State moves to restrict Catholics in politics

[aggiecatholic05]

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport in Connecticut has filed a federal lawsuit following assertions by a state official that rallying church members at the Capitol in Hartford constitutes a violation of lobbying law.

Six weeks after 4,000 Catholics in Connecticut rallied in opposition to a proposed state law known as Bill 1098, which dictated local parishes reorganize their governing structures to substitute lay leaders for priests in oversight of finances , the Diocese of Bridgeport received a letter from Connecticut’s Office of State Ethics informing it that an investigation was underway to ascertain if the diocese had violated state law by failing to register as a lobbyist organization.

Consequently, a complaint from Jones could lead to imposition of a $10,000 fine and even possible criminal charges against the diocese. Furthermore, to become a registered lobbyist, the diocese would have to comply with reporting requirements, submit to audits and wear badges at the Capitol.

wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99836

make them wear badges? like a yellow star? i guess that may be s.o.p. for lobbyists, but it is unsetteling.

 

[Godfollower]

“Like a yellow star”? Did you really have to go there?

From the Connecticut statutes:

Sec. 1-101. Lobbyists to wear badges. Regulations. Each individual who is a lobbyist shall, while engaged in lobbying, wear a distinguishing badge which shall identify him as a lobbyist. The size, color, material and other requirements of such badge shall be prescribed by regulation of the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board.

From the regulations of the Connecticut Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board:

Sec. 1-92-52. Distinguishing badge

The distinguishing badge to be worn as provided by section 1-101 of the Connecticut General Statutes is a blue and white plastic badge, approximately two inches by three inches in size. It will be issued to an individual lobbyist when he or she registers. Replacement badges may be purchased for $ 1.

From the website of the National Conference of State Legislators:

Thirteen states require lobbyists to wear badges. They are: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and South Dakota. Badges usually are issued by the state ethics commission, secretary of state, election commission or another state agency. In Mississippi, badges are provided by a private designated vendor.

In four states, badges are available, but not required: Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia. If a lobbyist chooses to wear a badge in Mississippi, it must contain a photo of the lobbyist. At least five other states require badges to include the photo of the lobbyist: Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Illinois and Idaho encourage lobbyists to a badge, but it is not required. In Pennsylvania, wearing a badge allows lobbyists to bypass capitol security screening. In New Hampshire, lobbyists are required to wear a badge, but they must produce their own. In North Dakota, the secretary of state issues an official badge, but lobbyists may make a “reasonable reproduction” of the badge.

 

[LRThunder]

Never thought I’d see a state pass California in being anti-Catholic.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Since when is 4,000 members of the public making their voice heard protesting against a proposed law considered lobbying?

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Next they will make anyone running against the incumbent register as a lobbyist since they will be holding rallies against the currently elected officials.

Seriously, for those who do not think we are in a war against the left/liberals/socialists/relativists, I have one thing to say:

GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND!!!

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Seriously, for those who do not think we are in a war against the left/liberals/socialists/relativists, I have one thing to say:

GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND!!!

just thought this was worth repeating.

 

[cyberwolf001]

“Like a yellow star”? Did you really have to go there

Yes Aggie did. SOME Catholics are way to fast to play the poor, persecuted victim card. Makes hard to tell when it is real persecution with all the crying of wolf.

My Goodness we have to follow the same rules everyone else is following! How horrible do they not know the State must promote and defend the Catholic faith and the Catholic faith alone?

Do they not know freedom really means being free to do only what God wills (as defined by the Catholic Church).

Don’t believe be go to Tan and get a copy of “The Reign of Christ the the King” OR read it HERE for free.

 

[ahollars]

Wear badges? Ya mean the collar isn’t a dead give-away?!?!?!



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof…

Guess they missed that part.

 

[Teelynn]

Yes Aggie did. SOME Catholics are way to fast to play the poor, persecuted victim card. Makes hard to tell when it is real persecution with all the crying of wolf.

My Goodness we have to follow the same rules everyone else is following! How horrible do they not know the State must promote and defend the Catholic faith and the Catholic faith alone?

Do they not know freedom really means being free to do only what God wills (as defined by the Catholic Church).

Don’t believe be go to Tan and get a copy of “The Reign of Christ the the King” OR read it HERE for free.

“Persecution” I guess is all relative. This is what I call “paybacks” because the State lost. Simple as that.

 

[Soutane]

Yes Aggie did. SOME Catholics are way to fast to play the poor, persecuted victim card. Makes hard to tell when it is real persecution with all the crying of wolf.

My Goodness we have to follow the same rules everyone else is following! How horrible do they not know the State must promote and defend the Catholic faith and the Catholic faith alone?

Do they not know freedom really means being free to do only what God wills (as defined by the Catholic Church).

Don’t believe be go to Tan and get a copy of “The Reign of Christ the the King” OR read it HERE for free.

Why are you here,you bitter little man?

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

Wear badges? Ya mean the collar isn’t a dead give-away?!?!?!



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof…

Guess they missed that part.

 

[turtle18]

I’ll be holding my breath waiting for the ACLU to address this!

 

[KathleenElsie]

Wear badges? Ya mean the collar isn’t a dead give-away?!?!?!



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof…

Guess they missed that part.

How about choir robes or albs? Then they can tell the protesters from the protestees.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Why are you here,you bitter little man?

HEY! Just because I’m just 5’5 is no reason to go mocking me for being short!

