Timothy Cardinal Dolan vows to fight President all the way to Supreme Court over birth control mandate

[ellipsis2]

It bothers you for a Bishop to speak out about a political issue on a tv show? Why? When did free speech equate to a “melding” of political and religious? Should the Bishops be silenced?

It doesn’t bother my one iota if a bishop speaks out on TV. This isn’t about limiting his free speech. I am uncomfortable with his speaking out on Sunday morning political talk shows. Everyone in American knows the Sunday morning shows are all politics. Why take the religious and denigrate it to the political? Fox is known as a partisan station and this mornings debaucle just clinches it. Even conservatives are complaining about Fox and Friends this morning. The argument, I feel, was lost in the delivery system . That’s just my opinion, for what it’s worth.

 

[rlg94086]

It doesn’t bother my one iota if a bishop speaks out on TV. This isn’t about limiting his free speech. I am uncomfortable with his speaking out on Sunday morning political talk shows. Everyone in American knows the Sunday morning shows are all politics. Why take the religious and denigrate it to the political? Fox is known as a partisan station and this mornings debaucle just clinches it. Even conservatives are complaining about Fox and Friends this morning. The argument, I feel, was lost in the delivery system . That’s just my opinion, for what it’s worth.

So, when he spoke out against GOP stances on immigration on ABC, did that bother you? Or, is it just when he talks politics on Fox?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So, when he spoke out against GOP stances on immigration on ABC, did that bother you? Or, is it just when he talks politics on Fox?

Bothers me. He doesn’t live in the communities in Arizona, where illegals are running amok, and threatening the lives of people living there.

It’s easy to be speak out on an issue, when you’re out of harms way.

Jim

 

[sedonaman]

… Fox is known as a partisan station and this mornings debaucle just clinches it. …

Could you please name a news source that isn’t partisan? Did it ever occur to you that you have watched the others so much that you have subconsciously come to assume they are the norm, the non-partisan, the unbiased; and when you watch Fox, you noticed a difference and came to the conclusion Fox was partisan?

---

“What made Peter so great was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth.” – Barbara Walters eulogizing Peter Jennings

 

[scipio337]

Unfortunately, there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding in this string. A great place to go for accurate information is the website of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty at www.becketfund.org The so-called “accommodation” by the administration is a mere non-binding promise of future rulemaking. It defies logic that it would be even possible to force an insurance company to provide anything without charging for it in some way. But even if that could be done, it would give no relief to hundreds of Catholic Dioceses and other Catholic institutions who self-insure - that, is, who provide health care coverage to their employees without using any insurance company at all. There are now 23 lawsuits pending around the country against the HHS mandate. I would encourage everyone to actually read the complaints and the briefs filed in those cases, and if your local newspaper does not report on what’s actually being briefed and argued in those cases, to urge your local reporters and editors to do their jobs and actually read the court filings. I posted a comment under one of the Sebelius/Georgetown strings - it was comment #65 or so on that string - and it attached an actual brief from one of the cases. The administration does not have a legal leg to stand on. The MSM has done the kind of “job” in its reporting/handling of this whole controversy that would make that old Soviet propaganda organ, Pravda, proud. Read that brief, and you’ll understand the Church (and the non-Catholics who have also sued) are very much in the right!

We should re-emphasize this to counteract the “but…other states have this!!!” strawman created by thinkprogress and others.

 

[sedonaman]

… I am uncomfortable with his speaking out on Sunday morning political talk shows. …

One more thing. Why is it that only Catholics must accept artificial, self-imposed censorship while everyone else gets a free ride?

---

“A lie can circle the globe before truth has a chance to get its pants on.” – Winston Churchill

 

[JimG]

I mentioned before that when the 40 Catholic institutions filed suit against the HHS, only one of the three major broadcast networks even mentioned it on their broadcast. The other network gave the story 19 seconds.

In the face of a media which is massively opposed to the Catholic Church’s moral concerns, the bishops must take whatever opportunity they can to get their message out. The fact that HHS–an agency of the United States government–took an action which will limit the religious freedom of Catholic institutions, is by its nature a political act. If the Church wishes to comment on the matter–as it must–then of course it is entering the political arena. And it is obligated to do just that to protect itself.

Would we have advised Thomas More to refrain from opposing Henry VIII’s bid to take over the Catholic Church in England because it was a political matter? Would we have advised the bishops of England to just cave in? Actually, they did, and lost the Church in England in the process of saving their heads. Thomas More refused to cave in, and lost his head.

