Beyond abortion to universal care

Fr. Reese,

I wonder if you have any idea how much anger Americans now feel toward the RCC, and they are not alone.

The RCC's successful multimillion dollar campaign to prevent Ireland from allowing abortion, its expensive lobbying of the Legislature, its costly lobbying of the UN to prevent condom distribution, abortion, and same-sex marriage are making the RCC actively hated in some quarters.

That the church has so much time and money to spend on lobbying suggests two things:

1. It does not require tax exempt status.

2. It has forefeited all rights to that status since it has lost sight of its primary mission.

This special privilege of the RCC to interfere in American and world affairs in ways injurious to countless human beings will end, Tom.

Rest assured. It may take time, but it will end.

"Religious is for the mindless."

One could argue that using adjectives when the rules of grammar demand the use of a noun is equally for the mindless.

"When Christ said give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God, He made plain He wasn't to concerned what government did with its money, but was more concerned with what we did for one another."

This bit of exegesis is not at all plain.

Hmmm, "However, despite my strong feelings of moral outrage, I am compelled to pay my taxes and to accept that some of that money will underwrite the cost of Americans killing other people simply because they're told to."

Last time we checked, Americans are simply defending ourselves from terror and aggression. We have been doing this since the first shot fired at Bunker/Breed's Hill on June 17, 1775. Without this dedication, this globe today would be doing the aryan German goose step!!!

I am sick to death of the argument that federal tax dollars shouldn't fund abortions because citizens who feel that abortion is murder shouldn't be made to contribute to murder.

I have a very strong moral and ethical opposition to murdering in the name of war. I oppose the idea that killing is less wrong simply because we are at war with another faction. I oppose the idea that anyone should be made to kill another human being if that goes against his/her moral convictions.

However, despite my strong feelings of moral outrage, I am compelled to pay my taxes and to accept that some of that money will underwrite the cost of Americans killing other people simply because they're told to.

Apparently, however, there is a different scale of justice for anti-abortionists and anti-contraceptivists. They screech "issue of conscience" (as though they alone possess the finite number of consciences that evidently got handed out at the "creation"), and our legislators can't move fast enough to make sure that their sensitive feelings aren't offended by having their tax money used to fund basic reproductive health care of which they don't approve. Reproductive health care which, by the way, is completely legal.

Meanwhile, when those of us who are opposed to the murder of innocents by government decree try to point out our "issues of conscience," we get shouted down and mocked. Or worse, ignored by our legislators. (And when I say "innocents," I don't mean the civilians who become "collateral damage"; I'm talking about the soldiers, themselves, who are made to kill other soldiers because their respective heads of state couldn't work things out diplomatically. In war, all soldiers are innocents...at least until they start to enjoy the killing.)

So, the anti-abortionists and anti-contraceptivists can bleat on about their moral outrage over the "murder" of embryonic life and actually get the government to subvert the law of the land while those who oppose the enforced murder of actual human life can't get a hearing.

What's wrong with this picture? You tell me.

It is time for Americans to take back their lives and their laws from the religious fanatics who have become persuasive only because they're loud and well-funded. We've allowed those people to dictate public morality for too long, and it needs to stop.

Senators and Representative in Congress need to start speaking out against religious coercion and taking a stand as representatives of the people who elected them -- not the people who manipulate elections with vast sums of money.

And citizens need to stop overlooking the compromises that our politicians make in order to get reelected.

If we don't call them on this, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

Hmmm, apparently "all on the dolers" does not include the tax exempt Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the following organizations which some believe are all involved with religion to some degree or are actually considered by some to be their "religious" calling:

Advocacy Groups for Human Rights and Civil Liberties
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Amnesty International
Anti-Defamation League
Association on American Indian Affairs
B'nai B'rith International
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
The Carter Center
Center for Constitutional Rights
Committee for Missing Children
Doctors of the World
Human Rights Watch
NAACP

Hmmm, "Nonprofit status for religious institutions is relevant, while tax exempt status for political parties and the ACLU is not."

Give us a break!! "What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander" and that includes ending the tax exempt Jewish temples and their congregations who continue to promote the Israeli political agenda.

Posted by: ccnl1 | November 11, 2009 8:57 AM
---------------------
The baiting here is so obvious and juvenile that I cannot respond to it.

