Is the Roman Catholic Church Persecuting a Child?

[alyxandres]

Personally, I think that the existing arrangement should entitle me to more say in the affairs of religious organizations, not less. So long as religions have preferential tax status, they receive benefit from the government and by extension taxpayers. I personally think that my say in something should be in proportion to its effect on me. As long as I subsidize something, I (or my elected representatives) should get a voice in how it's run.

I very much agree with you on this, if a private organization accepts public funding it would have to fallow discrimination laws. A person paying taxes shouldn't be exempt from that which they finance. However, all non-profit organizations are allowed tax exempt and tax deductions are on a per person basis as it has then become their personal choice to donate which everyone can do.

Now as I understand it in our ever complicated tax system subsidies can make their way to churches anyway, this I believe as I hope many more will agree, is the real problem that people should focus their attention on. But I don't think that we should automatically assume authority over the acceptance policies into a private religious school when the funding shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson:
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I very much agree with you on this, if a private organization accepts public funding it would have to fallow discrimination laws.

What about when it receives non-monetary public benefit without paying for that benefit in taxes?

Now as I understand it in our ever complicated tax system subsidies can make their way to churches anyway, this I believe as I hope many more will agree, is the real problem that people should focus their attention on. But I don't think that we should automatically assume authority over the acceptance policies into a private religious school when the funding shouldn't be happening in the first place.

The problem (or, rather, one problem of many) is the tax-exempt status of churches. Based on my impression of American politics, I doubt that anything will happen on this issue any time soon.

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson:
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

I think you and I have different interpretations of what separation of church and state means. I take it to mean that the state should not give any special benefit or impose any special burden on religious organizations... IOW, that the state should be blind to the religious character of an organization.

It seems like you're arguing that the state should be completely "hands off" with any church, and this is where I think we introduce hypocrisy on the part of those churches. After all, I don't think that even the churches who are most opposed to government "interference" would object to the "interference" of a government fire truck when their church is on fire. They want state benefit without state restriction... which sure isn't church-state separation, IMO.

 

[alyxandres]

No, it isn't about that at all.

It is impossible for the state to be completely uninvolved with religion. What I do believe is that the state needs to allow a place for religion to exist in its society and allow the religion to practice its beliefs freely no matter what the religion or the belief as long as said religion does not cause harm. Now while the mother of this child used her daughter not being with her friends as the harmful consequence one can hardly call that a justifiable reason.

Its actually any non profit organization or even charities that are tax exempt in America. This is understandable as what are you going to tax? Their zero income? lol no seriously this is a good thing, it sucks that churches get lumped into this but in a community there are a lot of organizations including religions that do many good things that benefit from it. Now the catholic church isn't exactly wearing rags to mass, but there are religions that are not as fortunate and it would be tough if not close to impossible trying to draw a line between them.

In the private sector in America we can discriminate, we can flick off cops, carry guns in public, and even burn crosses if we want to. None of these things are good things but I do understand their value and the reasons a person should be able to do such things if they want to. If people are to be accepting of others they should do so as evolution intended and not by our government telling us we have to.

If this church was getting subsidies that is something that should be looked into and changed, I do not want my tax dollars going to something it should have nothing to do with. But you shouldn't use that problem to muster support for an argument that in itself does little to no harm to society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it isn't about that at all.

It is impossible for the state to be completely uninvolved with religion. What I do believe is that the state needs to allow a place for religion to exist in its society and allow the religion to practice its beliefs freely no matter what the religion or the belief as long as said religion does not cause harm. Now while the mother of this child used her daughter not being with her friends as the harmful consequence one can hardly call that a justifiable reason.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is harm all by itself.

Its actually any non profit organization or even charities that are tax exempt in America. This is understandable as what are you going to tax? Their zero income? lol no seriously this is a good thing, it sucks that churches get lumped into this but in a community there are a lot of organizations including religions that do many good things that benefit from it. Now the catholic church isn't exactly wearing rags to mass, but there are religions that are not as fortunate and it would be tough if not close to impossible trying to draw a line between them.

It would be very easy to draw a line between them. It's the same line we use to divide secular not-for-profits and charities from secular businesses. If a church can qualify as a charity in the normal way, fine; if not, then it shouldn't be treated as one.

In the private sector in America we can discriminate, we can flick off cops, carry guns in public, and even burn crosses if we want to. None of these things are good things but I do understand their value and the reasons a person should be able to do such things if they want to. If people are to be accepting of others they should do so as evolution intended and not by our government telling us we have to.

People are still free to think, believe and worship as they want without their organizations getting special tax breaks.

If this church was getting subsidies that is something that should be looked into and changed, I do not want my tax dollars going to something it should have nothing to do with.