The U.S. bishops have an obligation to the Church and the faithful not to simply accept the HHS mandate and forego their religious freedom.

 

[rlg94086]

Bothers me. He doesn’t live in the communities in Arizona, where illegals are running amok, and threatening the lives of people living there.

It’s easy to be speak out on an issue, when you’re out of harms way.

Jim

Yes, I’m sure what he said bothers you. I’m talking about whether it bothers you for Bishops to speak publicly about political issues. I think it’s part of their responsibilities. We aren’t supposed to seperate God from the political realm.

 

[Moore11]

Could you please name a news source that isn’t partisan? Did it ever occur to you that you have watched the others so much that you have subconsciously come to assume they are the norm, the non-partisan, the unbiased; and when you watch Fox, you noticed a difference and came to the conclusion Fox was partisan?

---

“What made Peter so great was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth.” – Barbara Walters eulogizing Peter Jennings

I’ll tell you something. I would trust a news source 100 percent more if they would just admit the way they lean. Fox news should admit it and so should the NY times, NPR, and CNN. Any news organization that tries to tell you they have no bias is lying right of the bat. And the bias that is hidden is the most dangerous of all.

 

[LisaA]

I’ll tell you something. I would trust a news source 100 percent more if they would just admit the way they lean. Fox news should admit it and so should the NY times, NPR, and CNN. Any news organization that tries to tell you they have no bias is lying right of the bat. And the bias that is hidden is the most dangerous of all.

Well it’s not hidden they just don’t admit to it. Anyone who doesn’t think NYT and WaPo and NBC and CBS lean left haven’t been very observent. WSJ and Fox are considered right or conservative leaning.

Further I think there is a huge problem with people not distinguishing between “hard” news and news “programs” that often have a very clear point of view. For example Fox News anchors like Bret Baier provide hard news and not opinion pieces. OTOH Hannity or O’Reilly are clearly pundits. I hear so many people howling that Fox is a captive of the Republican party but they are really referring to the opinion makers who make no secret of their political position. It’s the same for the other channels. They have ‘hard’ news and opinion pieces. People need to pay attention to what they are watching before complaining about the slant of the news.

Back to the thread though, I’ve seen Cardinal Dolan on several channels and he’s presented our case clearly, without rancor and manages to deflect the clear barbs sent his way by a few of the anchors. I think he’s done a masterful job in demonstrating the huge over reach and lack of thought that went into the HHS Mandate.

Lisa

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, I’m sure what he said bothers you. I’m talking about whether it bothers you for Bishops to speak publicly about political issues. I think it’s part of their responsibilities. We aren’t supposed to seperate God from the political realm.

I have no problem with Bishops speaking publicly about political issues.

They have freedom of speech as much as anyone else.

Jim

 

[epan]

Which simply proves they are TOTALLY ignorant about the actual laws regarding exempt organizations. There is a great deal of leeway for churches and other exempt organizations to participate in the political process. And there is no reason that the Bishops or any other religious authority should be silenced, particularly where their very survival and the survival of their incredible charitable work is in jeopardy.

The one place that you can get in trouble is to promote a particular CANDIDATE. Interestingly enough the secular Left seemed to look the other way when Hilary and Barack headed for churches to give campaign speeches in 08. OTOH if a Bishop or Priest speaks up about an issue, then there is great wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the Left. Jesse Jackson is featured, the ACLU pontificates on the separation of church and state which was never a part of the Founding Documents of this country.

I’m happy that Cardinal Wuerl and Cardinal Dolan and others are brave enough to get out in front of this issue. They are clarifying that this is about religious liberty…that the government has shut down too many Catholic charitable efforts already because we won’t provide abortions. The HHS mandate was just a bridge too far.

Lisa

Interesting that you don’t criticize GW Bush, who set new precedents in pandering to the religious in his campaigning. The cornerstone of Rove’s strategy in the Texas gubernatorial race was to sequester for Bush, the endorsements of religious leaders.

 

[epan]

I have no problem with Bishops speaking publicly about political issues.

They have freedom of speech as much as anyone else.

Jim

Here is what the IRS actually says:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.* Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.*

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances.* For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Here is what the IRS actually says:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.* Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.*

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances.* For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Which why the Bishops are careful to speak solely in the issue, not the candidate or political parties.

