Church-State Relations in Connecticut
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26774
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 22:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Church-State Relations in Connecticut
Posted By: Akolouthos
Subject: Church-State Relations in Connecticut
Date 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/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29644525/ -Akolouthos |
Replies:
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date 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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 10:26
Well, well; I see which half of the Establishment Clause you've read.
 -Akolouthos
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date 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 |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2009 at 22:40
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
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 06:57
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
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 10:58
Taxation is the government's business, not the church's.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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. ------------- |