very fuzzy to me. It's like, they are not allowed to turn a profit, but they are allowed to invest surplus cash for a limited amount of time to manage it, and they are allowed to spend as much as they want on....themselves. It's weird.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2009, 10:32:11 PM »
This is what happens when you get religion-haters in public office.

Roman Catholics are the biggest target that the religiophobes can target without incurring personal risk.  If they aren't handy, Mormons or fundy Baptists will do in a pinch.  They are the new n*****s.

The original bill the diocese protested was a disgusting travesty.  The use of the lobbying law against the diocese is as a club to punish it for not just taking the buggering from their betters in silence.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Jocassee

  • Buster Scruggs Respecter
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,591
  • "First time?"
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2009, 11:01:56 PM »
If they aren't handy, Mormons or fundy Baptists will do in a pinch. 

Are you a fundy or an ex-fundy? Those are the only two types of people who use that word in my experience.
I shall not die alone, alone, but kin to all the powers,
As merry as the ancient sun and fighting like the flowers.

vaskidmark

  • National Anthem Snob
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,799
  • WTF?
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2009, 11:32:47 PM »
go back to the discussions here http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=18511.0 and move forward to today's actions.

First the state sticks it's nose in how one (and only one) religion controls its funds, and then it tries to control their right to seek redress of grievances by demanding they pay money for the privilege of exercising that right.

Buckle your safety belts, boys!  It's going to be a bumpy ride!

stay safe.

skidmark
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

Hey you kids!! Get off my lawn!!!

They keep making this eternal vigilance thing harder and harder.  Protecting the 2nd amendment is like playing PACMAN - there's no pause button so you can go to the bathroom.

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2009, 12:28:52 AM »
Quote
Where did you find that info?  I just checked & it is still listed as being in the Judiciary Committee.

Not that I'm upset that it might have been withdrawn.  Just curious where you found out.

CT bill 1098 killed (for now)
By Paul Zalonski on March 10, 2009 7:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
http://communio.stblogs.org/2009/03/ct-bill-1098-killed-for-now.html

This evening's report on killing of the CT bill 1098 by Catholic News Service:

Bill giving laity control of parish finances killed in Connecticut

HARTFORD, Conn. (CNS) -- At the request of its proponents, a bill that would have given laypeople financial control of their parishes in Connecticut has been withdrawn and is dead for this legislative session. In a joint statement March 10, the co-chairmen of the Connecticut Legislature's Judiciary Committee, Sen. Andrew J. McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, announced the cancellation of a scheduled March 11 hearing on the controversial bill. There was no immediate comment on the bill's demise from the Catholic bishops of Connecticut, who had strongly opposed the legislation and urged Catholics to turn out at the hearing in large numbers. "At the request of the proponents who are advocating this legislation, we have decided to cancel the public hearing for tomorrow, table any further consideration of this bill for the duration of this session, and ask the attorney general his opinion regarding the constitutionality of the existing law," said McDonald and Lawlor, both Democrats and Catholics. "It would serve no useful purpose to have a conversation about changing the laws that govern existing Roman Catholic corporations until we know if any of these existing laws are constitutional," they said.

For the moment the bill is off the table. Good. Prayers answered. BUT it's only a matter of time before this initiative (or something similar) is reintroduced --with sharper teeth-- which will shake the dander of faithful Catholics who hold firmly to Catholic teaching. Some will see this threat as lacking merit, but heterodox will pull something else to threaten the security of free exercise of religion. Sorry to say, fellow Nutmegers have tried to disrupt the unity of the Church. Senator Michael McLachlan this afternoon after announcing the tabling of the bill, "Now they [Andrew McDonald and Michael Lawler] want the Catholic Church to defend the laws on the books since 1866!" THE fight is not over...by a long shot.

 Saint Michael, pray for us!!!

brimic

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,270
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2009, 08:35:45 AM »
New game plan for conservatives- when we get back in power, declare 'environmentalism' a religeon. :cool:
"now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb" -Dark Helmet

"AK47's belong in the hands of soldiers mexican drug cartels"-
Barack Obama

El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2009, 09:30:22 AM »
You mean Neo-Druidism is not??? =|
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

French G.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,195
  • ohhh sparkles!
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2009, 10:18:57 AM »
Imagine the outrage if a similar law targeted the finances of a region's Islamic churches.
AKA Navy Joe   

I'm so contrarian that I didn't respond to the thread.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2009, 11:59:10 AM »
Imagine the outrage if a similar law targeted the finances of a region's Islamic churches.

