Bishop says: no communion for lawmakers who back abortion

[donsu]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=10&u=/ap/20040109/ap_on_re_us/bishop_politics

LA CROSSE, Wis. - State and federal lawmakers who support abortion rights can no longer receive Holy Communion in the Diocese of La Crosse, Bishop Raymond Burke ordered in a decree made public Thursday.



Priests of parishes where such lawmakers attend Mass must withhold communion from them until the lawmakers publicly renounce their support of abortion rights, Burke said in the decree, posted on the diocese's Web site.

-snip-

Judie Brown, president of the Washington, D.C.-based American Life League, praised Burke and called his move a "historic first step forward in dealing with the problem of pro-abortion Catholic political figures."
------------------------------

these religious nuts get nuttier by the day.

[Dookus]

1. then take away

that church's tax-exempt status. Simple solution. You're either a church or a political organization. You can't be both.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. to the bishop this is entirely a religious issue

to Catholics (at least the leadership of the church) a human life begins at conception. To take it is murder...now the hypocritical thing is that he has not made the same statements of those who support the death penalty. I know there is a considerable difference between the two, but a human life is supposed to be a human life. And it is not for us to judge that life worthy of existence...supposed to be up to God.

TheProdigal

[Dookus]

5. nonetheless...

they're engaged in politicking.

I've never heard a priest publicly announce that adulterers or liars or thieves are ineligible for communion.

What if a pro-choice candidate goes to confession and receives absolution - is s/he still prevented from receiving the sacrament?

How does this square with church doctrine on absolution?

It's politicking, pure and simple. Yes, the issue has a religious aspect to the Bishop, but he's taking it out of the church and into the public political square.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. actually, they are not supposed to partake in communion

those with unrepentant hearts and continuing to live a willingly sinful life are not supposed to take communion...and a repentant soul is allowed the sacrament. The church used to just excommunicate people who did not agree with its stance...right or wrong.

You may feel that he is politicking, but he may very well feel that he is doing his God-assigned duties...just playing devil's advocate here. We do not know what his thoughts are on this, and Christ did call us to care for 'the least of us' which to him probably consitutes newly conceived life...

TheProdigal

[Dookus]

15. Who says

they can't repent on Saturday, get communion on Sunday and then go back to work and vote for choice on Monday?

The church, in this case, is not dealing with an actual sin - it's dealing with a political belief.

Do they withhold communion from people who support the Death Penalty?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. that is not repentance...

that would probably be described as 'playing games with God' and would be frowned upon if discovered...

TheProdigal

OnEdit: if the church were to be consistent in its pro-life stance, then they should not give communion to those who would vote in support of the DP.

[Dookus]

20. and why

single out office holders? Is it not just as much of a sin for me personally to believe in choice?

I volunteered for years as an escort at an abortion clinic - if I were still a Catholic, would they have singled me out over other people with the same beliefs, but didn't actively work at a clinic?

Clearly, singling out elected officeholders for their position on an issue is politicking.

They would be well within their rights to register as a political organization and continue their fight. But hiding behind the legal protections granted churches is bullshit.

My father, a lifetime practicing Catholic, receives communion weekly. My parents used birth control. Why doesn't the church withhold communion from people like him?

It's politics - if the church wants to play the game, they gotta pay the price.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Officeholders make their opinions public

And, as such, are quite obvious about their disagreements with the church both for themselves and as rolemodels for others.

[Dookus]

23. but if , say a celebrity...

were to voice a pro-choice opinion, that celebrity could still receive communion?

Your argument is less than convincing. It's politics. I'm not saying the Biships can't engage in politics. I'm saying that if they choose to do so, they should not be given the tax protections offered churches.

[Capeador]

46. I amTIRED of politicians making political hay out of 'being religious'

people while the flout the beliefs of the church they belong to. I guess it's the hypocrisy of these people as much as anything. You can't claim to be this great Catholic to please one constituency while while working against the teachings of the church to please another constituency. Kudos for the bishop for forcing the hand of these politicians. No more having it both ways. Bravo!

