Senate Kills Nelson Amendment–Over To You, Bishops

Amy, even if the Public Option may now be toast, with the abort. amendments defeated is the Pubic Option is still alive and kicking (funding still there)? Or do pro-choice senators go to Plan B? If Nelson is lost and Snowe no sure thing, do you see procedural tactics done here as reconciliation or flush bill straight thru House? KT has addressed recon. problems, but what are YOUR thoughts?
.
Also, thanks also for your Top 10 List of religious stories. What was #11? Please blog here about your list with more thoughts. thanks.

Of that group of seven, only Nelson has said he will vote against final passage of health reform because of abortion
.
Can we kick his ass out of the Democratic Party yet?

Thank God that the men and women who fought to secure our freedom and defend our Constitution failed, otherwise we might have separation of Church and State
.
Happily we now have Bishops, Jerry Falwell, and the Christianists at C Street who have veto power over what laws get passed.
.
(Kicking Stupak and Nelson out of Democratic Party isn’t good enough. Let’s kick these un-American mouth-breathers out of the country.)

I stumbled across this the other day when I was Googling the civil rights movement of my hometown.

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/etd/diss/ArtsSci/ReligiousStudies/2002/Hite/TheHottestPlacesinHell.pdf

Two points:

1) The Catholic Church once stood on the side of the angels in advocating for civil liberties. Today, they are hell-bent on restricting the civil liberties of women and homosexuals.

2) Chapter 4 of this dissertation is great because it names names. Also, the author nails it when he tags the Selma elites as thinking themselves above being actual members of the Klan, though they were more than willing to unleash the really violent crackers when it suited their ends.
.
The same type of people who organized to stop the Civil Rights movement in the 60s are what’s left of the GOP. See Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, born in Selma in 1946, and his failed nomination to the Federal Bench for more.
.
MLK has been dead for 40 years, the Civil War ended over 130 years ago, and our country is still fighting tooth and nail with unreconstructed Southerners. It is depressing.

A question now is, how will they reconcile with the House Bill that clearly has an abortion amendment? Seems to me when it all goes into committee they are all back to square one again. Because the House has enough votes to defeat any bill that does not contain Stupak language.
.
Poor Nancy.

Something tells me Jerry Falwell isn’t going to be doing much lobbying on this one.

Opposition to elective abortion is unamerican is it?

One has to wonder how America will survive with attitudes like yours. Truly depressing when the destruction of of a million babies a year becomes the American way. Makes me just want to get out there and fight for this wonderfull American way.

Society turning on it’s self.

I too find it curious that a group of unelected Catholic Bishops have such weight that their opinions could actually scuttle some or all of HCR. Why do they have such authority? Why do their objections matter so much more then other groups?
Personally after their decades long history of hiding child sexual abusers I find their supposed “morality” on any subject to rate a big fat zero at this point.

Choska~
Unfortunately for you, there is no such clause as “Separation of Church and State” in the Constitution. Not even anything closely resembling such, the phrase comes from the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson. And, thank God indeed, that no one man can inject their will into the law of the land. The Establishment Clause merely prohibits state religions, as Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. As we have no single establishment of religion wielding power over our government this clause has been satisfied. On the other hand, the free exercise of religion is, on a daily basis, infringed upon and restricted in egregious ways, not the least of which is the incessant calls from the left to deport the faithful, ban charitable exemptions for religious groups, strip the faithful of the constitutional rights to engage politically in their communities, etc. If you are such a stalwart defender of the Constitution this is a grand area for you to begin rebuilding what our founding father’s built, yet has been progressively torn down.

Exiled> Maybe I just don’t get it, but why do religions deserve any special treatment? Why do they get tax-exemptions? Why do they get any kind of Federal money (like charities) preferred over others.

Not picking on any particular “religion” here – no matter if it’s Christianity of Scientology that’s just wrong. People should be free to believe what they want, but their beliefs should not be federally funded.

Grrr. Stupid comment system. Going to try to post that again where it should be…

Exiled: Maybe I just don’t get it, but why do religions deserve any special treatment? Why do they get tax-exemptions? Why do they get any kind of Federal money (like charities) preferred over others. Why are they special?

Not picking on any particular “religion” here – no matter if it’s Christianity of Scientology that’s just wrong. People should be free to believe what they want, and congregate with their fellow believers, but their beliefs should not be federally funded.

Repzak: as a tax hawk I’ve thought about this myself, but I think part of this is because churches do lots of charity work, and charities are not subject to taxes.