Never gonna happen, 'cause the cowardly policritters fear that there might be consequences other than political if they were to stir that pot.  IOW, nobody really fears physical retaliation if Christians are slandered, libeled, or disrespected.  Muslims, OTOH, have been known to get up and get physical when treated similarly.

Are you a fundy or an ex-fundy? Those are the only two types of people who use that word in my experience.

As long as I have been a Christian, I think I've always been "fundy," whichever denomination I was part of at any particular point in my life.

After the Army, I attended a mildly charismatic church as one of the very few who demonstrated no "power" gift. I then attended & was married in a Southern Baptist church.  These days I am a member of a confessional Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) church & school.  Both (SB & LCMS) are theologically conservative and both take the Bible literally, in the WJ Bryan sense(1). 

Both SB & LCMS qualify as "fundy" (2), even if confessional Lutheranism has neither explicitly taken the label as its own or subscribed to some of the newer bits of theology ascribed to "fundy" denominations (pre-millennial eschatology, among others).

There are some significant doctrinal differences, but a quick & dirty(3) summary of the differences is that the confessional Lutheran denominations did not toss out each and every bit of tradition, practice, whatever during the split with the R Catholic church.  Those that were not contradicted by scripture were eligible to remain part of Lutheran worship.  That is why you see the liturgy, various confessions, etc. still used and adhered to.

Perhaps that makes confessional Lutheranism more fundy than the denominations that fly the fundy banner.

G98 can likely give you a better overview, given his training.






(1) "I believe that everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving Ebba's people."
----WJ Bryan


(2) Old-school fundy definition:
* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus
* The authenticity of Christ's miracles
(LCMS had a rather large schism in the 1970s, where the liberal theologians were given the boot / allowed to leave.)


(3) Quick, dirty, and simplistic.  There are many better equipped to give you the scoop.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

lupinus

  • Southern Mod Trimutive Emeritus
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,178
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2009, 03:33:09 PM »
Lutherans are not fundy, we are confessional. 
That is all. *expletive deleted*ck you all, eat *expletive deleted*it, and die in a fire. I have considered writing here a long parting section dedicated to each poster, but I have decided, at length, against it. *expletive deleted*ck you all and Hail Satan.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2009, 04:42:34 PM »
Lutherans are not fundy, we are confessional. 

Yes, you are correct  in that confessional Lutherans & confessional Lutheran denom/synods don't claim to be fundies. 

My point was in response to Cmdr. Gravez0r, who sniffed out some "fundy funk" in my verbiage.  I was describing the intersection of fundamentalism and confessional Lutheranism (with a focus on old-school fundamentalism).  Now, there is a whole lot that can be written on the where they diverge, but that would be a different post and was not pertinent to my reply above.

For sure Confessional Lutherans share some common ground with Fundamentalists such as confession of the inerrancy of the Bible, preservation of Biblical morality, and belief in the blood atonement. But that is where the commonalities end. Fundamentalists do not accept the means of grace and also shatter the distinction between the two kingdoms (left hand kingdom of the world and right hand kingdom of grace).

Also, it must be noted, some Lutherans are not confessional, but have been taken with liberal theology and other ideas at odds with the Book of Concord.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2009, 06:01:17 PM »
Serious non political thread veer in this one, bring it back to the X ring folks.  If you want to have a religious conversation, feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate forum.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,799
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2009, 03:28:27 PM »
On the OP, It looks to me like the state is trying to meddle in the operations and organization of the catholic church.  IMO, that is something they should not do and interferes with freedom to practice religion and organize it in the way they see fit.  I guess we'll see if the courts see it that way also.

-----------
THREAD DRIFT  :D
Looking at the 2nd definition of "fundy" above, those things fit pretty close with the non-denominational church I grew up with.  It was and still is likely the exact opposite of what a charismatic church would be.  You show up, sit down, shut up, and listen to the pretty technical sermon for 45 minutes.  Sing a few songs on Sundays.  :) 

What do y'all mean when you call your Lutheran Church "confessional"?  Does that mean you confess to priests or just that you believe in confessing sins to God?  Just curious. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2009, 04:40:11 PM »
I think I'll borrow that fork now.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”