I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Yes, and those indulgences should be heavily taxed as well.
And perhaps every time transubstantion happens, Jesus should have to pay user fees to local municipalities so they can capture some revenue from tourism.
I have never understood how churches, but only certain churches, could be tax-exempt without violating the first amendment.
Fuck the Catholic Church.
I hereby renounce my Catholicity.
As usual, they are more concerned with this type of bullshit than with the pedophilia, the institutionalized homosexuality, and why people aren't showing up for church anymore.
Yes, as a Catholic you must only support George W. Bush, the Crusader.
I may be stupid, but as far as I can figure out, the position of the Respublican Party is that you can kill human beings when they're alive and sentient for no reason other than revenge and bogus deterrence and closure, but you can't let a single fertilized human cell (millions of which are spontaneously aborted every day) go without the full protection of the Law. After it's born -- into the marketplace jungle!
The Catholic church political? Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell top the list of tax free "church" groups that are extremely political.
>>Ekeh acknowledges that some of his writings on his personal Web site were critical of the bishops (he criticized, for example, the bishops' statements on gay marriage) though he says he was always supportive of "the church itself."
Folks, there are reasons to have this question about tax-exempt status. But frankly, getting fired for shittin' where you eat ain't exactly a "litmus test."
I may be stupid, but as far as I can figure out, the position of the Respublican Party is that you can kill human beings when they're alive and sentient for no reason other than revenge and bogus deterrence and closure, but you can't let a single fertilized human cell (millions of which are spontaneously aborted every day) go without the full protection of the Law. After it's born -- into the marketplace jungle!
Yes, indeedy! All human beings have an inalienable right to life...up until the moment of birth.
Catholicism has jumped the shark. 
Separation of church and state? What's that?
The Catholic Church jumped the shark when the Pope ordered Father Drinan to leave politics.
Andrew Greeley has a piece over at Salon in which he says this kind of thing could cause a backlash, driving Catholics who don't usually see eye-to-eye with church leadership to come out in greater numbers for Kerry.
Churches need to 'get over' abortion & birth control. God's not going to punish people for regulating the number of children they have to what each person feels s/he can do a good job raising.
Can you fire people for their political affiliations in the US? Isn't it wrongful dismissal? I hope he sues them.
Folks, there are reasons to have this question about tax-exempt status. But frankly, getting fired for shittin' where you eat ain't exactly a "litmus test."
chrississippi | Email | Homepage | 03.27.04 - 2:16 pm | #
Really? There's only one possible translation of the bible that all Christians have to follow to the letter? And here I was, having read the Bible, who thought there were lots of messages - many even contradictory - in the book.
i think catholicism jumped the shrk in the 1500's. but damned if they can get cancelled.
Wait just a damn minute. As a Catholic, and a pro-choice Democrat, I have a real problem with announcing that a purge should result in a loss of tax-exempt status. Atrios, you do not understand how Catholicism works: the Church is not a monolith, in fact it is ridiculously decentralized. Every Bishop is basically sovereign within their bishopric: the pope can recall a bishop, but only under extreme circumstances. Bishops are basically Barons: they are a counterbalance to the pope, and a rival. This is why, for instance, the head of the Catholic church in america, Wilton Gregory, was not able to simply fire offending bishops in Boston and elsewhere during the sex-abuse scandal. This litmus-test is not instituted by the papacy, and is probably the work of the bishop or bishops in charge. They do not represent anyone but themselves. This is not the Church: the church is not the bishops or the pope or even the priests, but the laity and the clerics together. Do NOT condemn the entire group because of a power struggle among the leadership. This purge is deeply troubling for me, and represents an attempt to hijack the church from within.
Wait just a damn minute. As a Catholic, and a pro-choice Democrat, I have a real problem with announcing that a purge should result in a loss of tax-exempt status. Atrios, you do not understand how Catholicism works: the Church is not a monolith, in fact it is ridiculously decentralized. Every Bishop is basically sovereign within their bishopric: the pope can recall a bishop, but only under extreme circumstances. Bishops are basically Barons: they are a counterbalance to the pope, and a rival. This is why, for instance, the head of the Catholic church in america, Wilton Gregory, was not able to simply fire offending bishops in Boston and elsewhere during the sex-abuse scandal. This litmus-test is not instituted by the papacy, and is probably the work of the bishop or bishops in charge. They do not represent anyone but themselves. This is not the Church: the church is not the bishops or the pope or even the priests, but the laity and the clerics together. Do NOT condemn the entire group because of a power struggle among the leadership. This purge is deeply troubling for me, and represents an attempt to hijack the church from within.
sorry for the double post. 
This is the kind of shit that made me excommunicate myself years ago even after getting a masters degree from a catholic seminary. bah. They teach all this peace and love on one hand and act like the Spanish Inquisition on the other hand. Long Island, where I live, is currently the hotbed of catholic pedophilia coverups. bah.
Let the counterattacks against the religious right begin. It's long past overdue.
The one requirement: it must be done by a united front of progressives, both secular and non. This is not about religion bashing.
As suggested in a link over at the Right Christians (the place where I first read the story in Atrios' post), it is time to start aggressively stigmatizing the word "fundamentalist". (See The grief of America, world can be traced back to the 'F' word"). Preferably while throwing the true progressive values of the original commie pinko-- Jesus The Christ--back in their faces.
Then watch the fun!
I assume this particular Bishop supports only anti-birth control candidates. Oh wait there are none of those.
Jeebus F. Christ! They spend more time going after the left than al-Qaeda.
I was just reading another article this morning -- don't have the link in front of me -- where the radio host who had the tape of that Congressman (who said he had been bribed over the medicaid issue) was fired!
They are getting very desperate -- and we are the targets.
Deal Hudson is as conservative as any fundie. This doesn't surprise me at all.
Not very bright on Ekeh's part, frankly, not that I think he did the wrong thing--just the opposite. But I hope he was prepared for the consequences.
I don't think his firing counts as wrongful dismmissal because religious organizations have the right to demand that their employees conform to their doctrine, and pro-choice is obviously against Catholic doctrine.
Well, the Catholics have already lost one court case in their attempt to force the Pope's message down the throats of the secular world.
As for "shitting where you eat":
Ekeh said he was careful to separate his job from his Web activities, which he conducted on his personal time.
Get ACLU on the blower...
BTW, this case is another reason for blogger anonymity...
Possibly the Pope is getting senile or so full of his importance, he's overreaching.
This should put a gunshot wound in the other foot.
Pope John Paul II, voicing his disapproval of Sunday sports and entertainment, wants Catholics to hang up their cleats and change back into church clothes.
``When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes subordinate to a secular concept of weekend - dominated by such things as entertainment and sport - people stay locked within a horizon so narrow that they can no longer see the heavens,'' the pope told visiting Australian bishops yesterday.
Unlike some Protestant schools, Catholic institutions in Massachusetts generally play games on Sunday when asked to by league officials.
Lapchick said he's unaware of modern-day bans on Sunday sport participation. They'd probably lose a lot of their congregants, he said. ``Sports is a religion in this country and a lot of the world,'' he said.
Looks like starting times at the local golf course will be easier to come by for us heathens.
gee, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition
This is happening not only to Mr. Kerry, but also at the local and state level here where I live. The issue of gay marriage is huge here right now. Sermons at local masses have even included the name of legislators that have not taken the church's stance (against gay marriage) on the issue with the warning...we will not forget the names of these people come election time.
