Posted on 12/31/2005 12:13:04 PM PST by Clint Williams
:-)!
That's not what he said. What right does government have to tell a church who owns it's buildings and in what manner it's organised? We now have a judge that decided on the internal structure of a church organisation.
For the same reason that the dioceses of Spokane and Portland were - sex abuse liability. However the good will of the Tucson bishop was instrumental in negotiating a settlement acceptable to all sides.
The question of ownership should not be a matter of a "ruling" by a judge. Find the property titles. Who owns and controls the titles to the property? If the diocese holds the titles, the property is fair game for settlement of debts. The church kept the sexual abusers on the payroll and tried to cover up their criminal behavior by shuffling them around. I don't believe that the criminal behavior was unknown to all the parishoners. They also failed to stand up and be counted. The consequences of permitting the criminal behavior falls on the church, its assets and parishoners. Pay restitution to the victims and resolve to never permit the behavior again.
I am going to make myself a church. Then I will establish line reporting to other people. Then I will have the other people own the property. I will continue in this way until I have no personal property.
I will then allow (and cover up) my agents doing crimes.
I will then say "I have nothing."
I am NOT Cathiloc bashing. This is about ANY religion that tries to hide behind the 1st amendment to put themselves above the law.
It's not bashing to say that child-rapists and those who enable them should be punished, no matter what type of collar they wear.
The parishoners are the church and innocents will pay along with the guilty. The only ones who should pay for a crime are the ones who commited the crime and those who covered for them.
Stockholders and employees in Enron and Worldcom and Anderson paid pretty dearly. So they should never have been prosecuted.
How will the parishioners "pay?" Drive another 1/2 mile to the next church? It is not like they will be hit up for "their part" of the judgment.
"That's not what he said."
Yes it is. He made two points. He implied the ruling violates the constitutional protection of practice of religion. It does not.
The internal structure argument is also wrong. The judge ruled on who owns a building. An organization can have any internal rules it wants. But if it controls an asset and gets a benefit from the asset, then it owns it.
They were churches? Who knew?
How will the parishioners "pay?" Drive another 1/2 mile to the next church?
WoW! You have churches every half mile? And of course there are no ties to a "church family" so they can just shutup and attend any ole church, right?
It is not like they will be hit up for "their part" of the judgment.
Who supports a church?
Again, only the guilty parties should pay for a crime.
Don't forget the schools associated with the parish.....they go to. Those children do not get to pick up and attend another Catholic school
The Free Exercise of Religion does not mean that Church property is exempt from seizure when a court or a jury finds that its agents injured innocent victims. This is called the neutrality priciple, i.e., so long as a government policy does not specifically target religious believers, it is not unstitutional when such a policy impacts upon those believers and their institutions. This author of that principle is..........Justice Antonin Scalia.
Ae you obtuse?
Your statement was only the guilty should pay. I ask how it is that stockholders in large cases were "guilty" and you misunderstand the question on purpose.
Stockholders are to Companies as Parishioners are to Churches. And at least the stockholders aren't morally supporting the crimes of the company.
I am in Los Angeles. We have churches every 1/2 block. Catholic Churches are in the 1/2 to 1 mile range.
The families of the victims of the Churches should just settle down and shrug their shoulders, because the convicted perpetrators of the crime are able to use a shell game to hide their assets. I mean, they aren't "victims" in the tradition sense of the word, since the perpetrator is the Catholic Church (under Agency Law, which applies to any organization, in case you need a little legal schooling).
Yes, a Church that disappears because they lost under the Laws of the USA is no big deal.
Yes, shaddup and drive to any ol' church? Is church about The Word or about Socializing? You want to support a Church that hides criminals -- feel free to vountarily pay the price, if Ice Cream Socials and Bingo are that important to you.
Accessories after the fact mean anything to you?
No. He said: So now we have a judge deciding on the internal organizational structure of a church. First Amendment, anyone?
That's one point as in government doesn't run churches, organisationally or otherwise.
The internal structure argument is also wrong. The judge ruled on who owns a building.
That he did. I know of congregations that own their building and not the "parent" church. You believe a judge has the right to take it away?
An organization can have any internal rules it wants.
And you want a court dictating to churches despite their structure. Sorry. If someone in a church committed a crime, THEY should pay for that crime and not the whole church. Allowing a judge to rule on church structure is dangerous.
However, when you are talking about an institution such as a church, those in power are not the ones being punished. The vast majority of monies raised by any church comes from its members. In this case, if property is given in a settlement those very members suffer.
The members of the US Catholic family are innocent of the crimes committed yet are now the ones potentially punished if the very places they gather for mass are taken away.
No.
The families of the victims of the Churches should just settle down and shrug their shoulders, because the convicted perpetrators of the crime are able to use a shell game to hide their assets.
I'm sure money and innocent parishoners losing their church building and maybe a school will make it all better.
Is church about The Word or about Socializing?
Church is about sharing. It's about FAMILY. People you know and that know you. They share your joys and sorrow. They make you accountable to the Word. REAL churches are not every 1/2 mile.
Accessories after the fact mean anything to you?
The whole church is guilty?!
No. You're mixing apples and oranges.
One can look the other way until there is no other way to look but guilty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.