| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Kennedy V. Tobin https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1007 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Rynar [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kennedy V. Tobin |
I'm in the heart of this, given my ambitions, and my location. I want to hear from the rest of you, then I'll weigh in, if you'll indulge me. Go! |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not familiar with the case. Or is this an election race? |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Not familiar with the case. Or is this an election race? Bishop Tobin, of the Providence, RI. diocese, has been very outspoken recently, instructing people through an argument with Rep. Patrick Kennedy that the Catholic Church cannot, and will not support public funded abortions; and thusly, an otherwise extra-ordinarily "social justice" leaning church institution jumped ship on national health care. Kennedy engaged Tobin very publicly, instructing a teacher of the Church, that he is no less Catholic, nor any of his constituents less Catholic, because they reject Church teachings in favor of something the Church abhors. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Kennedy V. Tobin |
Good for them. Unfortunatly I fear that such opposition to the bill would vanish if abortion funding was somehow (perhaps even temporarily) removed from the senate bill. However I personally have more fault with it than just that issue. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
hehe.. fine be no less catholic.. and when yer *** gets excommunicated... you WILL be less catholic. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
1) I agree with the bishop (not about the abortion thing, I could give two shits about that damn red herring, but about the whole "if you don't follow what Catholicism dictates you're less 'Catholic'") 2) He's risking his tax-exempt status. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Church has been playing fast and loose with their tax exempt status for a while. They largely funded the anti-gay marriage effort in California for example, and this last effort combined with their charity blackmail in DC is just more reason to yank their tax exempt status. I'm sure someone will yell at me for being anti religion now, but frankly, church needs to keep it's nose out of politics. |
|
| Author: | Beryllin [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: I'm sure someone will yell at me for being anti religion now, but frankly, church needs to keep it's nose out of politics. As soon as the church is granted exempt status from all laws, regulations, taxation, etc, etc, passed by political bodies, I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. Ever hear of "taxation without representation"? So long as the church is subject to the laws passed, they have a legitimate voice in the process. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Kennedy V. Tobin |
The Church didn't fund anything in California; neither, for that matter, did the church. Christians may have funded something, but they are not synonymous with The Church or the church. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Kennedy V. Tobin |
Claiming the church needs to keep its nose out of politics or get its tax exempt status revoked is simply saying "we're going to tax people for their beliefs.. unless they're atheists since they don't have 'churches'" All social, economic, foriegn, etc. issues are politics. Any time a person comments on a social issue they are commenting on politics. Because every religion has views on social matters, it is practically impossible to teach or practice a religion without "sticking your nose into politics". |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
DE - Churches are non profit entities in the US and are required by law to keep their nose out of politics. Khross - you are simply, and totally wrong. Catholic organizations linked directly to the Church were instrumental in opposition. The mormon church was not only involved in extolling it's members to donate and oppose the effort, but also in direct efforts against marriage equality. Focus on the Family, as well, had it's hands in the pie. Direct advocacy is illegal, and (if we actually bothered to enforce the law) would cost those churches their exempt status. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
So you agree with the same rules you think churches should abide apply to ACORN? |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ACORN isn't a church, Ladas. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: DE - Churches are non profit entities in the US and are required by law to keep their nose out of politics. No, they aren't. They're required not to endorse candidates. They may not be required to "keep their noses out of politics." That is a violation of both the Free Exercise clause and Freedom of Speech. Quote: Khross - you are simply, and totally wrong. Catholic organizations linked directly to the Church were instrumental in opposition. The mormon church was not only involved in extolling it's members to donate and oppose the effort, but also in direct efforts against marriage equality. Focus on the Family, as well, had it's hands in the pie. Direct advocacy is illegal, and (if we actually bothered to enforce the law) would cost those churches their exempt status. None of that is illegal, nor do "organizations directly linked" count. If it isn't the actual church itself, it doesn't count. