Wow. Just watch this video. This is blatantly illegal! A girl claiming to be 15 went in for an abortion and said she was impregnated by a 27 year old. By state law the clinic must report this, but they didn't. This site also has a link of all the cases where Planned Parenthood has been caught breaking state laws- In West Hartford there was a clinic that failed to report a case in which at 14 year old was abducted and raped by a 41 year old who brought her to the clinic to have the abortion (he is now convicted by DNA from the aborted fetus, but I don't think the clinic has been convicted yet).

This organization is so corrupt and so criminal, and yet they get taxpayer money! And they are tax exempt

Neither will ultimately win, but the current trend is a slow reduction in religious influence.Bourbons3

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]ZOMG, reverse first ammendment. In all actuality, I would take this to court.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Just like the last thread you started was an example of an unacceptable intrusion of government into religion, this is an example of an unacceptable intrusion of religion into government. I'm pretty sure that abortion wasn't the huge, controversial issue of St. Patrick's time as it is today, though I'd welcome well-sourced corrections to that line of thought. This is nothing more than a particular Bishop firing a shot across the bow of Democratic politicians similar to the denying of Communion to John Kerry back in 2004 and indirectly telling people that "Good Catholics" shouldn't vote for Democrats. Is he also planning on banning politicians that voted for the Iraq war from joining the parade?nocoolnamejim

2. About the "Why aren't those who support the Iraq war" banned question the answer is simple. Abortion is illicit in all circumstances, War on the other hand can be legitimate in some cases. The Catholic Church has never officially ruled on the Iraq war, thus while many (including Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) opposed the Iraq war, this is an area of "prudential judgment" where Catholics may legitimately disagree.

3. As for the part about Christ joining the sinners that is true. Just because someone supports abortion does not mean the Church should not love them, and Indeed they do not abandon them- they still have the Sacrament of Penance and can go to Mass, they just can't receive communion. The reason here is so that people don't mistakenly believe the Church condones their actions (and thus to avoid scandalizing the faithful) and another reason is to call that person to conversion and repentance.

ZOMG, reverse first ammendment. In all actuality, I would take this to court.Vandalvideo

Just like the last thread you started was an example of an unacceptable intrusion of government into religion, this is an example of an unacceptable intrusion of religion into government. I'm pretty sure that abortion wasn't the huge, controversial issue of St. Patrick's time as it is today, though I'd welcome well-sourced corrections to that line of thought. This is nothing more than a particular Bishop firing a shot across the bow of Democratic politicians similar to the denying of Communion to John Kerry back in 2004 and indirectly telling people that "Good Catholics" shouldn't vote for Democrats. Is he also planning on banning politicians that voted for the Iraq war from joining the parade?nocoolnamejim

The Bishop of Scranton (the childhood home of Joe Biden) has banned pr0-choice politicians from be honored during the St. Patrick's day parade ( In Scranton most St. Patrick's day parades honor local politicians), warning that if any where about to be honored he would cancel the parades in order to "avoid scandal". The leaders of most parade organizers are following the Bishop's example.

Well this kind of makes sense doesn't it. I doubt St. Patrick would be happy to see pro-choicers honored during his parade.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="Tiefster"]

Maybe. Religious organizations (including the Catholic Church) do recieve a small amount of money from the government, essentially the government can use that as leverage until the organization decides not to take the hand out or doesn't qualify for the hand out.

Ontain

"Receiving public monies from local, state or federal governments is nothing new to the Episcopal Church or other faith-based groups for that matter," said Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold.

it's actually a well known fact they get money from the government. I'm surprised ppl don't know.

I don't think the government have any business messing with the internal structure and politics of the religious institution. to me this bill would be a violation unless the religious organization accepts money from the government. at which point the government can impose strings.

although i also think that they should be taxed just like any organization.

Ontain

This is a Connecticut bill that would essentially force the Catholic Church in Connecticut to restructure so that a lay board makes all the financial decisions regarding their parishes, with the pastor and bishop serving only an advisory role. The bill is only concerned with the Catholic Church, not with any other religious organization.

The CT, bishops have denounced the bill, Bishop Lori (Bridgeport) says "This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

"The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion."

Archbishop Mansell (Hartford)says that this violates the First Amendment.

First and foremost there seem to be two main troubles with the bill 1. The Parishioners are Donors, the Diocese is the owner of the parishes. so from this stand point, legally, don't the owners rather than the donors make decisions? 2. Does the State have the authority to forcibly reorganize religious organizations? 3. Does the State have the authority to make a law affecting one Religious group, without affecting any other groups?