As I've said twice now, this church like all other churches receives subsidy in the form of government services that it does not pay for. A church generates traffic on public roads; it receives the benefit of things like national defense and flood protection; police, fire and ambulance services provide protection to churches like any other place. There are many, many ways that churches receive valuable benefits that they do not pay for.

But you shouldn't use that problem to muster support for an argument that in itself does little to no harm to society.

Why do you say "little harm"? IMO, discrimination does great harm to society.

In any case, my argument isn't just based on the fact that churches receive preferential treatment from the state. There are two issues:

- religious organizations, like all individuals and organizations, have a duty to meet a certain minimum standard for treatment of others. This is especially true in the case of a business, such as a private school.

- receipt of government benefit carries with it accountability to the taxpayer. Since government receive public benefit, they incur a public duty.

Both of these things imply a responsibility on the part of the school.

 

[alyxandres]

People are still free to think, believe and worship as they want without their organizations getting special tax breaks.

As I've said twice now, this church like all other churches receives subsidy in the form of government services that it does not pay for. A church generates traffic on public roads; it receives the benefit of things like national defense and flood protection; police, fire and ambulance services provide protection to churches like any other place. There are many, many ways that churches receive valuable benefits that they do not pay for.

You assume all churches are business or are as wealthy as the catholic church. Surely you can see how a church would fall under the same classification as a charitable organization. Hell anything that is for a community that is not for profit can fall within this bracket. And all charities/non-profits all get the benefit of common good services like fire, police etc.

Why do you say "little harm"? IMO, discrimination does great harm to society

This is opinion in general, but lets stay on topic about the kid not being accepted. So what if the family were Satanists, do you think this would even be in the news let alone a debate about acceptance policies into a private school?

 

[alyxandres]

You have to remember while trying to maintain the separation of church and state the state still needs to allow a way in which people can share their beliefs without the government telling them how, whether that be a religion of Islam, Buddhism, Christianity or even if some atheists want to pull together the religion of the flying spaghetti monster. Either way they would all would take benifit from common good service as such a system is set up to enable these types of things to exist for its people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You assume all churches are business or are as wealthy as the catholic church. Surely you can see how a church would fall under the same classification as a charitable organization. Hell anything that is for a community that is not for profit can fall within this bracket. And all charities/non-profits all get the benefit of common good services like fire, police etc.

Of course I realize that. If churches can justify their charitable status like a secular organization, I've got no problem with that. The issue I have is with the idea that religious purposes are automatically charitable purposes.

This is opinion in general, but lets stay on topic about the kid not being accepted. So what if the family were Satanists, do you think this would even be in the news let alone a debate about acceptance policies into a private school?

I can't say whether the media would report on it or not, but I'd see it as the same issue. The children of Satanists have just as much right to equality as anyone else.

You have to remember while trying to maintain the separation of church and state the state still needs to allow a way in which people can share their beliefs without the government telling them how, whether that be a religion of Islam, Buddhism, Christianity or even if some atheists want to pull together the religion of the flying spaghetti monster.

I don't want people to have the government telling people how to share their beliefs, but I don't think that's the issue here.

From what I can gather (which admittedly isn't much since the school's web site doesn't seem to be functioning properly), the school didn't restrict admissions to Catholics only, and the child wasn't rejected for not being Catholic.

If the government was mandating that non-church members had to be allowed to admit their children to a church Sunday school, that'd be one thing. However, everything I can find indicates that this is a service that the archdiocese decided to offer to the general community. This wasn't a matter of Catholics simply practicing their faith with other Catholics.

Either way they would all would take benifit from common good service as such a system is set up to enable these types of things to exist for its people.

And I have an issue with any of them receiving benefit free-of-charge unless they can justify it like a normal, secular non-profit.

 

[alyxandres]

From what I can gather (which admittedly isn't much since the school's web site doesn't seem to be functioning properly), the school didn't restrict admissions to Catholics only, and the child wasn't rejected for not being Catholic.

If the government was mandating that non-church members had to be allowed to admit their children to a church Sunday school, that'd be one thing. However, everything I can find indicates that this is a service that the archdiocese decided to offer to the general community. This wasn't a matter of Catholics simply practicing their faith with other Catholics.

This is wrong,

Archdiocese defends decision to deny children because of lesbian parents - CNN.com

The Archdiocese already gave an explanation why, and it was about the churches belief about marriage.

The rest of what you have said is opinion about the way you think it should be, which is fine and sure worthy of another thread, especially about special subsidies, but currently our system is setup to handle religions in this manner to try to be as equal as possible to all believers and non believers alike so that all can enjoy their right to religion with the benefit of common good services. Your point would be valid if this was specific to one religion but since its available to any form of religion and makes no distinctions between them it then it becomes a perk to freedom of religion in America. People taking care of people, I don't like paying taxes for welfare either but I do understand why its there.

Charity/Non profit:
United States of America non-profit laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia