Posted on 12/31/2005 12:13:04 PM PST by Clint Williams
Yes.
The church has been found guilty. It must pay. The parishioners made up the church. They may be innocent, but so are the investors in Enron or the children of Criminals who are incarcerated (or fired or whatever).
Innocent people are ALWAYS affected when criminals are caught. You choose your associates, you pay accordingly.
So you like to hide criminals. I am not mixing apples and oranges. You are an accessory after the fact.
Innocent people are ALWAYS affected when criminals are caught.
That's a reason for trampling on the First Amendment and closing a church and maybe a school? Welcome to the New America!
The parishoners hid them?
I am not mixing apples and oranges
A company and a church are not similar entities.
Btw, Happy New Year!
And a Happy, Safe and Prosperous New Year to you and yours as well! :)
The diocese wants to have its cake and eat it too. It submitted to the bankruptcy court's authority and jurisdiction when it filed for bankruptcy protection. It can't hide behind the First Amendment just because the bankruptcy court's rulings are unfavorable to its position.
Apples and oranges. A company is not the same as a church.
Sorry to burst your bubble -- a church is a corporation. A special type of one, but a corporation nonetheless.
That's a reason for trampling on the First Amendment and closing a church and maybe a school?
This is not a 1st Amendment case. The church can say whatever the heck it wants. As for shutting down a church and a school, the criminals did that, not the government.
Saying the government is shutting down a school is the same as saying it takes away Daddy's income when he is incarcerated. This is on the perpetrator, not the government that prosecuted him.
You say "The vast majority of m onies raised by any church comes from its members."
Yes, you are right. But so what? The assets at that point belong to the church itself, NOT the individual congregants.
The church was found responsible for paying the crimes, and thus lost its assets.
How do you propose punishing institutions that commit or abet crimes, if you claim that institutions don't actually own assets? And for the purposes of this discussion, I don't see how the type of institution changes the answer. Church, corporation, country club, Hibernians Hall, etc. etc. They're all entities that have gotten their assets from individuals.
What if somebody owns a day-care, and one of the employees is molesting children. The owner of the daycare KNOWS what's happening, and not only doesn't come forward, but actively hides the crime and protects the perpetrator. All the assets of that daycare actually come from paying customers - do you claim that the government has no right to take those assets in a settlement? Or, are you saying that in the identical situation, where one entity is a daycare and one is a church, the rules should be different?
Their functions are different so they aren't comparable.
This is not a 1st Amendment case.
It is not alright for the government to over ride titles to property. If the congregation owns the property and it's taken, how does that punish the guilty? It doesn't.
As for shutting down a church and a school, the criminals did that, not the government.
No. The guilty are responsible for their own actions. Even using twisted logic, you aren't just "punishing the sons for the fathers sin", you're punishing people who had nothing to do with it. And yes the government IS responsible as they are evidently rewriting who holds title to the property.
I'm all for punishing the guilty. But the property being taken isn't his.
Saying the government is shutting down a school is the same as saying it takes away Daddy's income when he is incarcerated.
The government is taking something that does not personally belong to the guilty party. Your analogy doesn't apply.
Now that we have the pleasantries aside...
What are we doing debating other peoples problems on New Years Eve? LOL :)
These are just facts.
Good night and Happy New Year. Stay safe.
Not a church goer, are you.
Good night and Happy New Year. Stay safe.
It's slick outside and snowplows are out. We're in for the night. Goodnight to you and enjoy your evening.:)
The church employed and protected the criminals. That makes the church an accessory to the crime. The litigants have prevailed in their suit against the individuals and the church.
If the local congregation provided income to pay for the church and the criminals employed by the church, then they also share an obligation to make restitution for damages caused by their employee. The responsibility has also been limited to that diocese and not the Catholic church in general to deal with the problem.
This has become a legal question, so it doesn't matter whether or not anyone's a church goer.
It was a moral question at one time, and the church took a pass.
Then it became a legal question, and the resolution of the question is no longer up to the church.
Like the sticker says "keep honking, I'm reloading ... "
IMHO Anderson should not have been prosecuted as a corporate entity. A miniscule percentage of Anderson employees were invovlved in the Enron accounting. I don't believe it was shown that the entire company, or a significant portion of the company were involved in the scam. Any company with 1,000 employees is going to have criminals among them. Certainly with 10,000 employees there is no escaping it. IBM has almost 400,000 employees. If 10 or 20 or even 100 of them in some particular geography commit a crime should the entire company be destroyed? Who does this benefit?
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.