Becket Fund Files Interfaith Brief Defending Catholic Bishops Against ACLU Lawsuit

  • Thread starter Thread starter sedonaman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sedonaman

Guest
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending American Catholic bishops against an ACLU lawsuit now being considered in a federal appeals court in Boston. The brief was filed last Thursday on behalf of an inter-religious coalition that includes leading Christian, Jewish, and Hindu groups.
Click to expand...
In 2009, the ACLU sued the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the federal government to terminate a contract under which the Bishops had agreed to provide rehabilitation services to victims of human trafficking. The ACLU said the contract constituted establishment of an official state church because it allowed the Bishops to avoid paying for abortions as a part of carrying out their services to the trafficking victims. In a ruling earlier this year, a Massachusetts federal district judge sided with the ACLU, holding that the Bishops’ conscientious refusal to pay for abortions violated the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
becketfund.org/becket-fund-files-interfaith-brief-defending-catholic-bishops-against-aclu-lawsuit/
 
Not paying for abortions constitutes an establishment of religion?

Really, not paying for abortions constitutes an estabilshment of the Catholic Church?

Remarkable how far the first amendment has been dragged, kicking and screaming, from its original intent.
 
I am not familiar with the original case, or with the appeal. However, at the end of the US District Court ruling, the judge added a note:
Let me add one final note. This case is not about government forcing a religious institution to act contrary to its most fundamental beliefs. No one is arguing that the USCCB can be mandated to provide abortions or contraceptive services or be discriminated against for its refusal to do so. Rather, this case is about the limits of the government’s ability to delegate to a religious institution the right to use taxpayer money to impose its beliefs on others (who may or may not share them.)
Click to expand...
becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/DOJ-brief-in-ACLU-v-USCCB.pdf

The judge declared the contract between the US federal government and the USCCB to be unconstitutional
 
JimG said:
Not paying for abortions constitutes an establishment of religion?

Really, not paying for abortions constitutes an estabilshment of the Catholic Church?

Remarkable how far the first amendment has been dragged, kicking and screaming, from its original intent.
Click to expand...
“There is a tendency for a principle to expand itself beyond the limit of its logic.” – Justice Benjamin Cardozo
 
that just doesn’t make any sense. So if you don’t do what we want then you are establishing a state religion? :confused::confused::confused:
 
Now wait one cotton-picking minute.

The Hyde amendment forbids government money to be spent for abortions. How can this even be an issue?
 
PaulinVA said:
Now wait one cotton-picking minute.

The Hyde amendment forbids government money to be spent for abortions. How can this even be an issue?
Click to expand...
…The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid. … The original measure made no exceptions for cases of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest or that threatened the lives of pregnant woman, provoking an outcry from women’s rights advocates. As a result, beginning in 1977 language was added to provide for such circumstances; however, the exact wording has varied from one year to the next, subject to the outcome of Congressional bargaining on the issue. …en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
Click to expand...
As we have seen, the “rape/incest/health of the mother” exception is so wide you can drive a truck through it.
 
sedonaman said:
As we have seen, the “rape/incest/health of the mother” exception is so wide you can drive a truck through it.
Click to expand...
Ah, so we can “fire” the Church from good work they are doing with victims of human trafficking because they don’t facilitate killing their children?

Yeah, there’s a religion being established here alright.
 
PaulinVA said:
Ah, so we can “fire” the Church from good work they are doing with victims of human trafficking because they don’t facilitate killing their children?

Yeah, there’s a religion being established here alright.
Click to expand...
When the Church does good works, it does more than good works; it evangelizes. Looks like the ACLU has found a way to stop the Church from doing both. If Satan isn’t behind this, I’ll eat my hat.
 
PaulinVA said:
Ah, so we can “fire” the Church from good work they are doing with victims of human trafficking because they don’t facilitate killing their children?
Click to expand...
This is how civilization breaks down folks. The Church is prohibited from doing good in one area because of the good it does in another area…and protecting defenseless babies from being killied is good.
 
So basically people with morals and standards who aren’t willing to set those aside need not compete for government contracts. How nondiscriminatory of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top