Catholic charity's appeal over gay adoption fails

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
larkin31 said:
Here is your claim, in bold.

It is simple to refute, because there are many “religious activities” that the 1st Amendment would not and does not protect. I assume that you will not ask me to list the easy examples that we can all think of.
Click to expand...
Name ONE.
 
larkin31 said:
Shall we start with some of the writings for believers in Islam?

Then in the Books of Moses for Jews and Christians?
Click to expand...
You are being disingenuous. I know you are going to start with “stoning adulterers” or some such idiocy. That is civil law for Israel, not eternal moral law. It is completely unrelated. Perhaps you were going to mention animal sacrifices. That would also have no bearing, as animal sacrifices had to be done in the Temple (Geography lesson: Jerusalem is not in the USA). We are talking about protecting children from those given over to a reprobate mind.
 
StTommyMore said:
Perhaps you were going to mention animal sacrifices. That would also have no bearing, as animal sacrifices had to be done in the Temple (Geography lesson: Jerusalem is not in the USA).
Click to expand...
And actually, some animal sacrifices have been found to be protected religious acts in the US for practitioners of Santeria, for example. :confused:
 
larkin31 said:
Then in the Books of Moses for Jews and Christians?
Click to expand...
The Books of Moses that are concerned with practical law don’t apply to Christians. Most Orthodox Jews do follow them however and are Constitutionally protected in their practice.
 
StTommyMore said:
You are being disingenuous. I know you are going to start with “stoning adulterers” or some such idiocy. That is civil law for Israel, not eternal moral law. It is completely unrelated. Perhaps you were going to mention animal sacrifices. That would also have no bearing, as animal sacrifices had to be done in the Temple (Geography lesson: Jerusalem is not in the USA). We are talking about protecting children from those given over to a reprobate mind.
Click to expand...
You are backpedaling. Your claim was that ALL RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY IS PROTECTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE HEATHENS IN WASHINGTON SAY

If you are simply here to spout nonsense that you don’t even mean, then why are you continuing to ask for examples?

You said, “Name one”

Here is one (you probably I assumed that I mean only Christianity, because you think I have some sort of anti-Christian bias. HA. That’s a joke)
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them
Click to expand...
If you think that this would be ok to practice in America and be able to successfully defend the practice of religious murder because one’s religious text exhorts one to, then by all means defend Islamic murder of infidels right here for all of us to see.

Or, perhaps,** try to debate with more control and less animus and prejudice**. It makes you make mistakes. 🤷
 
larkin31 said:
You are backpedaling. Your claim was that ALL RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY IS PROTECTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE HEATHENS IN WASHINGTON SAY

If you are simply here to spout nonsense that you don’t even mean, then why are you continuing to ask for examples?

You said, “Name one”

Here is one (you probably I assumed that I mean only Christianity, because you think I have some sort of anti-Christian bias. HA. That’s a joke)

If you think that this would be ok to practice in America and be able to successfully defend the practice of religious murder because one’s religious text exhorts one to, then by all means defend Islamic murder of infidels right here for all of us to see.

Or, perhaps,** try to debate with more control and less animus and prejudice**. It makes you make mistakes. 🤷
Click to expand...
I have no choice but to show prejudice against unrepentant reprobates.
 
larkin31 said:
I see that you have conceded the point about whether the 1st Amend “protects all religious practice”.

Moving on then…
Click to expand...
Like all other civil rights, it protects all religious practice that does not infringe on the rights of others (which is what I meant, and you knew that). However, not placing children in the homes of homosexuals infringes on the rights of no one and protects the child.
 
StTommyMore said:
Like all other civil rights, it protects all religious practice that does not infringe on the rights of others (which is what I meant, and you knew that).
Click to expand...
If you weren’t so belligerent in your defensive of the church, maybe you would have made this much more reasonable claims in one of the 5 previous posts on the topic.
However, not placing children in the homes of homosexuals infringes on the rights of no one and protects the child.
Click to expand...
It’s probably about tax law, as someone else pointed out. And this case is in Britain, where it is explicitly about tax law under the Charities Commission. (so we are being told on the thread)
 
larkin31 said:
If you weren’t so belligerent in your defensive of the church, maybe you would have made this much more reasonable claims in one of the 5 previous posts on the topic.

It’s probably about tax law, as someone else pointed out. And this case is in Britain, where it is explicitly about tax law under the Charities Commission. (so we are being told on the thread)
Click to expand...
It is not unheard of in Britain to use taxes to persecute Catholics
 
I wonder when a similar action will destroy the Catholic Health Care System in the US?
 
