Law Prof at Catholic College Says Bishops Crossing Church/State Line, Suggests Penalties

The Cardinal Newman Society ^ | 7/23/12 | Matthew Archbold

[RobbyS]

Carfardi is not interested in the “facts.” Not if they weaken his case. Remember the old saw, if the “facts” are against you, then plead the law, if the facts and law are both again, then appeal to the emotions. So many in bis audience know neither the facts nor the “law .”So he demagogues. Pretty much as Johnny Cochrane did the OJ trial. The difference is that Cochrane probably knew that OJ was guilty, or that may well have been, but his job was to defend OJ no matter what. A lawyer is a gunslinger, and a gunslinger is hired to serve his client, and he will kill if necessary to do that.

[RobbyS]

I don’t follow your logic. The result would be like the refusal to allow tuitions from private schools to be deducted, which means that persons who do want to send their kinds to private schools are taxed double, but they must also pay state and local education taxes. Do you believe in state monopolies?

[RobbyS]

Well, it works with Catholics who think that social justice is the be all and end all of the Church, and who think that the State is a better instrument to obtain that justice. They beg the question: what IS social justice, and what about the sorry record of the state in providing it, by any definition?

[allmendream]

“attempting to take away people’s constitutional rights”

Amazing that these idiots think speaking out (the 1st Amendment: freedom of speech) against a law that FORCES people to violate their conscience(the 1st again: free exercise of religion) by forcing them to pay for contraception, abortion, or sterilization is depriving people of their constitutional right.

Does he really think people have a “constitutional right” to have their employer pay for their birth control?

Really?

[sayuncledave]

For this and comment 21, well said.

[RobbyS]

The positivism taught in modern law schools has made deep inroads into Catholic thought. In fact, there seem to be few Catholic law schools that subscribe to the old natural law view, not even in the attenuated form found in Blackstone. Lincoln self-taught himself using Blackstone, but American law has gone way away from that. Roberts seems to have also. The idea of the judge as umpire is a farce, not if the umpire is making up new rules to justify his decisions.

[Mach9]

I’m talking about religious tax-deductibility, in general, as a curb on free speech—plain and simple. Like most government ‘give-aways,’ there are strings, and those strings are silencing pastors, preachers, and teachers affiliated with those 501 (c)(3) organizations.

If the IRS laws were fair and logical (which, manifestly, they are not), tuition for private schools—whether religious-based or not—ought to be tax-deductible because the schools are displacing the failed government alternatives. But that has nothing to do with the religious end of the charitable (educational, in this case) deduction.

You ask me if I want state monopolies? Answer is of course not. Let me ask you—Do you want Canada’s laws on free speech?

[Zionist Conspirator]

A law professor at Duquesne university is accusing the bishops of crossing the line separating church and state

Funny how the state never gets called for crossing that line. I guess the prohibition only goes one way.

[RobbyS]

Churches are non profits and therefore ought to be exempt. But they are more than that. If you read the First Amendment as a whole, notice that the religion clauses cannot be read apart from the free speech and free assembly and free press clauses. A church is also an association of citizens. In short, Lyndon Johnson’s law against political speech in churches is unconstitutional on the face of it, at least as it has been embedded into the Tax code. What ought to be no more than an acknowledgement of the liberty of the churches has been turned into a privilege bestowed on them by government. In short, the state has no right to tax the churches, and since the passage of the 14th Amendment, this includes the states as well.

[Mach9]

We’re in complete agreement as to what’s intended in the Constitution. But neither the federal nor the states’ constitutions can guarantee the protection of religious speech to the extent that they’re permitted to guarantee otherwise “free” speech—unless that speech happens to be progressive on its face or on behalf of progressivist politicians.

However, the whole concept of “exempt” from tax couldn’t exist without all the other inequities of tax code. And the tax code’s exemptions—despite the guarantees of the various constitutions—are nothing less than perceived government largesse, rights granted not by God but by government..

Back to the original point, if tax-exemption means religious speech suppression, and apparently it means exactly that, then I’m all for losing the exemption. Churches and their adjuncts have survived and thrived for milennia without nods or favors from the governments of their flocks. At least we’d have clarity from the pulpits for a while. Because it’s only a while before that free, religious speech is punished.

[RobbyS]

My point is that the law ignores the intent of the First Amendment clauses, which is to protect religious liberty, which includes the right to form religious congregations and for these congregations is have a public role. Not only to speak free in their buildings but in public places. The only role of the government is to prevent disorder, as in the case of a class between Christians and Musims. The Statist view, of course, is that churches are all just sects and must “do their thing” in isolation. Which is why in secular states, such as Mexico, the church bells were silenced. One wonders why a court can say that a display of The Ten Commandents “Violates the separationof church and state.” when, to be sure, it simples expresses the ethical sentiments of 90% of the population. This is only because they accept the argument that any religious view is merely personal, private, sectarian. That’s a Mexican/French notion of the relationship of church and state.