American creation.com
The Catholic Church, which heavily influenced and even authored language of the anti-abortion language in the health care bill in the House, in clear violation of the constitution, has escalated its war over the separation of church and state by barring Rep. Patrick Kennedy fromreceiving communion by Catholic Bishop of Rhode Island Thomas Tobin.
Tobin's barring of Kennedy was the result of Kennedy's criticism of the church for threatening to oppose health care reform unless it contained tighter restrictions on abortion.
The action by Tobin further re-enforces the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and the Founders who wrote the establishment clause to insure that religious organizations were unable to have any official influence over the affairs of state. They specifically wanted to insure that the United States would never have anything like the Church of England which Jefferson specifically and the Founders generally wanted to keep out of the affairs of government because of their low opinion of the church.
It was Jefferson in his letters that specifically wrote that the establishment clause was designed to "build a wall" between the church and the government.
With Tobin denying Kennedy communion for his opposition to the church's stance, it reveals the power the church is willing to use against members of its own congregation, especially those in goverment, to try and break down the wall erected by the constitution.
The position of the church has long been hypocritical regarding the First amendment, invoking it when it suits their purposes and then violating it when its to their advantage.
The church claims tax exempt status based on the establishment clause not only from the donations it receives but also from its secular investments in commercial real estate and stocks. But it crosses the line into the affairs of state by filing for bankruptcy protection to avoid having to pay billions in jury awards because of the rampant child sexual abuse which went on for decades for which the church had been found guilty and liable because of its knowledge of the abuse and allowing it to continue.
The Catholic Conference of Bishops, has a large lobbying effort in Washington staffed by 350 people whose sole job is to influence legislation. It was representatives of this conference that met with Rep Bart Stupak who in turn brought them to Nancy Pelosi, herself a Catholic, who not only influenced but reportedly authored language that went into the anti-abortion amendment which caused outrage among many Democrats and women's groups. The very existance of the lobbying group raises questions of constitutionality and it was suggested here, that perhaps the church should be given a choice -- give up tax exempt status or give up lobbying.
In using its church power to bar Kennedy from receiving communion, the church again is showing its disregard and contempt for the First Amendment, by punishing Kennedy for his actions as a representative of all of the people in Rhode Island, not just Catholics. That position is obviously inot good enough for Bishop Tobin who has decided to punish Kennedy with his religion for refusing to conduct his office in accordance with church doctrine.
Comments
Abortion is one issue, but the religious arrogance and selective morality of today's Catholic Church echoes that of the New Testament Pharisees and leaves one wondering just where the hell Jesus got lost in the shuffle.
Foolish men and their ways....
First Amendment...laughable. That amendment is dead in the USA. Our entire Constitution is going up in flames. Kennedy wants separation? He got it. People can rag on the church all it wants but the Govt is 10000000000% worse.
Geez. This is about the most biased article on a controversial issue I ever read. How did it ever get published? Who screens these things?
It has nothing to do with "separation of church and state" (which was instituted to protect RELIGION and not the other way around like it's used THESE days).This knave does not follow what he must follow in order to belong to an organization. Just because it's religious doesn't mean squat! He is free to follow what they require for membership, just like belonging to ANY organization) and he's free to remove himself if he doesn't agree. Simple !
Why does Kennedy continue to be a part of such a mis-guided institution?
Its funny how the left uses the constitution when it is convienant. How about the right to bear arms. They are all for throwing that out to suit their political agenda. It makes me sick that leftists sickos like this even get any ink!
Remarkable that so many people in this day in age are so smitten with witchcraft and fantasy thought, all thanks to these neanderthals. Haven't we had enough of myopic thought? I guess noot.
It's a free country. They have the right to deny Communion to anyone that doesn't live within the principles of their church. It is good to see them start to have a little backbone.
It's about damn time the Catholic church got involved! This bill would force all of us pay for the MURDER of unborn children!
You have no understanding whatsoever for the First Amendment, Mr. Rubin. A church absolutely has the right to decide who may participate in religious practice. If Kennedy is violating the position of the church on abortion, then they should bar him from communion.