An bitter well my cats and dogs seem to think I taste rather good and my little niece always kisses me on the cheek when we see each other so I’d assume I can’t be THAT bitter… then again I eat a lot of sour candy so…

As for why I’m here just go to my profile and click About Me.

 

[Miserissima]

I continued this in another vein over here: With a “conscience-protection amendment,” how are Catholic negatively affected by (SSCUs)?

 

[BobCatholic]

The state has made the message clear: Attention Catholics, to the back of the bus! Under penalty of law!

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I nominate this thread for most deceptive title of the week award. Nothing is happening to Catholics vis a vis their status as Catholics. The state has started a pretty ignorant crackdown on what it considers lobbying and I think it violates the constitution in the application of the rules. Not every statement and protest can be called lobbying.

WorldNet Daily just is not credible. This is a more balanced and credible report on the situation:

HARTFORD (CN) - The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport sued two state ethics officials on constitutional grounds Friday, claiming the officials said the church needs to register as a lobbyist to hold rallies at the state Capitol and use its Web site to oppose legislation.

 The Diocese claims it was compelled to "oppose unconstitutional legislation that struck at its right of religious self-governance," when it undertook the acts the state officials deemed to be lobbying. 

 The defendants, Thomas Jones and Carol Carson, from the Office of State Ethics, could not be reached for comment Friday evening. 

** The legislation** that drew the church's ire because it "would have deprived Roman Catholic Bishops and pastors of voting membership on the governing bodies of corporations that control parish property in Connecticut," **was withdrawn before even receiving a public hearing,** but heightened tension between the church and the state. 

 Six weeks after the Diocese bused thousands in for a rally on the steps of the Capitol, it says, Jones informed it that he was investigating whether it had violated Connecticut law by failing to register as a lobbyist. The Diocese claims that Jones also informed it that statements on its Web site regarding a bill on same-sex marriage may also be construed as lobbying.

 The Diocese says the threat of civil penalties for participating in the rally and speaking on legislation chills its constitutional rights.

 However, state Rep. Chris Caruso of Bridgeport, a Catholic and the former chairman of the Legislature's Government Administration and Elections Committee, said Friday that **the church has the right to assemble and the state has the right to regulate it. He said the church can't have it both ways. **

** “If you want to come up and lobby, then you have to be held accountable,” Caruso said. “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”**

courthousenews.com/2009/06/01/Catholic_Church_Sues_Connecticut_Officials.htm

Conservatives cackled about this and thought it was appropriate:

“Then, just before the 2004 election, the Internal Revenue Service began looking into the NAACP’s tax-exempt status after a speech by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond that was largely critical of Bush’s policies. Political campaigning is prohibited under the NAACP’s tax-exempt status, but the Baltimore-based group called the audit a political smear campaign.”

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204176,00.html

I guess that attempt was not to stifle political objections, the feds were just applying the law?

 

[BobCatholic]

 However, state Rep. Chris Caruso of Bridgeport, a Catholic and the former chairman of the Legislature's Government Administration and Elections Committee, said Friday that **the church has the right to assemble and the state has the right to regulate it. He said the church can't have it both ways. **

OH REALLY? Regulate the Church? Shall the state tell us to ordain women? Shall the state tell us to require teaching on Buddhism, Islam and other religions in our pulpits? Shall the state require us to marry homosexuals? Shall the state tell us to become congregationalist in our structure?

Interesting how separation of Church and state works. The state can tell the state what to do and the Church cannot say anything.

 

[Godfollower]

Beau Ouiville;5318563:

However, state Rep. Chris Caruso of Bridgeport, a Catholic and the former chairman of the Legislature’s Government Administration and Elections Committee, said Friday that **the church has the right to assemble and the state has the right to regulate it. He said the church can’t have it both ways. **

OH REALLY? Regulate the Church? Shall the state tell us to ordain women? Shall the state tell us to require teaching on Buddhism, Islam and other religions in our pulpits? Shall the state require us to marry homosexuals? Shall the state tell us to become congregationalist in our structure?

Interesting how separation of Church and state works. The state can tell the state what to do and the Church cannot say anything.

Please.

He was saying, “the church has the right to assemble and the state has the right to regulate it [the lobbying]. He said the church can’t have it both ways.”

Read in context, it’s absolutely clear that the current discussion is about the right to assemble, petition the government, and speak to legislators – i.e., lobby. You can disagree about whether a lobbying license was needed (and you can challenge the original bill that they were complaining about), but let’s not read into this what clearly is not there.

He’s making a classic First Amendment argument: if all lobbyists have to register, then Catholic lobbyists have to register. Otherwise, you’re discriminating in favor of religion.

I’m not saying I agree that this action required registration, but don’t set up hysterical strawmen; it weakens the debate.

 

[Ruthie]

This is a matter of the First Amendment, but not the part about freedom of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

bolding mine

I think that requiring a lobbying license of people involved in a peaceful assembly at the seat of government is contrary to the First Amendment.

CT’s definition of lobbyist:

Lobbying is generally defined as communicating directly or soliciting others to communicate with any **official **or his/her staff in the legislative or executive branch of government or in a quasi-public agency for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action.

bolding mine

A public demonstration is not direct communication, nor is it aimed at one official. Lobbying is when someone goes into an office and communicates face to face with an official or his/her staff.

And page six of this pdf document defines “client lobbyist” and “communicator lobbyist,” and as far as I can see, the church doesn’t meet either definition.

Harumph. What ever happened to reading comprehension and logic?

Grumpily,

Ruthie