Believe me, there are plenty - PLEN-TEEEEE - of Catholic priests in the U.S. who cringe at this sort of stuff. I live in the OTHER sex-abuse capital, Boston, and heard of several who tore up Cardinal Law's letters to parishoners rather than read them on Sundays. Even my friends who are still Catholic (the kind of people I WISH were running the church) get the willies at this heavy-handedness.
Don't worry - the minute they try to excommunicate some high profile politician for supporting gay marriage or abortion rights is the minute you're going to see millions of American Catholics run screaming to other churches and the ballot box. Funny how nobody ever mentions excommunicating a Catholic politician for supporting the death penalty.
Happy to be post-Catholic,
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree on this one. I don't think it's good PR, and I certainly don't think it's 100% in line with the teachings of Jesus, but almost all bishops have been trying to enforce some kind of "loyalty to the Magisterium" clause in employment contracts. It has certainly cost them some good people (myself included) as employees.
But how is it controversial to suggest that persons in the employ of the Catholic Church who are also members of that church should not be arguing in public against the teachings of that church? I guarantee you that Shrub would fire any member of his staff who came out and criticized his policies--and nobody would blink an eye. So why is it different when the person threatening the firing is a Catholic bishop?
There has been a considerable movement from the radical right wing of the Catholic Church to become more vocal about Catholic politicians who don't toe the official line on policy matters like abortion and same-gender marriage. Here, again, I think it's wrong-headed of them to do it, but some of the less-enlightened among the hierarchs are doing it anyway. It's not much of a stretch to go from "Catholic politicians who don't support Catholic teachings should be excommunicated" to "Employees of the Catholic Church who support Catholic politicians who don't support Catholic teachings can lose their jobs."
Mind you, I'm not agreeing with them. But there's no vast conspiracy here, nor any reason to revoke tax-exempt status.
I've thought for some time that the religious tax exemption is just a license to steal. It is. Churches - not just the Catholic Church, lots of churches and religious organizations - own a whole big bunch of property in this country, among other things. They run camps for kids that take in profit and who knows what else that they make a lot of money on. They have amazing assets - the Presbyterian Church owns Georgia O'Keefe's ranch, the Ghost Ranch, in New Mexico, and another ranch up in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado, for instance. I think we are way overdo for a re-adjustment of the tax code on this. It's nuts.
mondo dentro - I like your attitude, and you are so damned right. Time to stand up to the Fundies and RR and throw it all back at them.
Truly disgusting. I used to argue with the nuns at my Catholic high school about crap like this.
The truly consistent Catholic leaders are few and far between, following what bishops used to call the "seamless garment" of beliefs - which meant, how can you be against abortion but support killing people in a war?
This highly conservative pope did his best to run those heretics out of the church, or to at least block their careers. The result is, when this pope dies, he's already stacked the deck for the forseeable future. Only the most conservative bishops were elevated to cardinal, and only they will get to vote for the next pope.
But how is it controversial to suggest that persons in the employ of the Catholic Church who are also members of that church should not be arguing in public against the teachings of that church? I guarantee you that Shrub would fire any member of his staff who came out and criticized his policies--and nobody would blink an eye. So why is it different when the person threatening the firing is a Catholic bishop?
Michael 2:46 pm
While that position seems easy enough to justify, consider this one.
Rather than face legal action over refusing to provide services for abortion, some Catholic Hospitals stopped obstetric care altogether (they reconsidered that position when insurance companies got into exclusive contracting for services with hospitals and they were not competetively offering a full spectrum of services). At that earlier point in history though, the Church was trying to bar Ob-Gyns that performed abortions from even being allowed on staff.
That seems to be carrying things a bit too far.
It is a shame the catholic bishops didn't act so agressively and promptly over the child abuse problem within the catholic church. It would also seem that Deal Hudson wasn't too concerned about the problems of child abuse in the catholic church!
Thanks, Atrios, for highlighting this.
I don't think Ekeh has a cause of action against the USCCB, because of the nature of the organization. However, I am of the opinion that this incident needs to be highlighted over and over, because the USCCB is playing politics. They need to be spanked, thoroughly.
What would really help, IMHO, is if someone would hire Ekeh to blog. I'm not suggesting the Kerry campaign, because I don't think that they're rather up to an early confrontation with the Catholic hierarcy. But if Ekeh had a platform for his advocacy....
OT: Uh oh...
More voices to add to the choir...
Clarke's complaint resonates with some other former administration officials. Rand Beers, who served as counterterrorism chief after Clarke, has voiced the same complaint and is now foreign policy adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry (Mass.). Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst and Middle East specialist who left Bush's National Security Council staff a year ago, also agrees.
"Clarke's critique of administration decision-making and how it did not balance the imperative of finishing the job against al Qaeda versus what they wanted to do in Iraq is absolutely on the money," Leverett said.
http://tinyurl.com/2r9j5
We could probably fund most of a comprehensive national health care package if we taxed the churches like the money-grubbing corporations they actually are.
Churches should NOT have tax-exempt status, period.
They are groups, and should pay taxes like any other. Of course, any money that goes to charity should remain untaxed, but anything that goes towards upkeep and investment should be taxed like anybody else.
Well, I'm glad that the Church, after having built up so much moral authority through its handling of the pedophilia issue, is using that authority judiciously, i.e., to support a pro-death penalty, pro-unjust [by Thomistic standards, at least] war, anti-poor President. Good call.
"But, once they align themselves with a political party while retaining their tax-exempt status, it is my business"
Ah, the abiding intolerance of the McCarthyite Left.
Of course, if you open this can of worms then you lose. All those civil groups, all those environmental groups also come under the microscope. Any "alignment" with the Democrats? Sure. There goes their tax-exempt status. And their tax-deductibility for good measure.
But of course, you'd howl like a stuck pig if that happened. Because you are a seething hypocrite.
Message to church employees who support John Kerry's presidential bid: public endorsement of the pro-choice Catholic senator could cost you your job.
And supporting the warmongering Bush is A-OK? I thought the Pope opposed the invasion of Iraq?
I guess that leaves Nader or a write-in for Joe Lieberman as the Pope's choice for leader of the free world.
Ah, the abiding intolerance of the McCarthyite Left.
Now now, hat. Don't be such a moral relativist.
We don't want to eliminate the influence of religion in politics. We just want to shrink to the point that we can drown in the bath tub!
Hat,
actually, groups have to prove they deserve tax exempt status, and have to be very careful what they say and do with the money they collect and the information they disseminate. The point of Atrios's comments is quite well taken: if the Catholic church is going to use churches (their property) to push a political agenda their tax exempt status may well/ought perhaps to be in danger. I'd say the same of any tax exempt group that violated the principles under which it receives that exemption. Tax exemption is granted to churches under one set of laws pertaining to religion, and tax exemption is granted to other kinds of groups under other kinds of laws. How their political activity relates to their tax exempt status may vary according to their legal incorporation. I happen to agree with Atrios, the catholic church telling its members how to vote may/ought to be cause for re-examining their tax exempt status. I don't make the same charge against *all* tax exempt groups because their charter may not forbid them for certain kinds of politicking.