[Dookus]

55. and am TIRED of Bishops making political hay out

THEIR views.

Remove the tax-exempt status and then they can say whatever they want. No more having it both ways.

[Szarist]

62. But then Rainbow/PUSH would have to give up theirs

Bottom line...you can't take politics out of religion, but by God, you can keep hypocritical politicans from cashing in on religion

[Dookus]

67. Rainbow/PUSH is not a church

and therefore would not be given the tax exempt status accorded to churches.

Try again.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Tax exempt status

If you go after the tax exempt status of churches for political activity, more churches in the black community will be harmed than any in the U.S.

[Dookus]

74. Huh?

Churches in the Black community are not the US? I would wager many of them are.

And this is about getting involved in ELECTORAL politics. They can spout off about abortion all they want from the pulpit. But when they try to influence elections, that's partisan politicking.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. I think you misunderstood

My point is that this concept of going after churches will harm black churches more than any other. You might not realize this, but black churches are MASSIVELY politically active. They deserve a lot of credit for the civil rights movement and other actions.

[Dookus]

82. and you're not understanding my point

which is that any priest, preacher, shaman or sheik can believe and preach any belief he wants. They can expound against abortion until they're blue in the face, for all I care.

However, when they get involved in ELECTORAL politics, they've ceased acting as a church and are acting as a PAC. In that case, the laws covering PACS need to apply, not the law governing churches.

[Rabrrrrrr]

84. Damn right. See my post below.

I look forward to your comments on it.

The one that says "I agree with Dookus" or something to that effect.

[CHIMO]

83. Question

Should church and state be separate?

It has been a question all through time. Just look at Britain.

It is a hard question to face. If they are to be separate then how does one insure that they are separate. If they are not to be separate then how does one manage to have another church than the one that is most agreeable to the governing body?

It is a question and problem that has not been solved yet unless there is a separation as I see it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

85. Of course they should

That's why we have a Constitution, becuase our founders (at least some of them) were sick and tired of state endorsed religiosity.

I'd say that so far the country has done a pretty good job of keeping them separate, though in the last few decades the fundy Christian side of things has certainly gotten its little inroad into the government.

That's one reason I'm so offended by this bishop holding our lawmakers hostage in this way.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. you have good points

the church does seem to have a double-standard on sooooo many things and outright inconsistencies on others. There should be a stand in the church to deny membership rights (and rites) to those who embrace beliefs that are in direct conflict with those of the church leadership. The problem with this is that the church is faced with being too exclusionary by setting requirements of parishoners thereby driving down the number of parishoners and yet it is faced with having no moral imperative by not doing just that...heck of a conundrum.

TheProdigal

[Dookus]

24. they don't do it

because they'd lose 80% of their US members and most of their European members.

The church's positions on a number of issues are now far outside the mainstream. They're trying to make a political statement here. If they want to do that, then they should pay taxes like any other political organization.

The money I give to NARAL isn't tax-deductible. Money given to a church actively involved on the same exact issue shouldn't be tax deductible either.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. in some respect you are preaching to the choir...as it were

the point I am trying to make here is that the church (and in fact many churches) are losing the hearts and minds of their, dare I say, consituents. This is due to several factors, but the one that stands out most directly, in my mind, is the complete lack of real leadership down through the centuries. When the leaders of an organization, any organization, act in ways that are diametrically opposed to the teachings they espouse, that organization will eventually crumble unless someone comes along and fixes things. Hell, the Catholic Church even has priests who do not believe that Jesus was the son of God...and that is what the whole church was founded on!

I guess what I should be saying here is that the church has the right to do this witholding of communion from anyone it sees fit...however, it SHOULD withold from many many more if this is the reason for witholding!

TheProdigal

[Dookus]

26. I disagree that it's a failure of leadership...

People are rejecting the church's teachings on subjects like birth control because those teachings violate common sense.