Jim

 

[JimG]

Which why the Bishops are careful to speak solely in the issue, not the candidate or political parties.

Jim

Exactly. There is no prohibition against speaking about issues, and that is what the some of the bishops have rightly been doing. Participation in the political process is not prohibited. Campaigning for particular candidates is.

 

[LisaA]

Interesting that you don’t criticize GW Bush, who set new precedents in pandering to the religious in his campaigning. The cornerstone of Rove’s strategy in the Texas gubernatorial race was to sequester for Bush, the endorsements of religious leaders.

Wow that’s really relevant! Even if it were true, it dates back over a decade. If any laws were broken then maybe you should apprise the Texas AG although I suspect the statute of limitations has run.

BTW if you read my post I referred to NO candidates or specific races. I spoke about the IRS rules that many people are totally unaware of. If a religious leader, priest, rabbi speaks about an ISSUE he is not in violation of the law. If a church or parish organizes a voter registration drive, they are not in violation of the law. If a church or parish provides educational information on issues, it is not in violation of the law.

But hey if you want to continue the “Blame Bush for Everything” tactic, best of luck.

Lisa

 

[Alan55]

Wow that’s really relevant! Even if it were true, it dates back over a decade. If any laws were broken then maybe you should apprise the Texas AG although I suspect the statute of limitations has run.

BTW if you read my post I referred to NO candidates or specific races. I spoke about the IRS rules that many people are totally unaware of. If a religious leader, priest, rabbi speaks about an ISSUE he is not in violation of the law. If a church or parish organizes a voter registration drive, they are not in violation of the law. If a church or parish provides educational information on issues, it is not in violation of the law.

But hey if you want to continue the “Blame Bush for Everything” tactic, best of luck.

Lisa

My hope is that the U.S. bishops would not only stay this side of the law in order to preserve the tax-free status of the institution but that they would also avoid taking partisan positions, whether those are pro-Republican or pro-Democratic party positions. Unfortunately, some of the bishops seem to have crossed over into partisan (generally pro-Republican territory). I’m not the first to say so, of course.

 

[epan]

Wow that’s really relevant! Even if it were true, it dates back over a decade. If any laws were broken then maybe you should apprise the Texas AG although I suspect the statute of limitations has run.

BTW if you read my post I referred to NO candidates or specific races. I spoke about the IRS rules that many people are totally unaware of. If a religious leader, priest, rabbi speaks about an ISSUE he is not in violation of the law. If a church or parish organizes a voter registration drive, they are not in violation of the law. If a church or parish provides educational information on issues, it is not in violation of the law.

But hey if you want to continue the “Blame Bush for Everything” tactic, best of luck.

Lisa

You cherry picked Obama and Hilary. Bush is to blame for much. More perhaps than any modern president. But you just brought that up. Which is not to say I am an Obama fan. At least I knew what Bush stood for, and we all knew he was incompetent. Obama claims one belief, and then acts contrary to it. Given his intelligence, he is harder forme to forgive than the bumbling Mr. Bush.

 

[LisaA]

You cherry picked Obama and Hilary. Bush is to blame for much. More perhaps than any modern president. But you just brought that up. Which is not to say I am an Obama fan. At least I knew what Bush stood for, and we all knew he was incompetent. Obama claims one belief, and then acts contrary to it. Given his intelligence, he is harder forme to forgive than the bumbling Mr. Bush.

Please reference the post you clipped and responded to. There were no references to Obama or Hilary. Aside from that this is totally off topic. What does a decade past gubenatorial race of a former president have to do with IRS regulations?

Unfortunately many start screaming about “church and state” if a priest, pastor, or rabbi speaks about any issue. Further it is NOT partisan to describe the Catholic Church’s position on life issues for example even though at this time it is clearly more aligned with Republican platforms and candidates. I suspect that this fear of jeopardizing 501c3 status has made many priests reluctant to speak up on issues simply because they either don’t know the law or don’t want to fight all the ignorant objections.

Lisa

 

[ComputerGeek25]

You cherry picked Obama and Hilary. Bush is to blame for much. More perhaps than any modern president. But you just brought that up. Which is not to say I am an Obama fan. At least I knew what Bush stood for, and we all knew he was incompetent. Obama claims one belief, and then acts contrary to it. Given his intelligence, he is harder forme to forgive than the bumbling Mr. Bush.

Obama is just as incompetent and bumbling, if not more so, than Mr. Bush.