But by the way, the bush regime has not hesitated to use the IRS to attempt to suppress the free speech of voters by challenging the right of voters to come together, raise money (whether tax exempt or not) and challenge bush's permanent reign. If I could dissallow the catholic church's status as a church for playing politics, I would. Payback is a bitch.
aimai
it's time to remove ALL tax-exempt status for ALL religious institutions.
ALL OF THEM! NOW!
i'm sick of subsidizing christian, jewish, islamic, whatever religious institutions by allowing them to not pay taxes on their property and income.
to me, they're all the same: mind-controlling, populace-numbing belief systems designed to do one thing: keep you down and help separate you from your money.
i'm sure many of you may disagree, but ultimately, what would your precious church / whatever be without a regular suctioning of your wallet/purse?
Is there a patron saint for bundlers?
You think you've got it bad there. Here, the government actually gives the Catholic Church money to run a completely redundant school system (referred to in the vernacular as "separate schools") -- publicly-funded Catholic education. Incidentally, the government does this for no other religious group.
Catholics en masse (cough) are a voting bloc on some issues, more or less (as much so as any other demographic), and the Catholic Church definitely has a resemblance to a PAC in certain contexts.
Personally, I don't think that any religious -- or just about any other -- group should have tax-exempt status, either here or in the US. (So much for "hypocrisy," eh, hat-for-brains?)
Lesson 1 for today;
Abide
To put up with; tolerate: can't abide such incompetence. (And not, for instance, "the tolerative intolerance of the..."
To wait patiently for: “I will abide the coming of my lord” (Tennyson).
To withstand: a thermoplastic that will abide rough use and great heat.
v. intr.
To remain in a place.
To continue to be sure or firm; endure. See Synonyms at stay1.
To dwell or sojourn.
Idiom:
abide by
To conform to; comply with: abide by the rules; had to abide by the judge's decision.
Lesson 2 for today:
Hypocrisy
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. Such as, for instance, proclaiming one hates partisanship, whilst aggressively pursuing a one issue agenda in support of a person (Andrew Sullivan) or an ideology (Republicanism).
An act or instance of such falseness.
They won't fire child molesters... but they will fire active Democrats.
Assholes.
ALL RELIGION SHOULD BE TAXED! NO EXCEPTIONS!
Holy shit. hat's actually tossing an insult that has something to do with the post at hand. I'll have to mark this day on my calender.
Now, on the topic at hand...I've yet to understand why churches have tax exempt status in the first place. Granted, it's been years since I've been inside a church, but if nonsense like "moral character" and "family values" are serious political signposts, then churches do some serious stumping. Anytime a Christian like David Limbaugh complains that religious folks are persecuted in America, someone needs to point out this particular section of the tax code.
As for the Catholic Church itself...well, the excommunicated Father Damien for treating Protestent sufferers of leprosy as well as Catholics, so I've never understood how that particular watch ticks.
What does Deal Hudson have to say about the Pope's condemnation of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq? Is he arguing for selective enforcement of Catholic edicts? Are right wing extremists like Hudson suggesting the Catholic Church purge itself of Democrats? Doesn't the idiot know that supporting a woman's choice doesn't mean that John Kerry is going to drag pregnant Catholic teenagers out of church and force them to have an abortion? Does he have so little faith in the faith of Catholics that he needs sectarian laws to enforce religious beliefs?
FWIW, I'm a protestant and I don't think religious organizations should have broad tax-exempt status. If they're running legit charities, then that part of the church should be T.E.
it's time to remove ALL tax-exempt status for ALL religious institutions.
That would, in effect, end organized religion across urban America. No one, not even the Presbyterians, can pay the property taxes on their urban and suburban churches. There would be no place to worship. No that would be peachy with some Atrios comment rowdies, but some of us love church life.
Having said that, churches constantly push their luck, rather than try to set an example. Atrios is correct, if you push this against Kerry supporters, you have to push this against all those who support politicians who voted for the Iraq war (declared unjust by the Pope in a rare moment of lucidity) all politicians who support the death penalty. There has to be a single standard, or it is political action, not religisouly motivated advocacy. The Catholic Church already signed one consent decree over their anti-abortion activities, they should keep their word.
Interrobang - You didn't tell us where you live. Italy? Ireland?
Personally, I think the big, wealthy churches should be taxed, but the small neighborhood church that's barely limping along on donations from week to week should be left alone.
Love church life? Then PAY FOR IT.
I love motorcycles. I am requirred to pay for them.
Driving a motorcycle is a privilege governed by the state.
Religious worship and freedom of expressions are fundamental rights. As the founders of the country realized that these events require buildings and land, these exemptions were given in the first place.
The Catholic Church has been working hard in recent years to repudiate John F. Kennedy's "separation" policy of 1960, when he made it clear in a speech before a group of Protestant clerics that he was running for president, not for the job of Vatican ambassador to the U.S.
The backlash that Father Greeley suggested might occur has already happened: Bishop Leo Maher of San Diego brought the hammer down on Assemblywoman Lucy Killea during a closely fought 1989 special election for a seat in the state senate. Maher told Killea she was a bad Catholic for taking a pro-choice position on abortion rights and would be denied Holy Communion in the San Diego diocese. In the subsequent uproar, Killea won the election. Did Maher cause Killea's victory? No one can be certain, but the bishop's actions dominated the last three weeks of the campaign.
Do the bishops believe this augurs well for future doctrinal crackdowns on Catholic candidates who construct a wall of separation between Vatican policy and American politics?
56k - I don't know about anyone else here, but personally, the problem as I see it is not so much the individual churches, though some of them are questionable insofar as their holdings and activities that are bringing in money, but the entire set-up is a set-up guaranteed to place religious organizations into a very hypocritical position. We all know that Jesus advocated poverty as a virtue, not great big sanctuaries, schools, camps, ranches, rental property, expensive church accessories and decorations and vestments and all the rest. Ministers and priests get into this mindset that they want their churches and their manses to be the best, the biggest, the most elaborate. They play on the tax-exempt status of contributions to wring those things out of wealthy parishioners and congregations. I've seen this happen to Buddhists, too. It isn't necessarily limited to christianity, it is an outgrowth of organized religion, period. Always was. Which is why heads of state in Europe got fed up with the amount of wealth and influence the Catholic Church had and there were vicious, bloody religious wars all over Europe between Catholics and Protestants.
I'm not knocking anyone's faith here, but the whole problem, going back for as long as we have enough evidence to study is that there has always been a struggle in every civilization between the priesthood and the rulers for power. Organized religion by its nature begins to compete for power in every society in which is becomes entrenched. By allowing religious orgs to be tax exempt, the government encourages this amassing of wealth and power. It is a problem as old as we are and needs to be brought out into the air and the light and really examined. Again.
Religious worship and freedom of expressions are fundamental rights. As the founders of the country realized that these events require buildings and land, these exemptions were given in the first place.
Bryan | Email | Homepage | 03.27.04 - 3:46 pm | #
Yes, freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but I don't believe newspapers and movie studios are tax exempt.
And they should Tax Exempt motorcycles so that people could afford to put friggin' mufflers on them.
The Catholic Church has been working hard in recent years to repudiate John F. Kennedy's "separation" policy of 1960, when he made it clear in a speech before a group of Protestant clerics that he was running for president, not for the job of Vatican ambassador to the U.S.