The church has EVERY right to take a stand, Mr. Rubin. They should have started excommunicating reprobate Catholic politicians a long time ago!
Here in St. Louis the church spends more on legal fees than it pays out to those abused by their priests. It is time to end their tax exempt status.
Totally off the mark. If Kennedy claims to be a member of the Church, he is obligated to follow its teachings and submit to its authority. This has nothing to do with Church and State because he is not obligated to be a member of the Church.
The Catholic Church, and many others, believe abortion is murder. If Kennedy disagrees he can go join another Church and the State in not stopping him. That is the meaning of separation of Church and State.
For God's sake at least fix your spelling and grammatical errors before publishing.
Two comments: 1. wether or not the intention of the church was to "punish" in it's political war, is a subjective point of view. IF that is true, intentionallity is a sepearte issue from the church's right to lobby for it's values. The teaching of the Catholic church is clear to any one who chooses to join it, that supporting abortion is a disqualifier to receiving communion, which is a private matter. No one made Mr Kennedy become
Catholic. He made this issue a public mater that would influence the entire country. He drew attention to himself in this matter.
2. the 1st ammendment gives individuals and organizations the right to speak their minds so why paint this situation as some kind of evil?
This article smacks of a secular fundamentalist, as narrow as any pharisee
How is this a problem? The Roman Catholic church has a few simple rules to follow if you want something from it. One of those rules, is don't work against the church on issues the church considers vital. If you consider yourself a Roman Catholic, you accept the authority of the church on these issues, and if you want communion from the church, you better tow the line. Kennedy is pro-choice. You can be pro-choice in your own private life, but not publicly active and still demand something from the church. Freedom of speech exists in the United States, not inside the Roman Catholic church. Kennedy is free to quit the church or to change his position on abortion. The Roman Catholic church isn't working for the US government, they adhere to their own doctrine (just like the US adheres to the Constitution). The Roman Catholic church is free NOT to give holy communion to a member of its congregation who is blatantly and publicly flaunting its teaching. The two are separate.
All this crap from an organization whose head stooge is a former Nazi. The Roman Catholic Church always was and always will be about domination and inquisition. Religion: the bane of humankind.
First amendment??? Who cares about the first amendment when the Christian faith is clear about murder of an innocent life? If the Catholic church wishes to stand firm in it's teachings and doctrines so be it. But if Kennedy chooses to be a man who is "being a representative of all the people of Rhode Island" instead of following a faith he supposedly follows then he's already chosen his path and the church has all the right to deny him communion for someone who very publicly is a bad example of the Catholic faith.
I love god so much I think of him as a her in bed all the time, waiting with bated breath has he instills all kinds of bizarre thoughts in my skull cavity. Then I go onto the internet and spread my holy screed to lesser victims who obsessed with like-minded obsessions. oooh, look at me now...I've got so much god n jesus in me i'm going to scream becuase they are always fighting and I never get any sleep. I'll only have peace when god tells me to blow something up, I guess. Oh, here is the message coming in now from the clouds...
it's time the catholic church lost its tax exempt status. this is the u.s. we need FREEDOM FROM RELIGION (not freedom of religion)... i think it's time we change the constitution to keep religion where it belongs... in PRIVATE in it's house of worship, and not in our house of congress, senate, executive and judicial branches of government.
support FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!
remove the slavery that the religion wingnuts put in our legal system and government.
why can't our military women have abortions?
for the most part they don't get to choose their health care providers...
why should our military women be forced to have unwanted babies?
I'm out. I'm a Catholic who attends Mass once a week and I won't stand for the church meddling in the US government. I'm about to become a non-denominational Christian.
God has been telling me to get out for a while now. Now I'm going to listen.
Actually the writer was correct. That was the prime context of the Danbury letters.
In the submitted, but not transmitted version, he Jefferson, acknowledges that "Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]"
This would be, in part, per the rest of the letter, to protect the church in small part, but to protect the executive or people from being executor via legislation (de facto or otherwise) from exercising liturgical or doctrinal-based influence.