Free people understand that having only as many children as you can properly care for is the right thing to do. No amount of "leadership" will change that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. but what other things does the church advocate...

that are NOT part of Christian teaching...remember, I am talking about what the church teaches, not what the church DOES or has done in the past...that would go directly to my leadership issue. I personally cannot find anything in the bible about the whole birth control issue. I am a Christian, and I believe that sex is a darned good thing. And to be honest, I am little fuzzy on the whole thing with Saints, too. But then again, I am not 100% up on why those things are in existence.

Back to the point, if the church has a belief, then it should hold its members to that belief. A club that exludes no one is not a club. Either you should believe as the leaders of the church, or go found your own...wish we could ask Matin Luther his ideas on that one!

TheProdigal

[Dookus]

36. *shrug*

it's not MY problem that so many members of the church find its teachings nonsensical.

Personally, I'd like to see the church try to restrict membership to only those who believe in ALL its teachings - there'd be about a dozen Catholics worldwide.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. LOL

I also think that you should have a church statement of belief. The ones that the Catholics have are soooo widespread that they would ideed be difficult for anyone to follow...I suppose that is a big part of the problems they have.

TheProdigal

[drdigi420]

31. if there was a god

abortions wouldnt be necessary because we'd only get kids when we prayed for them

we now return you to your regularly scheduled delusions

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. thanks for you opinion

and your complete lack of understanding of christian theology

TheProdigal

[drdigi420]

38. no lack of understanding here

I have many family members still living under the delusion of a 'higher being'

I was a christian until I learned to think for myself. That thought brought with it questions. Those questions cannot be answered by religion and they have exposed it as a con. I may not know all the answers, but I do know enough to realize that they are not contained in ancient plays and their metaphors.

Thanks for your insult and complete ASSumption that you know my level of understanding of the christian myths.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

39. no more insult than yours

a lack of understanding does not imply an insult, just a lack of understanding. Your statement about prayer and its usage indicates your lack of understanding so no assumption was made.

TheProdigal

[drdigi420]

45. ahh, literalists

i guess that explains why you accept metaphors as history

i'll just leave it at that

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. now why would you want to do that?

I truly meant no insult, but you stung with your comment and so, yes, my choice of words was probably inappropriate. I do find it disturbing that people of different beliefs (or lack of beliefs) have such a hard time discussing them here..or anywhere for that matter. And yes, I am a believer that words have meaning and calling my beliefs (along with about 5.4 billion others) delusionary is a swat at me.

Personally, I think atheists are great. They have a reason for believing what they believe and can talk with knowledge and reason about it (yes, at this point I make the ASSumption that you are an atheist and not just agnostic or other). The debates are usually a real fine time.

And you know, some of the bible probably is metaphor. I bet you would be shocked to hear that I don't believe in individual Adam and Eve. Nor do I believe that the universe was constructed in six literal 24 hours days. But I do believe in a higher power and authority and I believe there is more substance to our lives than simply living and dying and that being the end of it. But I respect your opinion that God does not exist, even as the magic man in the sky. I see no reason to try to crush your beliefs nor do I see a need to try and change them...you want to talk about them? Then I will be glad to do so. But I don't expect anyone to be forced into those sorts of conversations.

I hope you will accept my apology for getting snitty. I would love to debate the issue sometime if you are ever desirous of doing so...

Till then, I remain, TheProdigal

[drdigi420]

50. accepted

thanks for being more reasonable than the average believer

[ProdigalJunkMail]

51. we're not all whack-jobs :-)

I think you would be surprised...most of the ones that are the most radical are the one that are the most vocal...

Cheers!
TheProdigal

[PVnRT]

57. Is it possible

for you to discuss religion without being snotty? Just curious.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. ASSumptions

Yes, you make many and know little about Christianity, faith or God. However, I have little doubt that your posts will end up gracing the land of winger talk radio soon enough.

[Solomon]

80. Now this is truly an ASSumption

if I ever saw one. Stunning.

[Warpy]

3. YES!!!

Any church that uses spirirtual blackmail for political purposes becomes a political organization by default!

Tax the bastards!