The backlash that Father Greeley suggested might occur has already happened: Bishop Leo Maher of San Diego brought the hammer down on Assemblywoman Lucy Killea during a closely fought 1989 special election for a seat in the state senate. Maher told Killea she was a bad Catholic for taking a pro-choice position on abortion rights and would be denied Holy Communion in the San Diego diocese. In the subsequent uproar, Killea won the election. Did Maher cause Killea's victory? No one can be certain, but the bishop's actions dominated the last three weeks of the campaign.
Do the bishops believe this augurs well for future doctrinal crackdowns on Catholic candidates who construct a wall of separation between Vatican policy and American politics?
http://www.detnews.com/2003/reli...igion-
61913.htm
"The Vatican issued a new set of guidelines for Catholic politicians Thursday, reminding them to heed the church's "nonnegotiable" teachings on abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and other issues when making public policy. "
Too bad there have been no guidelines on pedophilic clergy.
To be consistent, the church simply should have sent Mr Ekeh to another parish.
You have a good point, 56k - though an atheist myself, with a deep suspicion of organised religion, I only want to level the playing field a bit, not destroy the various churches as we know them. But then something like the RLPA comes along... and my sympathy abruptly nosedives. I'm sure the moderates are in the solid majority in most churches (ie, the ones who don't plan to use to their church for political ends), and I'm sure they find all this just as distasteful as us secularists, but if they want to avoid strong-arm legal action (such as chopping tax exemptions), they're going to have do something about it themselves - either boot the reactionaries or schism. But they can't keep standing there wringing their hands and making feeble protests, because the situation has become insupportable and something will have to be done about it (I'm looking squarely at you, moderate American Catholics - how long are you going to put up with Popus Dei?)
pjb,
the church is being consistent, it has consistentl priveleged priests over parishoners. to be consistent with past policy the church should have fired ekeh and consigned him to hell, but maybe they have already, we won't know about the hell part for a while. the compassion o f the church has always been reserved primarily for the hierarchy.
aimai
It is necessary to draw a distinction between relegiously motivated advocacy, a non-political activity with political consequences, and partisan politics. The former should be tax exempt, the latter protected free speech, but not tax exempt. As I am both partisan and religious the distinction seems clear to me.
The Catholic Church was sued by NARAAL years ago for its anti-abortion activity for abusing its tax exempt status, the Church signed a consent agreement and they should keep that agreement. Churches need to set an example.
I see no reason why a congergation shouldn't put up the most splendid building they can and fill it with the most splendid furninshings they can manage for the greater glory of God. Why shouldn't churhes be places of spectacular beauty? Why shouldn't the minister and choir look splendid as well as sound splendid? Certainly the Quakers do not hold with this view, but many religious people do.
In this particular case the Catholic church seems to have crossed the line and should make amends.
By allowing religious orgs to be tax exempt, the government encourages this amassing of wealth and power. It is a problem as old as we are and needs to be brought out into the air and the light and really examined. Again.
Tena | Email | Homepage | 03.27.04 - 3:50 pm | #
Although, perhaps paradoxically, T.E. status gives the government leverage over big religious institutions. T.E. status/threatening to yank it, are pretty good carrot/sticks, especially against big fat rich religions who rely on it.
But in general, and as I said before, I'm a Protestant who opposes T.E. status.
Cen we just ban every friggin religion and let the US become officially an atheist state?
Clueless Joe - because that doesn't work and it is unAmerican. The USSR and other communist countries outlawed religion and it got them nothing but backlashes, and rightly. People feel a deep religious/spiritual need. They should be free to exercise their spirituality. My problem with it, from a public standpoint, not my own private standpoint, is that organized religion is a political animal. That is very well illustrated by what has been happening in this country with the RR and the Catholic Church. The religious organizations that cannot stay out of politics need to be jerked up quickly and told that it is either/or.
Moli - you're right that it is a double edged sword, and I think some religious leaders are wise enough to understand that.
As for big, beautiful churches - well, they are nice. There are some stunning examples of religious art and architecture. But it is a question, as far as I'm concerned, what actual religious purpose something like that serves. I think they serve a wonderful aesthetic purpose, but for me, those things seem antithetical to religion. Sorry, that's me, and probably personal with me. I resented the hell out of it when the leader of the Buddhist sect I used to belong to decided we all needed to fork over $$$$ to build a great big temple in the US. As far as I was concerned, it wasn't a temple to the Buddha, but one to Geshe Kelsang. And I'm sorry, 56k, but that's generally the way I see all those things. They aren't really about the greater glory of god, they are about the greater glory of whatever church it is or whoever it is that is bankrolling it.
Why don't the former Catholics among us start a "Recovering Catholics for Kerry" or "Catholics who've been driven from their Church by aiders and abetters of child abusers for Kerry." Or something catchy.
My 2 cents:
I am half Lace Curtain Irish Catholic (Republican Kansas farmers, grandfather head of Republican party in his county) and half Shanty Irish Catholic, (blue collar union railroad workers) with Catholic priests on both sides. I don't think most people realize that a young man is usually not ordained until well into his twenties and has registered and voted at least once or twice before he is ordained. Like most professions a young man brings his life experiences and politics into the priesthood. Oooh, I could tell you stories! But, I'll try to explain it like this: Lace Curtain uncle, who was a Jesuit missionary in South America in the '50s and '60s supported Viet Nam and Nixon as he too was vigilanly fighting commies in South America. My Shanty cousin took a year off and almost left the priesthood because he no longer felt he could tell women with many children and health risks that they could not use the pill (he now tells them they must follow their own conscience.) I hope this illustrates my point. The Kool-aid can be drunk early and one's politics may have little to do with their religious beliefs. And don't make the mistake that Lace Curtains are pushing religious beliefs when they are only pushing Republicans in the guise of religion.
I agree with Father Greely and others here, the Church is not monolithic and the Lace Curtains risk a Shanty backlash.
keh acknowledges that some of his writings on his personal Web site were critical of the bishops...
Let's see, he got fired for political activity done on his own time, and on his own personal website. So does that mean that my employer can legitimately fire me for hating Bush? and do we think that's a reasonable thing in America? I say no. And the church shouldn't be able to align itself with a political party, left or right, and still get to suck off the public teat.
If we can't have true seperation of church and state I say a pox on all their houses, and abolish the lot of them.
Since we are on the subject, perhaps Judaism and Hinduism shouldn't enjoy status as religions because they do not welcome all comers?
I would like to point out to the esteemed list that although France, Italy and Spain are nominally catholic, the people regularly ignore it when it takes a position on birth control, divorce, and abortion but honor it when it's anti-war or anti-death penalty.
I think anticlericalism is a fine tradition, but Atrios' call to remove its IRS status is extreme.
Tena, I don't think anyone wants to tell people not to worship or believe. Some of us just want a stronger firewall between organized religion and politics.
Cause if the fundies get their way we'll all be sporting little fishies on the backs of our cars and attending mandatory bible study classes.
Personally, I'd rather set my hair on fire and run down the street screaming.
What about all those Catholics who supported the invasion of Iraq, in opposition to the Pope's condemnation of that illegal act?
Were they fired from their church jobs?
four legs good - I was replying to the comment right above mine - read it - Clueless was advocating jettisoning all religion and declaring the U.S. an atheist state. Can't be done. Shouldn't be done.