To that end, this particular church is expressly acting in a way as to abrogate it's tax-exempt status. It's making political statements, explicitly attempting to change & influence government po
Not a church vs. state issue. Kennedy is perfectly free to drop out if he wants to, the church is not established. The author is confusing his anti-authoritarian views with real political principles.
Um, who cares? The catholic church is dying, like all religions, becuase with the advent of modern education and the plurality of ideas the "church" et al are being recognized as an anachronism of days long gone when mystic men told everyone what to do. So blow your smoke and wave your wands all you want you silly wretches. Pffft, non-story. NEXT!
Jud Paterson raised a good issue... why does Kennedy belong to the Roman Catholic church if he does not agree with its basic tenets? It seems like he want to be a bad catholic and have his communion too. He not only free to leave, he can even create his own religion in the US! The Roman Catholic church ought to kick such folks out, it doesn't do them any good to have bad catholics in their institution. The fact that they finally denied him communion means they are showing some backbone (a point also raised by DL13). Note to Kennedy: you are at best a hypocrite bad catholic if you stay and at worst an elitist who wants to flaunt the rules. Note to the Roman Catholic church: show Kennedy he has to abide by the same rules everyone else has to.
Didn't Marc Rubin pay attention during his American History classes? Why did the Pilgrims flee England? Why doesn't America have a king or queen who can issue an edict about the "official" religion of America? Holy smokes! If Rubin can't even get THAT part of the separation of church and state right, how can we be expected to believe any of his other observations and conclusions?
"With Tobin denying Kennedy communion for his opposition to the church's stance, it reveals the power the church tries to use break down the wall erected by the constitution." This stupid statement PROVES Rubin's ignorance of the Catholic Church, which could be forgivable if his bigotry and bias wasn't so transparent.
>>>but the religious arrogance and selective morality of today's Catholic Church echoes that of the New Testament Pharisees...<<<
Really? How is that, specifically? On first cache, there's a whiff of the poster's arrogance and obviously callow knowledge of Christian scripture -- the misappropriation of the of "pharisee" example , based on agnostic myths about Christianity and the Catholic Church, in particular.
Our 2cents.
Note to Major Domo: the death of the Roman Catholic church has been predicted ever since it was first started. The Roman Empire kept on claiming Christians were just a cult that was gonna vanish any moment, that was about 1900 years ago. 800 years ago the Roman Catholic church had 3 Popes at once and was on the brink of extinction. At the beginning of the 19th century all major European intellectuals were certain the Church would be dead by the year 1900. In 1945 those same intellectuals were certain again. Meanwhile there are over 1 billion catholics. As to other religions, there are 1 billion Muslims, etc. No sign of the end of religion, but keep on hoping.
I know this may be stretching you beyond your comfort zone but I do believe the issue addressed with Kennedy has to do with – sin, not trying to control a vote. Communion is only available to those with a heart of submission and repentance toward sin in their life. If you believe you can take a life that God has ordained, you are in sin. The question at hand is, has Kennedy done that? Sin can be in the form of commission as well as omission.
It is the responsibility of the leaders of the Catholic Church to maintain the requirements for communion that are the very foundations of Christianity, not politic from the church. They are doing that here.
Most of your disagreement with this issue is rooted in a completely unrealistic thought that you can separate church and state. They are both attempting to lead the people of this nation in a direction for living. The only difference is the direction.
how many divorced, or unmarried sexually active, or contraceptive-using Catholics receive communion?
Note to freenfair: Last time I checked the Roman Catholic church was not about "witchcraft" - in fact they are on the record as opposing it; and not about being smitten with "fantasy" but with saintliness. It seems to me that is a far-sighted and not a near-sighted position.
He's a Catholic or he isn't. He follows the Church's tenets or he doesn't. If he doesn't, they are within their rights to expel him. Personally, I hope the drunken, pill-popping degenerate son of a long line of perverts and bootleggers does find repentance, because the Church, unlike say, the American left, would then welcome him back. I'm just not holding my breath.
In the meantime, according to your argument, since the UK courts have just declared a plaintiff's global warming views to be equivalent to religious convictions, does that mean Cap and Trade violates the First Amendment?