[acmavm]

4. I agree totally and absolutely. Being baptized a Catholic, although no

longer practicing (learning to read and a realization that the church was just another good ol' boys club put the squelch to that). Anyway, I digress. I propose that if the church intends to continue in it's stand against abortion and birth control, they should give all their worldly assets (bank accounts, priceless art collections, real estate holdings, etc.) to support these children who are born into abject poverty and in some case horrendous neglect and abuse. In other words, practice what they preach. Jesus himself never surrounded himself in luxury and comfort, why should his "representative on earth" feel they are entitled? Take the proceeds and provide the necessities of life to the unfortunate children, even those who's mother did not consider abortion as an option.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. it is a shame that the church

has accumulated soooo much wealth while so many of the parishoner are living in poverty...

TheProdigal

[Capeador]

10. Let's hear from a practicing Catholic, then

I say if you aren't a practicing Catholic, then you really can't comment on this. The Church's pro-life stance is crystal clear. If you disagree with it, fine, but please do not hope to participate fully as a Catholic.

[Dookus]

14. that's silly

of course non-Catholics can comment on any topic they want.

The church opposes the Death Penalty - has a bishop ever said communion will not be granted to those who support it? The church is in favor of helping the poor - do they ever threaten to withhold ocmmunion from people who vote to cut welfare?

The list of places where religion and politics intersect is endless. The church has the right to have whatever stand on the issues it chooses, but selectively picking ONE issue and using it for political gain supercedes their authority.

If they believe so strongly in their stand, they shouldn't object to paying a few taxes in order to defend it.

[Capeador]

44. Name for me a tax-exempt organization that DOESN'T dip into

politics from time to time. You can't separate politics from life.

[LeahMira]

60. There seems to be a hierarchy...

The church opposes the Death Penalty - has a bishop ever said communion will not be granted to those who support it? The church is in favor of helping the poor - do they ever threaten to withhold ocmmunion from people who vote to cut welfare?


The Church also excommunicates women who have abortions. It doesn't excommunicate people who don't help the poor or people who are state executioners or whatever, so apparently there is some hierarchy of sinfulness involved.

[Szarist]

63. Yes, I think their is a hierarchy based on seriousness of the act

Abortion kills over 3000 a day in America. It's the equivalent of having a 9-11 every single day. Hard to get more serious than that.

[drdigi420]

33. you dont have to be Catholic

to point out the hypocrisy of Catholicism and other religious cons

[Szarist]

64. But if you have no knowledge

of what you are talking about concerning Catholicism, it is very hard to make an intelligent statement about it.

[SaveElmer]

41. Reason 1,153 !!!

Why I am no longer Catholic...

I assume they are also witholding communion from politicians who support the death penalty as well!!!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

42. what was 1,152?

I think they should...seems like the catholic heirarchy is solidly anti-capital punishment...seems like that should go too!

TheProdigal

[drscm]

7. What about those who support the invasion and occupation

of Iraq? The pope was adamant in his condemnation. How many human beings were killed in that misadventure? And how many of the women that were slaughtered were pregnant?

What about those who destroy the environment and endanger human life?

What about those who rob the treasury for the rich at the expense of the poor and needy?

What about those who support corrupt corporations that steal the livelihood of people - their pensions, their overtime, unjust wages compared to the corporate heads who rob them?

What about the death penalty, which is also condemned?

The list can go on.

As a Catholic, I am damn tired of single issue politics by the bishops. If the Church believes that it must essentially excommunicate people who disagree with one of its doctrines, then it should be willing to speak as forcefully on the other fronts.

Single issue politics helped put the current *@sshole in office.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. agreed, there...

they should present a united front against all sin and corruption, that should be part and parcel of their mandate on earth!

TheProdigal

[Capeador]

49. Abortion is far and away the most serious offense against nature

and that is why the church emphasizes it first and foremost. One and a half million human beings perish each day in America due to abortion. That's akin to a 9-11 each day. It's like a Holocaust every 4 years More innocents have died since Roe v Wade than in all wars put together. The bishop is right on putting it front and center.

[Dookus]

59. and yet

for being "far and away the most serious offense against nature" the bible doesn't mention it. Odd, huh?