Separation of church and state - must be done.
as I understand it, Atrios is calling for the removal of tax exempt status because of the political abuse of tax exempt status, not necessarily that Atrios opposes tax exempt status for churches period.
but I can only speak for 56k, that is just what I understood Atrios to say
Seraphiel, the war wasn't a question of catholic doctrine, although the Pope did issue a call to stop the war. This might have been a contributing factor in Aznar's defeat...defection of a bunch of strict Catholics.
I don't want to go to war with the Catholic Church. We're already at war with Islam, that's enough for me.
This is unbelievable ! Is there nobody who can see throught the Fundies! Doesn't anybody remember the anti-Catholic prejudice that was still extant up until Kennedy was President, at least. When people leave the Catholic church, they very often end up in the "other" denominations. Is the Catholic hierachy just so blind, or don't they realise those people don't like them?
They Church shouldn't shit on the plate they have to eat off of.
I don't think tax exemption should be simply taken away from religious groups. Rather, churches should have to form a non-profit corporation with public filings of their finances, just like any other group would.
Also, they should be taxed on that portion of their expenses that are not "in furtherence of the objectives" of the organization. I'm not sure what the "objectives" of a church are, but I doubt they include any commercial ventures. Non-profit hospitals, schools and the like could be incorporated separately.
we'll handle all this after the 2nd American Revoltion, when we draft the new Constitution.
An article in the current Boston PHOENIX covers the attempt of the local Catholic hierarchy to influence the gay marriage amendments/debate.
allo_kitty - Sorry, that's just crazy. I don't want a new constitution (nor do I think a revolution would end well.) I like the constitution we have - it's a great document.
But but...we could get rid of that crazy Electoral College!
Oh, so it's OK then, according to Deal Hudson, for Catholics to "trade away" their responsibility for social justice to support pro-life, union-busting, guilded age Rethuglicans who gut social programs and kill family wage jobs.
Now I get it - no wonder I stopped going to Church.
Also, the Pope is opposed to capital punishment, which is noteworthy considering the number of prisoners C Plus Augustus snuffed as governor of Texas.
These Catholics going after democrats who are pro-choice are a laughable bunch of sick hypocrites.
If they really want to be "consisten", maybe these Catholics should stay home on election day.
allo_kitty - we could do that anyway. The constitution could be amended. Not likely to happen anytime soon, but it could be done.
I don't think we have the intellectual equivalents today of Thomas Jefferson, et al. If we got rid of the constitution we have now and replaced it with something else, we would lose the greatest thing we have going for us. We would end up with a document drafted by lawyers for lawyers. What we have now reflects the best thinking of the Enlightenment. We would never get that again.
Moli:
Not every motorcyclist has a noisy bike. The American Motorcyclist Association has had a campaign under way to get the minority who do to clean up their act. I realize your remark was in jest, but I wanted you to know that there's a large bloc of riders out there who are trying to do something about the loud pipes crowd that makes the rest of us look bad.
Of course, if you want to be loud, you can always ride like
her
Chris Walsh - that link was too funny - no cops, no danger of hitting dogs, etc. - No you dumb bitch, just danger of extreme radiation poisoning.
That is one crazy lady.
But but...the Swiss are in their 6th constitution, the French in their 5th, and the EU is about to have its first and Jefferson isn't alive. What if the EU Consitution is better than ours?
No doubt the first US Constitution is groundbreaking, admirable, historic, revolutionary, and inspiring but it's not the constitution to end all constitutions. We just won't be ready for version 2.0 for a while, especially with the issues we're having now.
Chris Tucker thanks for the link to the Phoenix article. Some very close family described some of the exact things reported in the article in another part of the state. Obviously a very concerted effort by the church. I was sickened by it and wrote immediately to my state legislators who are both Catholic and urged them not to be intimidated by it. Even so far as saying that they were not alone in struggling with this blatant hypocrisy coming from the church and reminding them of the separation of church and state. So far one has voted in support of gay marriage the other has voted against it. This upcoming week will be interesting to see if and how the votes may change and what the final result will be.
"What about all those Catholics who supported the invasion of Iraq, in opposition to the Pope's condemnation of that illegal act?
Were they fired from their church jobs?
Seraphiel"
No, Seraphiel, because the Catholic Church is most interested in matters concerning what goes on between people's legs.
Remember, this is a pope who condemns the practice of in vitro fertilization or any other form of medical intervention that may help a woman attain a pregnancy.
Mind you, it's perfectly fine in Catholic doctrine to allow medical intervention for malfunctioning pancreases, livers, hearts, etc., but medical help for reproductive organs that will help women achieve a pregnancy is against God's will, so, therefore, it is a mortal sin.
Think back in history. The Catholic Church has been wrong just about every time it had ruled on science.
Ask our good friend Galileo Galilei.
56K: I am an admirer of your posts and thoughtfulness, but i must respectfully disagree with you on this one.
all religious institutions must NOW begin paying for the privilege of looting their members' pockets.
whether you like it or not, all religious institutions are indeed for-profit enterprises -- they just run a different set of books than you or i do in our regular businesses.
what happens with a church loses its members or can't sustain itself? you can see examples of it all around LA -- they go out of business. close their doors. shutter. shut down.
just like a business.
when i look around socal and see the sheer amount of real estate being gobbled up by organized religions of any stripe (don't care; they're all worshipping the invisible cloud being, to me), it infuriates me -- not visibly so, but enough to write this down! hah.
i don't care if paying taxes would cause some churches to go under. BOO FUCKING HOO. their memberships would consolidate and attend other institutions.
churches are nothing but liquor stores without the Hustler Magazines behind the counter.
this, from a former roman catholic who attended religious CCD classes from first grade through 8th.
Jim in LA - want to see some prime land grabs that will really really piss you off? Come to Colorado. The county where I live in the summer and fall is being gobbled up like you wouldn't believe by christian groups. It is ruining the tax base of the county, and pressuring the county to do all kinds of environmentally awful things to try to increase tourism and development to offset the losses. I fucking hate it. There is a huge non-denominational christian camp there - Camp Red Cloud. Two years ago, they bought the adjoining $3 million dollar ranch. They have also been grabbing mining claims in the back country. Now another christian group has come in and bought a resort that was for sale down the road from me. It is a fucking nightmare.
When will atrios call for the revocation of tax exempt status for the NAACP and labor unions? As he says, once they "align themselves with a political party while retaining their tax-exempt status...", it's his business. Step up to the plate atrios!
Every religious attempt to stay exempt from taxation is a whining fight to maintain their superiority to the peasants.
agentalbert - I'm sure he will, just as soon as there is a provision in the constitution that says that those organizations are to be separate from the state. As it is, Atrios isn't talking about this in terms that would cause your comment to make any sense whatsoever because there is no analogy there.
I think repealing tax exempt status for churches is a good idea for a different reason. The government set up guidelines for what is a tax exempt religious organization thus violating the first amendment.
we really didn't see these upthread, but these are George Carlin explanations of dogma you would expect to be the first comments (in fact some comments appear to concur):
Religion is the most anti-human, anti-nature, hate-spreading cause of violence and destruction in history and should've been abolished
and
Religious people only care about that life which is after death or before birth
tena: no surprise there. you know how the real estate market has gone insane (here in CA anyway) since the stock market meltdown -- and where people took what was left and invested it into a relatively safe investment called "real estate"?
guess what -- churches and all religious institutions have done the exact same thing. only they don't have to cough up, oh, $2K-$10K per year in property taxes.
oh, they're exempt from sales tax too. so any time they consume, they're doing so without contributing to the tax base, there, too.