Why quit your church? You knew the conventions of faith in Jesus Gospel. Christians are by their witness appalled at the dismembering and tearing of a live baby from the womb of a mother. The old canard about saving a mother's life always comes up about here -- who in their rational mind would not do what ever it took to save a mother's life?
Kennedy's choice of an extreme leftist ideology is the play here -- NOT the conventions of the Catholic church.
Note to M who asked: "how many divorced, or unmarried sexually active, or contraceptive-using Catholics receive communion?" Probably a lot. But you cannot equate abortion which in the eyes of the church is equal to murder with the above. The church is clear on this distinction. I would also add, that plenty of pro-choice folks receive communion, but there is a world of difference between having that position in private and in public.
to Cyrien re "I would also add, that plenty of pro-choice folks receive communion, but there is a world of difference between having that position in private and in public."
I believe that difference would be hypocrisy.
Note to M: no, it isn't hypocrisy. It is tolerance. The church recognizes that we all struggle to follow the rules but can't live up to them now and then, if that was the case with Kennedy, the church would accept him with open arms; but what Kennedy is doing is he is mocking the church publicly - he is claiming to be a Catholic and not following the rules while living a public life. Since this is a central core position of the Roman Catholic church, what should they do? They have put up with him for years, now they finally said: enough; you are setting a bad example - you of all folks should know better. Kennedy does know better, he thought he could get away with it because he's a Kennedy, well - it turns out he can't.
The First Amendment reads: "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."
The First Amendment, as you just read, places a limitation on what Congress can do. It places no limitations on the church, and in fact, explicitly gives all Americans the right to freely exercise their religion. This includes the right to exercise church discipline on disobedient, murderous, church members... even powerful ones.
The clause was added to protect the church from the government, so that it may maintain a level of authority to govern itself without the government's influence upon it. Thomas Jefferson would have abhorred even the notion of what is discussed, and was content to leave the church to preside over itself without the heavy hand of the government to institute its influence upon it.
We live in a republic in which individuals have the right to vote, by whatever standard they may hold dear and believe. Far from it from us to tell individuals that because you believe in one-way or another that you cannot participate in our government. Yet at the same time the clause strictly revokes the right of the government to intrude upon the churches ability to govern itself in the manner it chooses.
Here the church has exercised its right to determine who may have membership within their body. This is a good thing for the representative and for the congregation. They have determined that this
I agree, make those red hats pay Taxes like the rest of us. None of those Bishop Blokes know what it's like to do an honest day's work. One can't mix in politics and not pay; "If Ya' Wanna Dance, Ya' Gotta' Pay The Piper". Sounds like they want to take over our Government.
eh, it's not the banning of Kennedy from Communion that bothers me, it's the turning of the argument and attention away from the important fact that without an overhaul to the health care system--and, yes, offering a public option (that's option, not requirement) for people who are either unemployed, self-employed or facing major insurance options due to a pre-existing condition (which not only includes things like cancer, but can--did you know--include C-sections and being a victim of domestic violence).
I do believe strongly in the separation of church and state (not that we really have it, not with swearing in on Bibles or other religious texts and prayers at the start of legislative sessions, etc.). Religious leaders have played a role in major legislative changes--civil rights legislation comes to mind--but threatening to expel or punish politicians seems to cross the line.
If the Catholic Church wants to deny Mr. Kennedy communion, fine, they have that right. However, if they want to stick their collective noses into my government AND my womb, they will have a fight on their hands. The founders came here to escape from religious persecution! I do not want the Catholic Church making laws in this country and telling me how to live. If I wanted to follow their tenets, I would still be a catholic! Keep religion out of OUR government. It belongs to ALL of us, not just the Catholics!
All this crap from an organization whose head stooge is a former Nazi. The Roman Catholic Church always was and always will be about domination and inquisition. Religion: the bane of humankind.
Let us not forget around the child molesters giving the "Holy sacrament".
