Why America makes me angry sometimes

[marshlander]

Just received this in a newsletter from the National Secular Society:

In a grotesque violation of the American constitutional separation of church and state, it has become clear that the Vatican has almost completely dictated the direction of the Obama administration's attempts to create a wide-reaching health care system for America. The Bill only passed after the Vatican had approved an amendment that denies women federal funding for abortion.

Cliff Kincaid, the Editor of the right-leaning Accuracy in Media group commented:

The group Catholic Democrats has hailed passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, and notes that the only House Republican voting for it, Representative Joseph Cao of Louisiana, is a Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian. 'The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of advocating for health care as a right for decades, including pastoral letters issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 1981 and 1993,' the group notes.

The evidence indicates that the Bishops—and the Vatican itself—are calling the shots behind the scene. In fact, as many media organizations are now reporting, they engineered the 'compromise' that deleted abortion funding so the bill could pass the House. The Los Angeles Times reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, not only 'conferred with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be sure the new restrictions were acceptable' but 'consulted by telephone with a cardinal in Rome.'

CNN reported that, as a deal was being made between Pelosi and Catholic lobbyists, 'Several Democrats, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, said they are in touch with their Catholic Bishops back home. Altmire said he must have the approval of his bishop in Pittsburgh before he can vote yes.'

"Where is the media outrage over 'the separation of church and state'? In this case, there is direct evidence of a foreign entity, the Vatican, actually passing judgment on legislation and, in effect, delivering votes for it. Few in the media, on the left or right, want to raise the issue, apparently fearful of being labelled 'anti-Catholic.'

But the outcome of the legislation in the House demonstrates that while the Republicans don't have the votes to stop it, the Vatican has the votes to pass it. Could the same thing happen in the U.S. Senate? It is time for the major media to investigate how the officials of a major religious denomination, with its headquarters in Rome, are affecting the outcome of major pieces of legislation in the Congress of the United States."

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said: "What we saw over the weekend was an act of unparalleled arrogance on the part of church officials. Basically, they were claiming they would kill health care for the sick and the poor if the Democrats didn't give them the votes to impose religious doctrine into law."

The amendment to the Health Bill will prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions — even if they use their own money. As the New York Times said:

The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman's right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.

The anti-abortion Democrats behind this coup insisted that they were simply adhering to the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs. In fact, they reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholder's own dollars to pay for abortion coverage.

The fight will resume in the Senate, where the Finance Committee has approved a bill that incorporates a less restrictive compromise. But the Catholic Church has already said that it intends to have this modified to incorporate the restrictions it managed to impose on the previous version.

[fredv3b]

Just received this in a newsletter from the National Secular Society:

Just because I am feeling difficult today ...

In a grotesque violation of the American constitutional separation of church and state

The constitutional separation of church and state arises from the 1st amendment.

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.

I am not sure where it states that religious organisations should not be able to lobby congress. There seems to be a school of thought that thinks it acceptable for non-religious special interest groups to effectively lobby lawmakers to get their way but unacceptable for religious groups to do the same.

All that said, the story does prove the ability of special interest groups to get their provisions included in legislation.

[marshlander]

Just because I am feeling difficult today ...

I did think you'd enjoy it

[boxerdc]

Just because I am feeling difficult today ...

The constitutional separation of church and state arises from the 1st amendment.

I am not sure where it states that religious organisations should not be able to lobby congress. There seems to be a school of thought that thinks it acceptable for non-religious special interest groups to effectively lobby lawmakers to get their way but unacceptable for religious groups to do the same.

All that said, the story does prove the ability of special interest groups to get their provisions included in legislation.

Special interest groups pay taxes. Religious organizations do not. Because they enjoy a tax exempt status they relinquish their rights to petition the government.

[fredv3b]

Special interest groups pay taxes. Religious organizations do not. Because they enjoy a tax exempt status they relinquish their rights to petition the government.

Just to be clear are you saying they do relinquish their rights or they should?