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: ACORN isn't a church, Ladas. Monte wrote: Churches are non profit entities in the US and are required by law to keep their nose out of politics. Is ACORN a non-profit entity? |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Ladas wrote: So you agree with the same rules you think churches should abide apply to ACORN? I don't know about him, but IMHO absolutely. ACORN should have lost its tax-exempt status long ago. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rynar, it seems to me that Tobin was spot-on in his statements, while Kennedy, much like Pelosi, is dead wrong. Belonging to The Church is a voluntary thing, and there are certain rules to abide by. These pols can repeat falsehoods and inaccuracies all they like, it won't change reality. Monte wrote: Khross - you are simply, and totally wrong. Khross is absolutely correct. Monte wrote: Catholic organizations linked directly to the Church were instrumental in opposition. That is neither what you originally stated, nor is it factual. Monte wrote: Direct advocacy is illegal, and (if we actually bothered to enforce the law) would cost those churches their exempt status. In the context of this thread, that is absolutely incorrect. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: ACORN isn't a church, Ladas. So out of all the tax exempt organizations recognized by US law, only churches must relinquish the ability to advocate political positions? I'd love to hear the logic behind that one, though there clearly is none.... because well... Quote: Focus on the Family, as well, had it's hands in the pie. Direct advocacy is illegal Focus on the Family isn't a church either, yet you are calling their activity illegal. If their activity is illegal, so is ACORN's (ignoring the truely illegal activity of ACORN). |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Ladas wrote: Monte wrote: ACORN isn't a church, Ladas. So out of all the tax exempt organizations recognized by US law, only churches must relinquish the ability to advocate political positions? I'd love to hear the logic behind that one, though there clearly is none.... because well... ...Because well... it's false. 501c3's, the federal code that indicates tax-exempt status, precludes direct political advocacy. That's why PAC's exist. ACORN, if it's a 501c3, most certainly is in violation. If it's filed under some other area of the code (which is possible), it may not be. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
501c4 can lobby but cannot directly contribute, support, or oppose. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Kennedy V. Tobin |
I request that this thread be monitored to exclude "Would Be Should Be" surrounding ACORN, should the thread devolve into that. This thread is not about ACORN, or contrast compare with ACORN. This thread isn't about that. This thread is about Tobin V. Kennedy. Can we keep it there, please? |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: Rynar, it seems to me that Tobin was spot-on in his statements, while Kennedy, much like Pelosi, is dead wrong. Belonging to The Church is a voluntary thing, and there are certain rules to abide by. These pols can repeat falsehoods and inaccuracies all they like, it won't change reality. I would like to agree with this very much. Belonging to a church is not mandatory. And plain and simple, if you belong to any organization and cannot abide by the rules of that organization; you should be kicked out of it. If a man from the KKK takes a black wife... he should be asked to leave. If a member of the any church blantantly and obviously differs with the rules of his church, he should be asked to leave. If a person decides to start wantonly and blatantly ignoring the rules his employer sets in the employee handbook; he should be asked to leave. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: Monte wrote: ACORN isn't a church, Ladas. Monte wrote: Churches are non profit entities in the US and are required by law to keep their nose out of politics. Is ACORN a non-profit entity? Yes, but it is also not a church. There is no constitutionally mandated and supreme court supported separation of ACORN and state. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You have an exceptionally poor understanding of what separation of church and state means. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Monte wrote: Diamondeye wrote: Monte wrote: ACORN isn't a church, Ladas. Monte wrote: Churches are non profit entities in the US and are required by law to keep their nose out of politics. Is ACORN a non-profit entity? Yes, but it is also not a church. There is no constitutionally mandated and supreme court supported separation of ACORN and state. Holy crap, Monty, you need to read it again. Here, I've quoted it for you: Quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Please point to the language that requires that Churches not be able to endorse candidates, or where it says anything at all about taxes. "Make no law" does not introduce requirements on anyone but Congress, dude. The tax exempt status you are referring to does not come from the Constitution. It comes from tax law. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|