Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Church-State Relations in Connecticut Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 02:35 |
The article below is interesting. The question, essentially, deals with whether or not the government has the authority to tell the Roman Catholic Church how to govern itself. Most of the lawmakers apparently do not believe it does, but the fact that the issue was even raised is problematic, even ominous. More interesting still is that there was an unknown 1866 statute which many have called into question in light of the recent controversy. I'd be interested to see what you guys make of it all. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29644525/-Akolouthos
Edited by Akolouthos - 13-Mar-2009 at 03:11
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 03:14 |
I should clarify the poll question a bit more. I am looking for opinions as to whether a government anywhere has the right to tell a church how to govern itself. The present case merely serves as an introductory example. And I do not intend the term "right" to be strictly limited to a legal interpretation, but rather to include a conglomeration of legal, moral, and ethical considerations. If any of this is unclear, please let me know.
-Akolouthos
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 09:47 |
Of course it has. Churches have a tax-exempt status, so the government has every right to have a say about what a church does with its money.
I don't see why churches should be treated differently from any other organization. If it wasn't about financing but about, say, sacrificing humans, everybody would agree that the state had a right to interfere.
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 10:26 |
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
Of course it has. Churches have a tax-exempt status, so the government has every right to have a say about what a church does with its money.
I don't see why churches should be treated differently from any other organization. If it wasn't about financing but about, say, sacrificing humans, everybody would agree that the state had a right to interfere.
|
Well, well; I see which half of the Establishment Clause you've read.
-Akolouthos
Edited by Akolouthos - 13-Mar-2009 at 10:26
|
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2009 at 19:27 |
Looks like the majority here do not agree with government meddling in private schools.
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2009 at 22:40 |
Originally posted by eaglecap
Looks like the majority here do not agree with government meddling in private schools. |
Aye, but as it is currently a whopping majority of three, I'd still like to get a bit more feedback, as well as some reasoning from those who have voted.
-Akolouthos
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2009 at 23:14 |
I disagree that the state has a right to tell the a community organisation - such as the Church - how to manage its money, or who should be doing it. But it does have the right to institute laws like anti Fraud, or anti corruption laws.
Its a private entity, its not the govt's buisness
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 06:57 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
I disagree that the state has a right to tell the a community organisation - such as the Church - how to manage its money, or who should be doing it. But it does have the right to institute laws like anti Fraud, or anti corruption laws.
Its a private entity, its not the govt's buisness
|
I largely agree with you; indeed, I think you stated concisely what I would have wasted many more words on.
I do hope that we will have a bit more discussion on this. To me, it is a no-brainer, so I would be interested to hear an in-depth, intelligent explanation from someone who takes an opinion opposite to mine; it is one of those issues where I really don't understand where they are coming from, and thus need a full explanation to help.
-Akolouthos
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 10:58 |
Matthew 22:20-22 (King James Version)
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
|
Taxation is the government's business, not the church's.
Originally posted by Omar
Its a private entity, its not the govt's buisness
|
The financial probity of private entities is definitely the government's business. Why do you think they are prosecuting Madoff? He's a private citizen.
In particular the churches in America (like private schools) take exemption from taxes, which is a privilege granted by the taxpayers of the community. That privilege requires some sort of accountability in return. (That's even more the case since donors to churches can claim the amounts as deductibles. Something like one-third of the cost of administering churches and private schools in the US is paid for by the government.)
So while I would agree that in general the government should not interfere with the organisation of churches, it has every right to interfere when it comes to the administration of finances, not just to preserve innocents from being duped out of their savings, and to ensure that public largesse is being properly administered and accounted for.
NB: It follows from that that I couldn't vote on the question as posed. It depends on which aspects of church governance you are talking about.
Edited by gcle2003 - 21-Mar-2009 at 11:00
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 01:27 |
I don't disagree with that, but I don't think having more laymen on the board is in anyway related to accountability. Saying you must have this many people may be warranted (which is what the 1866 law says), saying you must have so many churchmen for so many laymen doesn't appear to have anything to do with ensuring financial accountability, it seems to be that the two catholic members who introduced it were more concerned with bringing the government into internal church power politics - which isn't the governments business.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 11:00 |
I was addressing the general question rather than the specifics of the Connecticut law. I don't have any sympathy on the issue with the local Roman Catholic protesters because of their attempt to drag religious views into politics over gay rights.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
|
|