ARGH!
i know people dig the invisible cloud being, and the thought of a clean, gauzy place to go after croaking seems mighty appealing, but back here on earth, where the rest of us are -- can we begin to see belief systems for what they are?
untaxed faith-based syndicates. period.
agent albert,
If the NAACP started firing staffers for being anti-abortion, they would end up losing their tax-exempt status.
Oh, so it's OK then, according to Deal Hudson, for Catholics to "trade away" their responsibility for social justice to support pro-life, union-busting, guilded age Rethuglicans who gut social programs and kill family wage jobs.
You know, I tried to make this point to my (very Catholic) mother once, that it sucks to have to choose a Democrat OR a Republican because both inevitably support something that conflicts with church teaching. She just said it depended on which issue was most important to you.
Not to knock her, she rocks, but I just don't get single issue voters. For me it's all in the total number of issues they support that I support also. So should it be for the church.
And in a time when the church is losing people by the bushel as a result of their historic inability to process the fact that people who fuck kids shouldn't be around them, this is just stupid.
A.
I really feel for Mr. Hudson. Since the Catholic Church doesn't pay taxes, he won't be able to get unemployment. I know that, having formerly worked for a Catholic school (I'm a devout atheist) where a supervisor used to try to hit me over the head with Jesus. The nuns may take a vow of poverty, but the priests sure don't have to. Meanwhile, the church rakes in millions of dollars every year, tax free. Lovely people, really.
This is absolutely unconscionable. Raised Catholic, long atheist, I have still always been a bit proud of the Catholic Church's lack of shrillness as compared to American-grown fundie religions.
But this sort of behavior is just disgusting.
But the Pope doesn't mind doing things to upset your average American. For example (shameles self-promotion: check it out on my blog):
The Pope Hates NASCAR Dads
kei & yuri - I saw Carlin on Real Time make that argument a couple of weeks ago, and it was spectacular. Impossible, really, to refute, too.
Is the Pope gonna have a problem with Xavier playing hoops tomorrow?
So it would seem. All Catholic schools need to withdraw from Sunday sporting events, apparently, because they prevent us from seeing heaven...
or something?
If the NAACP started firing staffers for being anti-abortion, they would end up losing their tax-exempt status.
--Atrios
Would they, really?
That would really surprise me if true. I mean, they can clearly take a position on laws and social issues without it reflecting a political endorsement.
From another thread, works better here.
Kiss Hank's Ass
We must ask, is the Christian Wrestling Federation anointed with chism or standard olive? And what could sound more like the Testaments than the glorious interfight pronouncements of wrestlers?
The Beatles are evil.
And, in a concept that defies or maybe obviates easy snark, [George Takei voice] Bibleman.
To conclude, behold the redoubtable Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Skeptic's Annotated Quran.
Anonymous, you can't receive tax money and refuse to hire based on belief, or at least you couldn't until George passed the Faith-Based/Kein Juden Initiative. Doesn't matter anyway since NAACP isn't a church. You could espouse the dumbest thing, deliberately selected to be the dumbest thing out of all things with measurable dumbness, and as long as you say it's given to you by an imaginary friend it's "beautiful". In fact if you blather about needing to be unquestioningly obedient to the demands of your imaginary master that's better. Avoid sex because you are the slave of a badly faked hallucination-what a beautiful commitment.
Kei and Yuri,
But I think you and Atrios are confused. This incident doesn't seem to me to be something that should challenge the institutions tax-exempt status for a number of reasons. And even if your assumptions about the criteria for tax-exempt status are correct, the individual's beliefs had nothing to do with his hiring or firing.
I think the NAACP analogy was weak, so I googled around a little bit. In fact, in NC the NAACP fired an employee for wrigin a column about pro-school choice that was not consistent with the position of the organization.
I don't have a problem with this.
wrigin="writing" in my sloppy typing.
Here's my thoughts.
Donations towards the maintenance and salary at local churches should be tax exempt.
Money towards interchurch, national, and international church organizations should NOT be tax exempt.
Good compromise?
Maybe instead of demanding they obey the goddamn law, we could just smash their organizations, convert their buildings to homeless shelters, force their holdings into education funding, use their wasted paper as insulation, teach facts and logic instead of faith and acceptance, and fuck them smoothly until they agree life is better without Yahweh the Destroyer. Just thinking out loud.
Why so much surprise? It was only six months ago that the news broke about African bishops preaching about how condoms cause AIDS, and it was silently supported by the Vatican, because, you know, not supposed to use birth control. C'mon! How utterly absurd and surreal that one of the most powerful and influential groups on Earth can get away with such genocide as the African bishops preach; or that any group can be taken seriously who believes that God says no rubbers.
Since alter boys can't get pregnant, who needs abortions in the catholic church anyway? Pro choice, Pro sodomy, what's the difference. A little holy water and 10% of your pay will fix anything.
Emal, happy to be of service.
You can expect to see this sort of thing across the country, I feel, as more and more states start to seriously contemplate same sex marriages.
By the way, the PHOENIX was the first Boston paper to break the story about the Church covering up child abuse and moving pedophile priests from parish to parish.
The GLOBE has been playing catch up for a couple of years, now.
Another Catholic bashing thread? It wasn't that long since the last one.
Are you trying to turn away the Catholic Democrat vote? Should the Irish and Polish priests resign because they aren't conservative enough to fit with this all Catholics are Republicans sterotype you are trying to force on us?
The pope spoke out against the war in Iraq, felt it was an illegal and unjust war. Doesn't sound like a Bush supporter to me. The Pope is more supporting of Bono then he is Bush. Yes, there are ultra conservatives in the Church, I think all churchs have some, some more than others. A bishop made a bad call and it will probably be overturned higher up.
I think the broad tarring brush needs to be put away. I know this Catholic Democrat is getting uncomfortable with all the Catholic bashing that goes on here. You would get the impression that we aren't welcome.
Pity the Catholic Bishops. They've dug themselves a helluva hole. Leaders of the only remaining liberal branch of the church they have consistently promised the laity a voice and never delivered it. Rome has steadily been taken over by ultra-consrvatives and is after the US Catholic Church's Ass. Few of the laity understand the real problem the Bishops have created but because of the "Sex" scandals and all that money they are howling. The Bishops have no friends on either side.
Forget about the "tax exempt" issue. The US Catholic Church owns more real estate than any other branch. With a new Conservative Pope who won't give them what they need to get priests to maintain it, all is threatened. Then the real question for US Courts (and World courts) may be who owns all that real estate? US Diocesan Corporations or Rome. That'll be fun!
See the article at my website for the gory details.
Anyone hear anymore about the Catholic War Protestors from Iowa that Shrubby's government was picking on?
Tena - interesting historical sidenote: the establishment of churches (and mosques) has been a contentious issue since the dark ages, maybe before. Tax-exempt status was a huge problem for the Ottomans when they modernized their tax system, for precisely the reasons Camp Red Cloud is a problem in CO. In Christendom, the seperate financial sphere of the clergy made it a trival powerbase to the Baronies and Kingdoms. This was both a good thing and a bad thing: during the crusades, when the Kings were happily having Jews murdered in Germany etc, that seperateness allowed some bishops to save and protect the local Jewish communities. Some Bishops even died for it. On the other hand, it also stood in the way of the centralized state and Capitalism, which is why Henry VIII in England had their properties liquidated and sold.
