Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages?

@wandeljw,

I don't give a rat's ass. There is nothing either illegal nor unethical about what the bishops are pushing. If you don't like it, ignore them. I'm making the constitutional argument. They are well within their rights. Surely you're not so foolish as to believe that i care what the basis of your argument is?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I only brought up the "basis" for my argument because you mischaracterized the basis for my argument.

1 Reply

I know I personally wouldn't go to a church who espoused political views in either direction. Agree with the poster about the kingdom not being part of this world.

However, the whole religious freedom aspect of the mandate has been handled. Now those that believe contraceptives are against their religious beliefs, do not have to provide assess to their employees who want them; but those that want them can get coverage straight from the insurance companies. It also all along exempted places of worship from the mandate all together.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

I only brought up the "basis" for my argument because you mischaracterized the basis for my argument.

Bullshit, i did not, you're a goddamned liar. All i said regarding you was, that you not liking the situation is not evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the bishops. Since you seem slow on the uptake, i'll repeat--i'm the one who is making a constitutional argument. I don't give a flying **** what you base your complaint on.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Knock it off, Setanta.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

**** you, clown, don't try to tell me what to do. Who the **** do you think you are? The head of the online gestapo? It would be a fitting post for you.

If government came out with tough new restrictions on asylum applications for Asian refugees, and the bishops spoke out agasint that, would you tell them to render unto Caesar?

Get real, Wandel.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

http://www.bagshandbags.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/green-designer-handbag-betty-barrel.jpg

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Green is not a good color for me . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

And you call yourself Irish?

0 Replies

No, i call myself an American.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Not when you're inviting people to kiss your red bottom.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Having a bad day today?

Constitutionally the Bishops have the right to slam Obama and or make other political statements, Luckily, most of their flock don't always agree with their leaders. However that was never the point of the contention of the statement "Concern for religious freedom or preaching political message." So your argument is pointless since it was never in dispute.

1 Reply

@revelette,

I'm having a wonderful day, are you feeling particularly snotty today?

My argument is not pointless, and your failure to understand that is not evidence that it is. Note the title of the thread. There is nothing illegal or immoral about preaching a political message, and it is not pointless to point that out.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

According to the news website: “The lawsuit is the fourth in a series of legal challenges filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Arguing that the HHS mandate facilitates drugs that are in violation of religious beliefs, the non-profit legal foundation previously sued on behalf of EWTN, the Catholic TV network; Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic liberal arts school; and Colorado Christian University, an evangelical school in Denver.”

The DOJ, on behalf of the administration, has petitioned to have the Belmont Abbey lawsuit thrown out, saying revision of the mandate is not yet finalized. I'm not sure if that means there might be further compromise (maybe an exemption for religious self-insurers?) or if it's just that the regulation laid out by the president on 2/10 hasn't yet been put in writing (bureaucrats are notoriously slow about some things). To my knowledge, the court hasn't yet ruled on the DOJ's request.

Quote:

“Plaintiff’s challenge to the preventive services coverage regulations is not fit for judicial review because defendants [Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] have indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations that are intended to accommodate plaintiff’s religious objections to providing contraception coverage,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in its brief to the Washington, D.C. District Court.

0 Replies

In Texas, of all places, there is a law prohibiting corporations, which includes nonprofit churches, from making political contributions to recall elections.

There has been a brouhaha in El Paso since 2010 over a church group that managed to get a referendum--the Traditional Family Values ordinance--passed barring the city from extending health insurance coverage to the gay and unmarried partners of city employees. In 2009 the City Council had voted to offer health benefits for unmarried partners of municipal workers, and the policy took effect the following year. A group of Evangelical churches got a referendum put on the ballots banning this extension of benefits. The City Council subsequently voted to reverse the referendum, and these church groups promptly organized to gather votes for a recall election of the Mayor and two City Council members. Just last week the Eight Court of Appeals ruled that these groups violated the aforementioned law.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_16545191

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_16563697

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_19987909

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The tax free status of churches is mandated by state and federal tax code, not by the constitution.

And since state and federal tax code is covered by the constitution, then churches tax free status is governed by a constitutionally covered law which places some restrictions upon churches' political activities.

Quote:

Leaving aside that i know of no one who was standing up in the pulpit shouting "Don't vote for Obama!" (which would also not be illegal),

Being hit by a hefty fine certainly is an good indicator of an illegality.

Quote:

... tax exemptions are not evidence that the free speech of church-goers and church leaders can be curtailed.

Their speech most certainly can be curtailed, in the manner described by the tax legislation that prohibits such political actions.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

It is funny that you mentioned "get real." In my opinion, churches should focus on the "transcendental" rather than the "real." I actually said this once to a Catholic priest who believed he had a duty to criticize politicians from the pulpit.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

The get real was directed at your hypocrisy, clown. I'm not surprised that you evaded that issue entirely.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Stop calling me clown, moron.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yeah, I was feeling snotty yesterday, didn't mean what I said was wrong.

"Concern for Religious freedom or Preaching Political messages?"

Where in that heading does it say anything about it being illegal or immoral or unconstitutional? It is questioning whether the Bishop's are really concerned about their religious freedom or are they really just preaching political messages?

I think they were really were concerned for their religious freedom but they were wrong headed in thinking their religious freedom was being infringed upon anymore than was already being done in some states already.

1 Reply

Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know