Repzak~
First of all, religious institutions do not receive any special treatment, in fact they are limited in their scope. The tax-exemption stems from the charitable work that is done through the churches. While I cannot speak for every religion, the Catholic Church is overwhelmingly a charitable entity. Just as secular charities are granted tax-exemptions, so are religious based charities. To deny them this, while granting it to secular charities would be discriminatory. Now, contrary to your suggestion of special treatment, religion is a restricted endeavor in the States. While all Americans are allegedly free to posit their political thoughts, to campaign for politicians, to debate issues, religious figures are barred from publicly stating their views on such matters lest tax-exemption be revoked. Furthermore, the practice and expression of purely religious notions and symbols is highly restricted. When religious expression is stifled because it “offends” secularists, clearly there is no special privilege for religion in America. Each year, there are numerous cases of town councils and local government officials striking down freedom of expression for the religious. One example, storefronts displaying “Merry Christmas” banners made to be replaced by “Happy Holidays” banners for purposes of “inclusion.” I sh*t you not, in the town I unfortunately reside in currently, they passed an ordinance a few years back ordering stores to post Happy Holiday banners rather than Merry Christmas banners. A few weeks later, I drove past a store displaying “Happy Hanukkah” “Happy Kwanzaa” “Happy Holidays.” So, Christmas is apparently offensive to non-Christians, yet Hanukkah and Kwanzaa are shining examples of inclusion? The assault on Christianity in this country is ubiquitous and morbid.

Choska-
The wanton hyperbole among you secularists is really out of control lately.
The Catholic Church is “hell-bent” on denying civil liberties to women? Why, because there are no women clergy? Ooooooh! The big-bad scary Church wont allow women priests, call the ACLU! It’s symbolic, nimwit, based upon the Apostles -all men. It’s the structure of the Church, and it doesn’t impose on anyone. If you’re a woman and you feel a calling to serve the Lord, there are many religious orders available to join, just not the priesthood. Nuns are critical to the Church’s work. Anyone who has a problem with that can skip on over to the Anglican Communion. Otherwise, mind your own affairs.
~
As for homosexuals, last time I checked they have all the civil liberties that any American does: vote, own property, express themselves, petition their government, assemble in protest, etc, etc. The Church denouncing a particular conduct, in no way, shape or form constitutes denying civil liberties to homosexuals. Marriage is not a right. Moreover, sexual relations are morally tinged, and therefore the Church has every right to posit its positions on such.
~
And, finally, I truly hate to disturb your anti-Catholic vendetta, but Christianity, not simply Catholicism, is opposed to homosexuality. As is Islam. And Judaism.

Exiled> Well we cannot disagree over the “Happy Holidays” anecdote. But that’s more “Political Correctness” gone mental, than it’s discrimination (although the specific ordinance you mention probably cross that line) in most cases.
.
But if they get tax-exemption because they do a lot of charity, then they should get tax-exemptions ONLY for their charities. There is no requirement that a religion practise charity to be tax-exempt that I’m aware of? And even if there was the exemption really should only be for the actual charity they do – not to finance churches/mosques/synagogies/whatever or any other activities they engange in.
.
I agree with you that the current situation is wrong in many ways – and not just because religions are favored – or disfavored – by legislation. But because religion shouldn’t matter one way or the other to the state. So yes – they should lose tax-exemption (for the parts of their economy that isn’t direct charity), but they should obviously be allowed to speak out (which would be kind of obvious when they no longer have a special tax-exemption to lose.

This is true, however, they should be able to have a seperate office with clearly defined finances, that deal with charity, and anything they spend on charity though this should obviously be tax-exempt. But nothing else.

[...] by Amy Sullivan Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 5:26 pm Submit a Comment • Trackback (0) Asked–and answered. It sounds like the Catholic bishops conference won't need time to consider whether [...]

Well, repzak. The tax-exemption is not really that large of a deal. They do not pay property taxes for their buildings (mosques, churches, synagogues, etc) because these are the locales of their charitable efforts. Food-drives, food kitchens, shelters, etc are all either based at the church or coordinated from the church. However, employees, i.e. priests, bishops, lay staff, still pay individual taxes, just as any other person. Moreover, the Church is not being subsidized, it is merely being given leeway on property taxation because of the endeavors it engages in, which benefit the public as a whole. Architectural expansions, services, payroll, ect are paid for out of contributions to the Church, not from government subsidization. The Church receives no money from the government.

As much as you may want to distance yourself from Nelson, you cannot “Kick” him out of the Democratic Party. In America, membership in a Political Party is VOLUNTARY, so he can leave if he wants to, but you cannot kick him out. Your only option is to work against his re-election next time he comes up.