The point of this long-ass post, and I do have one, is that the tax-exempt status of religion is crucial to the separation of church and state: otherwise, a religion is at the mercy of the local poltical climate. Besides, how does a priest, say, profit from the church's property? The church, that is, the people who belong to it, own that property collectively. It does not enrich any individual in the clergy, it is not private property. That's really important to remember.
i have never understood where this line was drawn for such tax-exempt status...it doesn't seem viable in post-modern society...hence the culture war but i doubt we will make it beyond modern thought, medieval even
Sigh. Not one of you peoples has a clue about anything having to do with Catholic doctrine. According to that doctrine, there are circumstances in which war and capital punishment are justifiable; there is no circumstance in which abortion is justifiable. Abortion is, in Catholic doctrine, the unjustified killing of a human being. Period. "Catholics for a Free Choice" are as Catholic as Jerry Falwell or Osam bin Laden.
Had the gentleman in question run a website that mentioned nothing about Catholicism, and merely supported Kerry, I doubt he would have been fired. They handled it badly, but it was not unjustified. Still, Deal Hudson, the conservative activist who "blew the whistle," is a swine, and deserves approbation.
Oh, and to head off the conclusion to which some of you are jumping: I've never voted for a Republican in a national election, and have no intention of starting.
I used to live in Salt Lake City. In SLC's downtown, there are three shopping malls. One is ZCMI Mall, owned by the LDS church which is on the southeast corner of Main and South Temple. Then there's a new mall just to the west of downtown called Gateway. The third mall, Crossroads, is at the southwest corner of Main and South Temple, so, it's across the street from ZCMI.
Nordstrom is the anchor tenant in the Crossroads Mall. When Gateway went up, Nordstrom made it clear that it wanted to move. The SLC Council said no in October of last year, even though Nordstrom has made it clear that when its lease is up in 2005, it will either move to Gateway or it will leave SLC. The wrinkle in all of this is that the LDS (Mormon) Church purchased the Crossroads Mall in March 2003, which makes them Nordstrom's landlord. The Church has promised to revitalize downtown, and Crossroads is apparently quite important to this effort, as the mall fronts on the south side of Temple Square.
Now, the question I pose is this: why in the hell is a church in the business of buying these kinds of properties? I know why they're doing it, but I ask why aren't they having problems with their tax exemptions?
If you think this is but one example, I could tell you a story about the Church taking over a whole block of Main St., with the acquiescence of the City Council, then totally screwing up the traffic patterns in the city for blocks around by ripping out the street, putting in an underground garage, and then planting a "little bit of Paris" right above. There was supposed to be a public easement, but the Church didn't want the people to be able to speak freely, perform gay marriages and suchlike. In fact, a high school law class (taught by law students up at the U) was asked to leave Purity Plaza one day this past week because church security couldn't tell what was going on in the group of 25.
This, folks, is what it's like to live in a theocracy, and I'll be damned if I let it happen elsewhere.
Dear friends,
Just go take a look at Hal Lindsey's website, you know, the "Late, Great" guy who predicts the end of the world on a regular basis, and who has a fake news show on TBN?
This "web ministry" (my wife called the IRS on it, and verified) has all the benefits of every other tax-exempt organization, but is as political as they come.
There seems to be a lack of information regarding religions and their tax exempt status. It's not as simplistic as many posters above have presented. In some circumstances, churches are required to pay taxes (for instance, renting church property to a for profit organization to use as office space...etc)
Americans have become obsessed with another not paying taxes. Rather than obsessing on the religious orgs--many of whom barely keep the lights on, put some energy into the offshore corp loopholes (estimated tax revenue loss: $77 billion annually)
I have been present at Mass on Several Sundays were the priest actually told the parishioners how to vote in the next election, from President to City Council. If that is not enough reason to take away the tax-exepmt status, I don't know what it is. BTW, this type of endorsement has benn going on for years and in churches all over the country. How come nobody ever mentions this.
Its all too complicated, down with organized religon and by all means revoke their tax exemption.
When will atrios call for the revocation of tax exempt status for the NAACP and labor unions? As he says, once they "align themselves with a political party while retaining their tax-exempt status...", it's his business. Step up to the plate atrios!
agentalbert
NAACP and labor unions are what is know as 501 (3)c organizations. They are non-profit organizations, and therefore do not pay taxes on profit, since they do not have any. But donations to the NAACP are not tax except. That is, if I give money to my church, I can deduct that amount from my taxes (assuming that I itemize my deductions, most people do not), but if I donate money to the NAACP, Sierra Club or any other non-profit political group, I may not deduct that money from my taxes.
My church does not pay property tax on its land and building, but you can be very sure the NAACP pays taxes on any property it owns (although, I believe they mostly lease their offices)
I know many people here see religion only as manipulative and evil, but churches are the one instiution that belong to a community, not special interests. That is why the civil rights movement in this country was led by ministers. They were the one group that could not be controlled. And so it is with the labor movment, sometimes churches are used to bust strikes, but usually there is a strong relationship between the clergy and workers.
All those who blast religion, when, er, was the last time you were in church? The religion you describe bears no one to the one I have experienced. I won't tell you where I go to church, but most churches are not like the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg Virginia.
Religion is cancer and Catholicism is malignant.
.....seems to forget that the Pope condemned the invasion of IRAQ. Its OK to support those who had Iraqis and Americans killed for a lie, but just supporting a Dem is waaay worse????
Tracy- I believe Interrobang is posting from Canada- it's the 'eh' that gives it away.
Some provinces have separate but government-supported Catholic schools.
Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta...(others??)
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're a Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,...
...God get quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed...
...In your neighbourhood!
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine!
And mine!
And mine!
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
> I won't tell you where I go to church, but most churches are not like the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg Virginia.
Yet its those churches that lobby for political change for ALL. Its the failing of xtians to police other xtians. You failed, the fundies are in control. You cant just pass the buck, you're a spiritual member of the same community.
As far as the "civil rights/churches" argument goes. Well, the black community was centered on churches for organization while you good white Xtian types were happily keeping them out of every other organization. There's no magic beans in a church, its just a building with people in it.
Lastly, the second you religious types participate in politics as an organization is the second your non-profit status should be removed. Want to lobby for change? Fine, now pay taxes.
what Frink says.
(i just wanted to say that!)
click here for the classic line, "Oh boy, that monkey is going to pay!"
For those too young to remember the 1960 election; I remember all too well that many people charged that John Kennedy would follow the dictates of the Pope and was therefore not suited to be President. JFK worked hard to overcome those beliefs. His election diminished a significant amount of anti-Catholic sentiment in this country. The question of a politician's religion all but vanished as an issue.
If some bishops insist that a Catholic candidate must adhere strictly to church doctrine, then they've succeeded in eliminating any possibility that a Catholic of either party could be elected President.
Overreaching has its consequences.
