More on the anti-religion bill

Greenwich Time has picked up the story mentioned here last week – Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee is proposing to strip the Catholic Church of control over its churches.  Love that church or despise it, messing with the United States’ Constitution sets a bad precedent. Unless I’m mistaken (a not-unlikely proposition) this bill is so unconstitutional that one can attribute its success in advancing so far through our legislature as attributable only to (1) abysmal ignorance, (2) a deep antipathy against the Catholic Church and a vote-getter, do-nothing group of politicians, or (3) both. I’m going with (3).

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “More on the anti-religion bill

  1. Pingback: Secular Right » In Connecticut, a “preposterously unconstitutional attack on Catholicism”

  2. Old Coot

    Yep, clearly it’s door #3.

  3. cynic1

    Im not going to comment about the bill’s constitutional basis , its above my pay grade but any organization that accepts tax free donations should be organized as a 501(c3), corporately. That means a board of trustees that oversees the use of those donations to, among other things, see that donations are used as the donators believe they would be. This should be applied to all charities across the board ( not just the Roman church). I find it hard to believe that seminaries teach much in the way of accounting and finance.

  4. Stanwich

    Cynic1, That is a slippery slope to government control of religion. Part of religion allows for the church to stick to doctrine that might not be fashionable with today’s society but nonetheless are core parts of the belief system. Make no mistake aboutit, this type of financial interference is aimed at undermining the authority of the church. What other religious organization besides the Catholic Church needs such a hierarchical structure? This smacks of religious bias.

  5. B1

    I just posted a link to this piece on your other posting about this matter, but it certainly seems like there could be option (4), political payback by a powerful special interest group (homosexuals / gays / “queers” in what seems to be their preferred label) for the Church’s opposition to the proposed same-sex marriage law:

    http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/6954

  6. anonymous

    Not sure why anyone would pick on religious types of whatever persuasion

    They probably also believe in Santa, Easter Bunny, tooth fairy….to each his own

  7. cynic1

    Stanwich….I respect your position …. but I would respect it more if you agreed that donations to any religous organization ceased to be tax deductable if they couldnt prove that such gifts werent used for the advancement of its charitable precepts. I also wasnt focused on a church with heirarchy (Roman,Anglican,Pres,Methodist amongst many others ) but implemented on a church place by place basis putting the onus of audit and its resultant legal ramiforcations on the local oversight body.