These days, being denied the Catholic Sacraments, or even being excommunicated, is a Right of Passage, even an honor. Besides Catholics tend do as they please these days. Most young couples practice birth control, both pharmacutical and surgical. Hardly anyone goes to Confession anymore.Lots of Catholic miss Mass on a regular basis, and when they do attend, they sit & listen to 20 minutes or a half-hour of a boring homily about how they should live their lives. And then they go out and do exactly as they please. These men of the Catholic Hierarchy (Popes included), through their incompetence and depraved indifference, have brought our long suffering church to the brink of near destruction, and now they want to start on the United States Government? Tell 'Em To Pound Salt.
I agree with Jones. Trust those JOKER Cardinals to elect as Supreme Pontiff a man who's had the words, "Heil Hitler" on his lips. My theory about that is, just as the late J. Edgar Hoover had files on all the important people in the US, so did then Cardinal Ratzinger, as former Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, have dossiers on all the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church. In other words, HE KNOW WHERE ALL THE BODIES ARE BURIED. They say he was elected by the Holy Ghost. I think it was just plane fear.
A Note to Ligo - Yes, the clause was to protect the church from government interference, HOWEVR, as you can see in Jefferson's own words, it was also the protect the government from church interference -
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
He had NO desire to allow the church to have any power in our government! Freedom OF religion AND Freedom FROM religion. Jefferson intended it to be both!
“In using its church power to bar Kennedy from receiving communion, the church again is showing its disregard and contempt for the First Amendment, by punishing Kennedy for his actions as a representative of all of the people in Rhode Island, not just Catholics.”
Again here the summary shows simply a misunderstanding of the amendment and a contradiction of its central purpose. The rules of the government and its freedoms of expression do not apply within the confines of any established religion within the borders and influence of the United States. The church may determine who may assemble within them to their own peril or demise, but the government has no right to dictate how they choose their members and how they govern themselves.
People are allowed to express their beliefs and we are to respect them as members and duly elected representatives. Its when one party within that government wishes to drown out the voice of the dissenter, when travesties and corruption occur.
Again...
People are allowed to express their beliefs, wherever they may derive them, and we are to respect them as members and duly elected representatives. Its when one party within that government wishes to drown out the voice of the dissenter, do travesties and corruption occur.
To simply say because someone may derive his views and opinions from their religious believes, or by a gut feeling, or the chill of the night air upon ones bones, does not revoke their right to express them in accordance to the First Amendment. To claim that right for ones self and deny it for the other is a contradiction. Either you hold that right dear for all, or none.
Thomas Jefferson wanted people to live by their own dictates without the establishment of any religion as to superior to the will of the people. But if the will of the people are dictated by their religious tenants and beliefs then so be it. We must either all live at peace and enjoy the union together in respect to one anoth
The bible says render Caesar's things to Caesar and God's things to God. The church oversteps its own boundaries by meddling in government legislation. Let the believers do what they want, but get that corrupt institution called the Roman Catholic church out of my life and the laws that govern me. I hope Rep Kennedy understands that he doesn't need them to be a person of God.
A Note to Ligo - Yes, the clause was to protect the church from government interference, HOWEVR, as you can see in Jefferson's own words, it was also the protect the government from church interference -
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
He had NO desire to allow the church to have any power in our government! Freedom OF religion AND Freedom FROM religion. Jefferson intended it to be both!
First I am a Protestant. But I feel if you belong to an organization, religious or otherwise, you must follow its basic tenants,or quit and stop calling yourself a "insert name here". While reading some of the posts it appears that several would not have a problem with Hitler, Stalin et-al receiving communion/practising Shabat just as long as they seperated their religious beliefs from their politics. Can't have it both ways. And, yes the comparision is apt, abortion is murder, just because some say it isn't doesn't make it not so. Just be up front about it. I don't have a problem with you killing your children but at least be honest.
Bishop Tobin's regard for fetuses is interesting.I wonder how many pedophile priests are still making communion under Tobin's watch. Tobin, like all bishops, believes that pedophile priests are still transubstantiators: they make bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. So, Patrick Kennedy shouldn't receive the sacrament but Tobin's pedophile priests can make it. That's how much regard Bishop Tobin and his ecclesiastical ilk have for children.
Bishop Tobin sounds like a holy man indeed. Pope Ratzinger must be thrilled.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!