I just read this on this matter:
The head of the national association of Catholic hospitals, which holds great sway in the health care debate, threw her support Saturday behind the contested Senate reform bill in a move that could give a major boost to the legislation’s prospects.
Click to expand...
But the endorsement of Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, could also put the nun and her organization at odds with the Catholic hierarchy, which continues to oppose the bill due to its provision on abortion coverage.
Click to expand...
As Politics Daily has reported, the Senate bill does not appear to allow for abortion funding, contrary to what many pro-life critics have claimed. But the dispute is proving pivotal to the bill’s chances in the House, where a cadre of pro-life Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has threatened to sink it if their demands for stronger anti-abortion language are not met.
Click to expand...
In her statement Saturday, Keehan made it clear she thinks any qualms about abortion language in the Senate version can be resolved, and in any event are not enough to justify opposition to what Catholic leaders say is a pro-life issue and a “human right” – universal and affordable health care. Keehan attended a March 3 briefing by President Obama at the White House, an event she said clarified her decision to support the bill.
Click to expand...
“As I watched our president present his plan to pass the health reform legislation, it was clear this is an historic opportunity to make great improvements in the lives of so many Americans,” Keehan said in her statement. “Is it perfect? No. Does it cover everyone? No. But is it a major first step? Yes.”
Click to expand...
She “has a major concern on life issues” about the bill, she said, and believes they will require monitoring should the bill become law. But she believes the concerns are adequately addressed by the mechanism to keep abortion coverage apart from the government-regulated health care markets.
Click to expand...
“We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions, and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women,” Keehan said. “The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through the exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.”
Click to expand...
She noted that the bill requires an annual audit of the insurance companies to ensure so federal dollars are used in abortion coverage, and she also pointed to the “wonderful provision in the bill that provides $250 million over 10 years to pay for counseling, education, job training and housing for vulnerable women who are pregnant or parenting. Another provision provides a substantial increase in the adoption tax credit and funding for adoption assistance programs.” The House bill, which some pro-lifers find preferable because of the so-called Stupak amendment barring abortion funding, did not have those provisions.
Click to expand...
from here: politicsdaily.com/2010/03/13/catholic-health-groups-backs-abortion-language-in-reform-bill/
 
larkin31 said:
Have they been told to change or give up the govt money?
Click to expand...
Obamacare provides a path for government paid abortions and contraceptives and the treatment of Medicare/Medicaid patients automatically puts the health agency both in the role as potential provider and in receipt of government money, not to mention any grants or tax breaks that it may accept from the government. The confrontation is pending.
 
Remember that Sr. Keenan is the same Sr. who, when the Bishops had a campaign protesting the then-pending FOCA, said that Catholic Hospital would not close but would have to find a way to comply. She’s not exactly a good reference when it comes to supposition about keeping Catholic hospitals Catholic.

That story was from March anyway. Does anyone know if Sr. has issued a correction since it now appears that federal funds will indeed be used for abortions (as we knew they would)?
 
distracted said:
***Why do they HAVE to comply? ***

just off the top of my head… if i were head of the agency, i would CLOSE rather than give children to gay couples…
Click to expand...
There`s spinelessness and loss of Faith in those who should be defending Truth. There should be no “need” to close anything.

Saint John Fisher said: “The fort has been betrayed; even by those who should have defended it.”.

The UK affair is just incidental…the war is with almost every national government in the currupt and decadent West. No matter how brutal some regimes are elsewhere (eg Red China), they wouldnt tolerate the depravity thats being inflicted on us by democratically elected “Governments”!

The finer points of “Rules and Regulations” shouldnt stall us when were confronting evil. WE HAVE TO DEFY THEM. What can they do to us? The days of Henry VIII and his “peers” haven`t come back yet. Would “they” call in the police? the army? Lock us up in insane “asylums” (or worse) like the masters of the Kremlin did to many in the days of the Soviet Empire?

How about a SPIRITUAL version of “People Power”!!!
“They” can`t arrest all of us.

But apathy on the part of a lot who call themselves Christians (especially the “Catholic” ones)
is a fatal impediment…isn`t it…?

Father Corapi needs to be cloned. (His outlook certainly needs to be cloned.)

Controversial statement, but: wed have more freedom to speak and act if the Church didnt “enjoy” tax-free status.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top