Why should it surprise anyone that the US Catholic Conference of Bishops is full of fascists. I'm an exCatholic who has always taken an interest in internal church politics. The Vatican has been in the hands of a bunch of fascists for the past twenty-five years. NO one gets an appointment unless they pass muster with the likes of Ratzinger, the real power behind the throne. As people in Boston are finding out, only the frock changes when they replace someone, not the program.
Catholics, it's not going to change within our lifetimes. You might be waiting JPII out but believe me it will take divine intervention, a miracle, for the next pope to be any better. Face facts.
explain a miscarrage if not god's abortion.
Something I've wondered about is this:
Apparently the Catholic church supports criminalization of both abortion providers and abortion seekers. What penalties does the church support for these crimes? Is this an awkward position for the church (in the sense that the Inquisition was awkward)?
Something I've wondered about is this:
Apparently the Catholic church supports criminalization of both abortion providers and abortion seekers. What penalties does the church support for these crimes? Is this an awkward position for the church (in the sense that the Inquisition was awkward)?
Meek: Ref on this? And, to much of the upthread discussion, what 'Church' are you referring to? Papal decree, local bishops, Bishops conference, etc? Though the broad umbrella of the chruch has stated 'positions' on issues, they are doctrinal more than policy-based (meaning 'Feed the starving' without outlining a wealth redistribution plan to accomplish this). And I'm not clear how (if this is their position) the argument for jail time for abortion providers is equivalent to the Inquisition, or awkward. Even though you wouldn't gather this from the past 50 years of looking the other way, I do believe they support jail time (and forgiveness) for molestors, but no one calls this position 'awkward.'
And this continued 'ooh, take away their tax exempt status!' as if it were the sword of Damocles. Last time I checked, a number of large private corporations with extraordinary income paid no taxes. What would your tax structure be? Very little money travels back up the chain, and Catholic churches, in most parishes, are income poor. They pay payroll tax already. You'd get, at best, some property tax (and how would that work? Use tax for existing assets assessed at conversion? I doubt that flies), and given how much local jurisdictions offer exemptions for the aforementioned not tax paying companies (in trade for keeping jobs) I assume most local govt's would rush to issue property tax exemptions. 'But they have big churches!' works only when you realize that most philanthrophy is about abetting ego building for the donor, who is happy to pile on for the big, physical celebration of their generosity, and not so receptive to the idea that their money end up in the hands of the poor they stole it from in the first place. So you tax the donation income that is restricted giving anyway, and the chalice isn't so ornate. Big whoop.
I renounced my Catholicism years ago for a variety of reasons, and crap like this--including Opus Dei--simply adds to them. In fact, the farther away I get in time and space from the Pope and his minions, the more like a cult it truly is. This is of course as tragic as anything else, but you lie with dogs, and you awake with fleas.
Check out Gary Wills in the NY Review of Books:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17026
It's a review of Psycho Mel's slasher movie, on which Will's does a fairly definitive job.
But Will's also reviews a book called Vows of Silence, about the Vatican's coverup of decades of pedophilia accusations against the founder of the Legion of Christ, which is sort of like a less well-known but even more sinister Opus Dei. This son of a bitch is such a favorite of the Pope that he would have been beatified by now if he'd just had the good taste to die.
I.m a catholic for Kerry. My wife is a catholic for Kerry.
Never thought of it that way before, but I'm a Catholic for Kerry too.
I'm sick to death of the Archdiocese of Boston embarassing me with its failure to protect innocent children, and this busting the chops of legislators who oppose putting discriminatory anti-gay marriage language into the MA Constitution.
According to a recent Globe story -- their latest sleazeball move: union-busting the teachers union covering their own high schools. UNION BUST! This Pope's earlier encyclicals was all about how great unions are. Hello!
It's a nightmare. It's all about the control and power. The Church has lost its way and we laity let it happen.
Miss-
First, I didn't claim equivalency between the Inquisition and the abortion issue. It's awkward in the sense that the Church is aligning itself with the ruling authority. The ruling authority in each case has the capability to enforce punishment. The Church is putting itself in the position of backing political candidates who are calling for criminal penalties for abortion. If it's not "the Church" doing this, then the Church is freely allowing some Church officials to put it in that position. If these Church officials are against the penalties, they should be clear, or choose different candidates.
If Catholic officials have been calling for new laws against pedophiles, I must have missed it.
There have been numerous examples of conservative Catholic officials who are critical of lawmakers who are not sufficiently anti-abortion, and support those who meet whatever litmus test is being used. The politicians who are supported by these officials (including the not-so-coyly Republican priest at my church) are the ones calling for criminalization of abortion procedures. Why would these Catholic officials support politicians calling for criminalization if they themselves don't in fact support criminal penalties? Granted, they won't go on record calling for penalties themselves, yet they align themselves exclusively with those who would enact penalties into law (and have the power and the will to). They not-so-subtly instruct church members to do the same. So, perhaps after the laws they wanted are enacted, these conservative Catholics will present the case for forgiveness? --very clever.
I guess my first post was lost (odd).
I used to work for a Catholic school. If you are fired (as was Mr. Hudson) you can't collect unemployment because the church doesn't pay the taxes.
I made other comments but will refrain for now.
I'd like to encourage all Atrios readers, regardless of religious or political affiliation, to report to the IRS any church or minister that explicitly endorses or condemns any particular candidate. (And if there are any Republicans lurking here, feel free to apply this request to any liberal churches in your community.)
The only way that we're going to get charities, including but not limited to churches, out of politics is by getting the IRS to drop the hammer on them -- revoke their tax-exempt status -- for breaking the law. And that won't happen unless someone complains.
Catholic doctrine may not allow abortion this year, but it did allow first-trimester abortions from the time of St. Augustine until less than 200 years ago.
Every sane Catholic knows that not all current "doctrine" is correct, since it does get changed every so often, and even the Popes have been careful not to make their declarations that abortion is always wrong ex cathedra (which would make it nearly irreversible).
Accordingly, firing someone for being pro-choice is about as reasonable as firing them for being pro-death-penalty (also considered unacceptable by current Catholic doctrine). But they don't do that, now, do they...
I didn't see anyone address this in the comments, but the relevant requirement for all 501(c)3 tax-exempt groups - whether churches, secular charities, or educational groups - is that they neither endorse nor oppose candidates for political office.
If Ekeh had claimed his employer's official support for his Web site, they would have been well within their rights to fire him. But instead, it looks like the Secretariat is simply applying a double standard here, firing vocal Kerry supporters but not equally vocal Bush supporters. If so, that would seem to constitute opposition to Kerry's candidacy, in violation of their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.
I'd recommend that Atrios contact Americans United for Separation of Church and State's Project "Fair Play" and let them look into it. If it appears the Secretariat is indeed implicitly opposing Kerry and/or endorsing Bush, AU will forward the relevant information to the IRS, and the Secretariat could wind up in big trouble.
By the way, this works both ways. Churches who endorse Kerry (AME churches, perhaps) are flouting the law too, and we all know the Rethugs will have no compunction about turning *them* in to the IRS.
Churches can talk about their views on abortion or the death penalty all they want, and church employees, including pastors, can endorse or oppose candidates as private citizens; indeed, any restrictions in that regard would certainly be unconstitutional. But when the pastor tells his congregation whom to vote for from the pulpit, he's crossed the line. I'd bet the same goes if he tries to tell his employees what candidates they can support.
Fuck the church. Tax it out of existence.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