It is clear from my posts not only on this thread, but from all, I suspect, that I believe nonprofit status should end for all organized religions. ALL means ALL the Protestant sects, Christian Orthodox, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and any others who are currently on the dole.

Hmmm, "Nonprofit status for religious institutions is relevant, while tax exempt status for political parties and the ACLU is not."

Give us a break!! "What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander" and that includes ending the tax exempt Jewish temples and their congregations who continue to promote the Israeli political agenda.

"This is a day for celebration among Catholics and all Americans who believe that life's greatest test is how deeply we care for one another," said Dr Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats. "We urge the Catholic members of Congress who have not supported the passage of this bill to follow the courageous example set by Representative Joseph Cao (R-LA), a Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian, and support this landmark legislation now. This reform represents progress in helping our nation to realize the Gospel imperative of making health and healing available to all Americans."
---------------------
REPRESENTATIVE Joseph Cao, President of CATHOLIC DEMOCRATS.

Then I, as a Democrat, am supporting outragious violation of separation of church and state?

Thank you, Tom Reese, for this information. Your essay will be attached to letters to my Senators and Representative.

And that, be assured, is merely the beginning. If there are other sectarian entities among Democrats and Republicans, I will discover them. My one indisputable talent is for research.

In addition to the aforementioned sources of funding for health care, we might add the savings from ending the genocide against the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ACLU and Democratic and Republican Parties are tax-exempt. Should we revoke their tax-exemption because of their involvement in politics???
------------
Isn't this rather hypocritical? What of all the corrective posts on religion you are constantly making?

This blog does not concern nonprofit status per se. If it did, I might come up with a long list of questionable recipients. However, the blog is named OnFaith, focuses on religion and politics. Nonprofit status for religious institutions is relevant, while tax exempt status for political parties and the ACLU is not.

HOwever, I will say that if the Democrats and Republicans do not agree to serious limits on campaign financing, they should, indeed, lose tax exempt status. That should have happened a long, long time ago.
And, certainly, we should consider allocating at least some of the savings to universal health care.

As for the ACLU, I would have to think about it. I can say, at this point, that if the media were put back in the public domain, the need for an ACLU would disappear.

As for money for health care, that which we currently give Israel and Egypt could certainly go there. Give that money to health care.

Mubarak, loathed throughout the region, merely pockets the money while Egyptians starve to death--literally.

The Israeli people wish us to be out of their face. What we "give" them is a fraction of their GDP and could easily be made up by them in other ways.

As for us, we pay taxes for security. Let the US gather information to protect us from terror All by Itself.

The ACLU and Democratic and Republican Parties are tax-exempt. Should we revoke their tax-exemption because of their involvement in politics???

Hmmm, more sources of funds to pay for universal health care????

The Catholic Church has no moral authority. This is a "Church" that did everything to hide phedophile priests.

What about priests who are known to have fathered children of their own in violation of their vows of celibacy?

Why doesn't the "Church" get after deadbeat fathers? It takes two to make a baby. The sperm manufacturers are just as responsible.

No religious organization should have any great influence in public debate. I am for removing the tax-exempt status of all religious organizations. When they have to pay up, they might shut up.

This is a secular country governed by secular law. No country is successful in which religion dominates. That can be seen all over the world.

Former Catholic, who was never religious. Religious is for the mindless.

I cannot even begin to say how offensive I find all this. What "the bishops" is, surely, the business of the bishops. However, it has nothing to do with health care, which is a legislative issue.

Again, the only way to solve the problem of religious institutions lobbying the Congress is to eliminate tax exempt status.

It makes a mockery of the sesparation of church and state to which we are, in theory, committed and is particularly unjustifiable given our current economic distress.

I alos agree with CCNL, although this point is irrelevant to Tom Reese's essay. The US should get out of Israel's face. What we "give" them is not, to the Israeli people, worth what they have paid. I am speaking of the people, not the government. Further, it is a fraction of the Israeli GDP, easily made up in any number of other ways.

As for Egypt, the money we give goes into the pockets of Mubarak, universally despised in the region, while Egyptians are literally starving to death. If America wishes to help Egypt, we must do so directly, by flying in food, physically building hospitals, etc.

As for the Israelis, we must leave them alone. No more money, no more hellish interference.

Americans pay taxes. We have a highly developed security apparatus. The US can gather intelligence to protect us and our allies from terrorists All By Itself.