[Rychard the Lionheart]

Some words from A former Catholic president of the United States of America.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would

tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners

for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and

where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint

him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official

either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any

other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the

general populace or the public acts of its officials. - John F. Kennedy.

Probably was one of best presidents that America has ever had, sadly some Americans did not agree and he was removed from office by a bullet or bullets.

I just hope that president Barack Obama has the guts to follow his lead.

[boxerdc]

Just to be clear are you saying they do relinquish their rights or they should?

They have no political rights. That's not to say that they can't preach from the pulpit, many do. It's also not to say that they can't influence their parishioners to vote the way the chuch wants them to.

The institution known as "The church" can not directly influence the political process here. They can and often do influence the citizens however.

If they cross the line, and are found guilty of direct involvement, they can lose tax exempt status, and suffer penalties.

[fredv3b]

Richard, I honestly don't really know why everyone is so enamoured by that man other than he died before he had a chance to be proved to be human...

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote;

What about freedom of speech?

where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

In a democracy the voters can choose whatever basis they see fit to decide who to vote for, that is both democracy's strength and weakness.

The institution known as "The church" can not directly influence the political process here. They can and often do influence the citizens however.

What 'institutions' (other than the various branches of local, state and federal government) can directly influence the political process?

[Rychard the Lionheart]

D.C. Council agrees to vote Dec. 1 on same-sex marriage.

This was taken from the Washington Post website today.

The D.C. Council officially agreed today to vote on the bill legalizing same-sex marriage on Dec. 1, clearing the way for the measure to head to Congress for its review around New Year's.

Before the council put the bill on its December agenda, council members reiterated they are not likely to be swayed by arguments from the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington that passage of the bill as written would affect the church's charitable work in the District.

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At large), chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, said he has reviewed the concerns raised by the church and concluded the council bill is not that much different than same-sex marriage bills that have been enacted in other states.

"The church focuses on the right to discriminate, but refuses to consider the effect on the couple," Mendelson said. "They provide these services in other states where same-sex marriages are permitted, I do not understand why they would not be able to provide them here."

But in a letter to Mendelson last week, a top church official said the bill "does not allow Catholic Charities and other religious service organizations to freely function as religious service organizations in the District."

Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the archdiocese, specifically expressed concerns in her letter that the Catholic Charities would be required to give employee benefits to same-sex couples who legally marry as well be forced to participate in adoptions for gay couples.

Church officials say they would be forced to end Catholic Charities' social services contracts with the city if the proposal is not changed.

Some gay rights activists dismiss the church's concerns, arguing federal law governs employee benefits. They also note city law already mandates that gay couples be allowed to adopt children.

On the other side of the debate, some religious scholars and attorneys argue there are more exemptions for churches in the same-sex marriage bills that have been approved in other states than there are in the one being debated by the council. Connecticut's law, for example, appears to shield some charities from having to abide by the same-sex marriage law, according to council documents.

Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) said today he wants Mendelson and Council member David A. Catania (I-At large), the sponsor of the same-sex marriage, to continue trying to work with the church to see if there is room for common ground.

But neither Mendelson nor Catania gave any indication they see room for compromise.

"I think it is important that we continue to have a discussion with the archdiocese and other churches as they wish," Mendelson said. "But I do have to say, the way this issue has been approached by the archdiocese in the past week was tantamount to drawing a line in the sand and it may be hard for them to show some flexibility."

In a sign of the worsening relations between the council and the church, Catania asked his colleagues today how the church could condone giving employee spouse benefits to "fornicators and adulters" - a reference to divorcees - but not same-sex couples.

After the council votes Dec. 1, it will have to take a second vote on the measure in mid -December. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) has promised to sign the bill, but it still would have to survive congressional review.


Still more fences to jump, two votes and a congressional review.

Some interesting points raised, like the catholic church services were not withdrawn in others states where same sex marriages are legal. Also their social services contracts must surely follow government rules and regulations whether they are state or federal government contracts.

Will it be passed, lets hope we have some good news in 2010.

[boxerdc]

Finally! some good news from my hometown!
Win or lose, it's a win that it's even being discussed here.