Communion as a Political Weapon
I recently read this article at Talk to Action, concerning the Catholic church's denying of communion to people who advocate political positions contrary to its neanderthal, hypocritical doctrine.
Here's a sample:
"But first, let's look at the use of communion as a political weapon.
Most recently, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island targeted a member of his state's congressional delegation -- Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) -- who does not agree with the hierarchy on issues such as abortion and stem cell research. For this reason, Tobin has barred Kennedy from the sacrament of Communion. In a recent interview he said that he targeted Rep. Kennedy because of his prominence as an elected official. But Tobin's unambiguous intent is to bend the congressman to the will of the Church -- even if it means trampling the consciences and the civil and constitutional rights of prochoice Catholic and non-Catholic Americans."
I agree with the thrust of the article, of course, but I want to make a suggestion. Isn't it high time that the people who are victims of this practice to acknowledge in public that this self-serving, malicious organization is based on a pack of stupid superstitions, and whatever it chooses to do has absolutely no effect on rational people?
And by the way, if it is going to engage in forcible political manipulation, why are the American people financing it through tax exemptions? How about reducing the deficit by making these incredibly wealthy criminals pay their share?
Here's a sample:
"But first, let's look at the use of communion as a political weapon.
Most recently, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island targeted a member of his state's congressional delegation -- Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) -- who does not agree with the hierarchy on issues such as abortion and stem cell research. For this reason, Tobin has barred Kennedy from the sacrament of Communion. In a recent interview he said that he targeted Rep. Kennedy because of his prominence as an elected official. But Tobin's unambiguous intent is to bend the congressman to the will of the Church -- even if it means trampling the consciences and the civil and constitutional rights of prochoice Catholic and non-Catholic Americans."
I agree with the thrust of the article, of course, but I want to make a suggestion. Isn't it high time that the people who are victims of this practice to acknowledge in public that this self-serving, malicious organization is based on a pack of stupid superstitions, and whatever it chooses to do has absolutely no effect on rational people?
And by the way, if it is going to engage in forcible political manipulation, why are the American people financing it through tax exemptions? How about reducing the deficit by making these incredibly wealthy criminals pay their share?
Comments
The Pope has made a decree that you cannot be both Catholic and proabortion. In order to receive the sacrament of communion, you must be Catholic. Therefore, because Kennedy supports abortion, in the eyes of the Catholic church he is not Catholic and therefore cannot receive the sacrament of communion.
If you wish to have all 501c3s and 501c4s pay taxes, fine, but that will only mean regular churchgoers will be constantly reminded of how the left dislikes their faith and how the right is correct in the eyes of God. i.e. more conservatives, less charities.
If any religion were to sanctify "Gay Marriages" the Right Wing Terrorists would declare the governments of the US will not recognize those marriages.
Pure Unadulterated Infringement.
Additionally, as a nation we do not allow any religion free reign to engage in human sacrifice merely because their religion decrees it...
The point is the Pro Human Pain and Suffering Punk Ass Bitch Republican Party and their Teabagging Birtherite Conservative sycophants use Religion in order to get elected and force poor people to vote against their economic interests...
I just want to follow the law. If people engage in political activity, they have no right to a tax exemption. The Catholic church has a fifteen hundred year history of interfering in secular politics, usually on the wrong side. If they want to do that here, they should be willing to pay the price.
And as for you, Grung e Gene, right on, brother!
. . . Conservatives prefer a small federal government, not a big one.
"
If any religion were to sanctify "Gay Marriages" the Right Wing Terrorists would declare the governments of the US will not recognize those marriages."
That is why we should remove marriage from government. It shouldn't be a political issue. Give civil unions to everyone and then let people get married to whomever/whatever they want.
"as a nation we do not allow any religion free reign to engage in human sacrifice merely because their religion decrees it"
Because it removes one of those inalienable rights explained by the Bill of Rights.
"force poor people to vote against their economic interests"
The poor did better under Bush than Clinton. Don't take my word for it, google is a wonderful tool.
"If people engage in political activity, they have no right to a tax exemption."
It isn't about politics though, that is the point you are missing. They aren't doing it as a twisting of the arm tactic, rather, merely following the dogmas of their faith. Kennedy isn't Catholic, therefore he can't take communion. That is the issue. They aren't trying to get him to do anything, it is his choice to be Catholic or not.
Also, ACORN engages in political activity. Should they be tax exempt?
Not if they claim to be a religion.
I'll tell you where I agree with you, Derek: it is absurd to waste so much energy, and generate so much hostility over a word. Marriage was a religious rite long before it became a civil contract. If religious people want the word that badly, I say give it to them, but on one condition. We are told, "Render unto God that which is God's, and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Religions can have the word "marriage" as far as I am concerned, as long as they agree that the government has the right to see that the benefits of marriage are available to all.
You are missing the point. You want the Church to pay taxes because you believe they are attempting to be political, and in doing so, being biased. Because they are tax exempt, you know they must be 100% neutral or not mess with politics at all.
ACORN is tax exempt currently, and even receives federal funding. Are they neutral? Are they unbiased? PLEASE. They are one fo the most corrupt and slanted organizations in the US. There is no way they should be tax exempt as a 501c4.
"as long as they agree that the government has the right to see that the benefits of marriage are available to all."
That is an interesting statement, because it connects marriage to a legal standing. I would prefer marriage to have absolutely no legal standing. Only civil unions. People can say they are married to toast for all I care.
We've all heard of separation of church and state. I for one have never heard of separation of state and Acorn.
Acorn does not have a several thousand year history of precipitating bloody wars and oppression, as religion does.
Don't act dumb about this issue. No one is falling for it.
There is no such thing as separation of church and state. It is not law. The government is prohibited from promoting a certain religion and from inhibiting the free exercise of religion. That is where it stems from.
The reason why churches cannot be political is because they are tax exempt, and as a tax exempt organization they cannot actively campaign or have political bias. In the 19th and early 20th century, before churches were tax exempt, churches actively campaigned as well supported candidates.
ACORN is tax exempt, and therefore cannot actively campaign nor partake in biased political action.
"Acorn does not have a several thousand year history of precipitating bloody wars and oppression, as religion does."
People fight regardless of religion. In fact, the godless nations of the 20th century, those of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China, have killed more people than all of the religious conflicts since the dawn of time. By your logic, godlessness is more violent than religion. Of course, it is easier to simply say that people kill people, and when ideology does not prohibit the genocide of millions of innocents, it is far more likely.
The Catholic church makes a lot of money, and doesn't pay taxes because it is a religion. That's why it is illegal for them to interfere in domestic politics as long as they accept their tax exemption. Acorn, which doesn't make money, is under no such strictures.