Peace be with you.

I was against health care reform before Stupak amendment. Now I fully support it. For the pro-abortion folks - it did not get rid of your legal right to have an abortion, it says that you can't use money of people who oppose to fund abortions - simple as that. If you support abortion then you can support it by buying the insurance rider-you have that choice and that conviction.

We have morals and like our forefathers in faith we are called to die for our beliefs. Yes some Christians would rather die before an innocent baby is killed. I would support the health care bill even if it took most of my income if it meant that my money didn't go to support something I was morally opposed to.

I support adoption and look forward to the day when I can do my duty to society as such-I'm single. Push adoption, somebody will always want a child. Love will break the cycle of poverty.

God Bless.

WHAT WHOULD YOU DO AS A PARENT? WHAT WHOULD THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAY? IN MARCH OF 2009, A NINE YEAR OLD OF 80 POUNDS WAS IN HER FORTH MONTH OF BEING PREGNANT WITH TWINS BY HER STEP FATHER OF BRAZIL. THE MOTHER AFTER FINDING THIS OUT BY THE DOCTORS AT THE HOSPITAL HAD THE DOCTORS PREFORM THE ABORTION. THE BISHOP , J.C. SOBRINHO EXCOMMUNICATED THE MOTHER FOR AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION AS WELL AS THE TWO DOCTORS. THE PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL, LUIZ IGNACIO LULA da SILVA SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE BISHOP'S ACTIONS. CANON 1398, 1325 HAVE NO AGE LIMITS. VATICAN PRELATE, CARDINAL GIOVANNI BATTISTA RE SUPPORTED THE BRAZIL BISHOP'S ACTION. NOW WE HAVE A ROMA P.R. NIGHT MIRROR. ON JULY 1,2009 THE ARCHBISHOP RESIGNED. AS A PARENT, THE MOTHER OF THE LITTLE GIRL WAS CORRECT. WHY IS IT THAT IN MANY POLITAL ISSUES FROM ILLEGALS IN OUR COUNTRY TO WHAT EVER THAT IS A POLITICAL ISSUE OR CANDIDATE, THOES THAT FILE TAX EXAMPT AFTER SPEAKING OUT IN VIOLATION OF THE 1913 501 (C) (3) I.R.S. TAX EXAMPT RULE WHEN THEY FAIL TO PAY TAX FOR THEIR GROUP? IS THIS NOT STEALING AS WELL FROM THE AMERICA PEOPLE? THE BIBLE THUMPERS SHOULD KNOW THE FULL HISTORY OF THE BIBLE AND KNOW ALL THE BIBLE FULLY INSTEAD OF PICKING A VERSE IN THEIR FAVOR OF THE MOMENT. CHIST WANTS EVERY PERSON TO BE A MEMBER OF HIS CHURCH BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL. HOW MANY CATHOLICS KNOW ALL THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH AND OR FULLY ( 100% ) AGREE WITH THEM? I THINK IF CHRIST CAME BACK THERE WHOULD BE MANY IN THEIR FANCY ROBES ON THE TAR MAC. HAS CHRIST CHURCH CHANGED SINCE PETER?

What the bishops also should have recommended:

Incentives to live a healthy life style and also ways to pay for universal health care.

1. An added two dollar health insurance tax (or higher) on a pack of cigarettes. Ditto taxes on alcolholic beverages, the higher the alcohol content, the higher the tax. Ditto for any product shown to be unhealthy (e.g. guns, high caloric/fatty foods??)

2. Physicals akin to those required for life insurance- the overly obese will pay signficantly more Medicare and universal health insurance (unless the obesity is caused by a medical condition).

3. No universal health care coverage for drivers driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or using cell phones while driving.

4. No universal health coverage for drug addicts or for those having self-inflicted STDs.

5. No universal health coverage for euthanasia.

7. No foreign aid given to countries who abort females simply because they are female.

8. Signicant reduction in foreign aid to include the elimination of the annual $8 billion given to Israel and Egypt.

When Christ said give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God, He made plain He wasn't to concerned what government did with its money, but was more concerned with what we did for one another. Government is and should be concerned with what is material. Where does government stop and religion begin? Who decides what is right and what is wrong, and should we expect government to implicate our beliefs? Thank God I don't live in so many countries that have Islam for their guide.I would also like to say that gays are cast as the new lepers of society and religion.