GOPMOM Note: Catholics under attack – again
I’m speechless. I just want to pass this information on, as the rest of you will see policy proposals like this soon enough in your states. That is, unless you get busy now. Speechless.
According to the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, the government has no business dictating to religious organizations how they should structure themselves. In Connecticut, though, some lawmakers seem to have skipped over the Constitution.
And why only the Catholic Church? If Lawlor wanted to improve the lives of Connecticut residents, why not impose this structure on every religious organization? I thought we’d fought the Know-Nothing anti-Catholic bigotry battles a long time ago, but apparently Lawlor is a nostalgic bigot as well as a fascist.
Lots of great links to follow for more info.
Popularity: 7% [?]
Review this site
Yeah that’s ridiculous. Here’s a link to a news article that sums up the content and intent of the bill in question (I didn’t understand from reading the opinion pieces above what actually happened, just that people were angry about it):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29595611/
The quick and dirty as far as I understand it: apparently a priest stole over $1 million from his church, so the bill is intended to create boards within parishes that would oversee finances and take that responsibility away from priests to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
It’s an absurd proposal that is an egregious overstepping of government authority. Obviously, if a church wanted to organize itself that way, fine but it’s not the type of thing that can/should be legislated.
Fortunately, I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Apparently the bill’s sponsors aren’t even really behind it, they just wanted to put someething out on the table to discuss. No way a legislature would approve such a thing. And even if they did (which they won’t), I’m pretty sure an 8 year old would be able to get it overturned in court.
Why do you always go for the typical Liberal politician response?
There already are laws overseeing the abuse of funds – the criminal code. This is not ridiculous, it is an attack. Until you see it in the correct perspective, you’re as bad as the fascists proposing this kind of legislation.
And I don’t buy for one minute the “the guys who proposed it aren’t even for it” line. Then why write it? Shouldn’t they be held accountable, at the very least, for wasting tax payer money (especially in this economy…), wasting the time of their colleagues and wasting the public’s time and money? I won’t even go into the police patrols that will now be necessary at the meeting to handle traffic, protests, etc.
You’re even more pathetic than I originally suspected – which is pretty pathetic. Do you have any principles, any values you feel are worth protecting? Are you willing to fight for anything? Or are you just satisfied to sit in you chair, at your computer, telling others how it is and should be?
Heads-up ATG, you are what is wrong with America. You’re an apathetic fool who will be the first to whine when the Progressive Liberals come after whatever it is that is important to you (human-goat marriage maybe) – but most definitely not the last to remain standing. Or you’re just another lying crapbag – just one of them. I can’t decide which is worse.
I’m no fool, nor am I apathetic (I think that’s evidenced by my clearly active interest and engagement in politics…)but I’m not going to freak out about things that aren’t realistic. You and I both no that there’s an exactly 0% chance that something like that gets passed or holds up in court.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but when I said it was ridiculous, I didn’t mean it was ridiculous of you to post the article or berate the bill in question – I thought the bill was ridiculous and egregious, and that’s what I was referring to. On the other hand, I completely disagree that you can or should penalize people for writing bills that you think are preposterous. We already have recourse – elections. Otherwise anytime someone brought forward a bill that I thought was absurd and unprincipled (say, an amendment to the Constitution dealing with marriage law), I would be able to argue that the bill’s proponents should be legally penalized. That doesn’t seem right to me.
I have lots of principles and values that I feel are worth fighting for. They’re just not the same as yours. I threw a good amount of time and money into the election because I have principles and values that I care about. And it’s amusing of you to criticize anybody for sitting at a computer and telling others how it should be.
Wow. You got your talking points back fast – you guys must be working overtime.
But in correction – I said
“And I don’t buy for one minute the “the guys who proposed it aren’t even for it” line. Then why write it? Shouldn’t they be held accountable, at the very least, for wasting tax payer money (especially in this economy…), wasting the time of their colleagues and wasting the public’s time and money?”
Your response –
“I completely disagree that you can or should penalize people for writing bills that you think are preposterous.”
– does not address what I said. Try again.
And based on all the judges that will now be appointed – you know, all those posts that have been open for eight years because your side would rather see no justice than “justice” they are opposed to – I do not “no” that this will not be upheld in court. Based on gay marriage rulings across the country, it’s no secret that judges on your side feel obligated to legislate from the bench on contested issues they know would never make it on an open ballot.
The fact that the left is trying so hard to justify this attack on a church is exactly what makes me believe they are determined to see it through.
Your laissez-faire attitude about everything is what convinces me you don’t care about anything.
“And it’s amusing of you to criticize anybody for sitting at a computer and telling others how it should be.”
I don’t – I’m out there everyday. I organize, I protest, I support. And I run a blog – you’re just a troll on it.
I see… running a blog isn’t sitting a computer telling people how it should be?
And this isn’t meant to be a criticism of your lifestyle choices, but you have more free time to “organize, protest and support” than the rest of us do. I do what I can with my time, but try and otherwise stay engaged, informed, voice my opinions, and donate money to good causes. That’s about as far from apathetic as you can reasonably expect a working person to be.
What I said does address your point (unless you meant that they should be held accountable through elections, in which case we agree but I misunderstood).
You’re consciously misrepresenting me when you say I’m part of the left attempting to justify the bill. I have said very clearly that I think it’s an absurd violation of the Constitution, and any reasonable reader on your blog can see that. I’m just not worried that it might become law.
There’s a difference between courts upholding gay marriage and telling churches how to organize themselves as corporate entities. We don’t need to have the debate over whether or not gay marriage should be legal, but at the very least gay marriage is an issue that has a number of legal and civil rights components to it, and legislating or ruling on gay marriage only affects those who want the law to be changed.
Telling specific churches how to organize, on the other hand, isn’t even an issue that should be addressed in open ballot – it’s simply not in the purview of the government, whether the legislature or the judiciary.
0% chance that this ever actually becomes the law in any of our 50 United States. You can delusionally dispute that as much as you want in order to drum up fear and anger among your readership, but you can rest easy that these fears will never be realized.
I was simply pointing out that I have a blog – where you apparently spend all your free time – and you do not. I was indicating that at least I’m willing to take the time and make the effort to share and defend my opinions whereas you lurk in the wings waiting for the chance to try to show off your not so evident intellectual prowess. This blog is more your hobby these days than mine. (Or maybe you do have a blog but are embarrassed to share?)
Now, I must clarify again for you the point you did not make. I never said that voters should hold legislators accountable for bad legislative proposals – you said that. I said legislators should be held accountable for proposing legislation that they are not willing to support – let me coin the phrase “legislative malpractice”. You stated that these numbnuts weren’t really supportive of this proposal which has garnered so much attention. I would think that if they didn’t believe in it, they would simply withdraw it and avoid the exposure. This would be the logical way to handle things, the adult way, as it were. You tried to assure me that it won’t go through and/or won’t last, which again raises the question “why bother?” So again, I say, if they don’t really care either way, why go through with it. I find it amazing that if we’re all in agreement that this is ridiculous, egregious, reprehensible, fascist and unconstitutional, why was the legislation ever written? The only logical explanation is that they do support the legislation and do want to see it become law. Or have you abandoned logic altogether?
You clearly do not have a grasp of what is happening on your side of the fence – something I distressingly suspect of most of you. This is the most egregious fact of all.