[Szarist]

65. Uh...the bible mentions something about not killing

But of course, it says nothing about flying planes into towers, atomic mass murder, or sarin nerve gas attacks. All those fit neatly into a Commandment written 5000 years ago: "Thou shalt not kill". That God..He's a smart one...got all the bases covered no matter what comes up in the future.

[Dookus]

71. Yes it does talk about killing...

but why not mention abortion? In fact, in Exodus, it states:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exodus 21:22-25)

Which indicates that causing the loss of a fetus is a much less severe action than actually hurting a grown woman.


But none of that is really even relevant because we do not live under biblical law.

[Rabrrrrrr]

77. One and a half million each day? That's a BIG ^%!$@ lie

That's 530 million each year, which means every woman of child-bearing age is having upwards of 6 abortions every year (and that's with assuming there are no births at all!), which means, then, that there's no sense in having a ban on "partial-birth" abortions, since obviously there's no woman who stays pregant that long.

If you're gonna play the anti-abortion stance, that's fine, but use numbers that are somewhere in the realm of possibility instead of offering hyped-up BS in order to stir emotions. That's a tactic of the rightwing, not a tactic that's proper for intelligent people.

And as far as the "most serious offense against nature" - a) God and Jesus never mentioned anything that is an offence against nature; they're worried aboutthings that are an offense against God, and b) assuming you meant against God, no it isn't. Read and hear the words of Jesus - the greatest offenses against God are not providing for orphans and widows and other oppressed/downtrodden/etc. people, acting unjustly and unmercifully toward others, and not loving your neighbor as yourself. Jesus, and God, nowhere in the Bible, says anything about abortion, but they both say a LOT about justice, mercy, and treating your fellow human beings with respect and love.

"abortion is the most serious offense against nature" my tuckus. I should think the fact that millions of kids live in poverty is more serious; or that millions go hungry every day; or that millions have no health care; or that we are polluting the hell out of our planet are more serious offenses than abortion. Way, way, way more serious. God, and later Jesus (who was God), told us to take care of those who are, right now, standing before us.

I cringe when I see my faith being so mis-represented.

[Capeador]

11. 'Religious nuts' is a flame-baiting insult

Please do not disparage people's religious beliefs just as you would not wish your beliefs disparaged. Thanks.

[Sophree]

16. Hey, I like your sig.

It sure would be nice if Bush practiced a little Christianity, Democracy, and Capitalism. Instead, we have Social Darwinism, Corporatism, and Socialism for the Rich.

But hey, a girl can dream, can't she?

[donsu]

27. my dear - their are sports nuts, cosmetics nuts, exercise nuts, etc.

and religious nuts. religious nuts that go political, I'm going to comment on.

[drdigi420]

34. nope, just an accurate description

of people that are not in touch with reality

[Szarist]

66. Would you use similar terminology to describe

Muslims who are adamant about their faith? How about non-relgious folk who are 'not in touch with reality'? Would you use it on them? Hows about lets drop ALL the derogatory name-calling, huh?

[betweenwars]

12. the issue here

is whether this particular statement is politic-ing, not whether the Church has the right to withold communion. In this case, the statement (which is indirectly quoted and thus not the exact words), appears to target state and federal representatives specifically. If these words are what was said, and if there's no context being left out that somehow mitigates the targeting of politicans specifically, then this is political activity.

Any tax law experts out there on whether this crosses the line as written in tax law?

Mitch

[bambo53]

13. "Bishops"?... That takes a lot of nerve,

What was that in the bible about "the log in your own eye"?

Is this the same group of "men" who've condoned, harbored & nourished their very own country club for pedophiles?

I have a problem with hypocritical authority.

[Terwilliger]

17. You tell him, bishop!

Just don't mention the 10 yr-old altar boy in your chambers!

[salib]

18. Deja Vu?

I seem to recall that the fear of just such a declaration by the Pope or other Catholic authority being given to John F. Kennedy was used against him in the Presidential elections. So, is it a fair concern? If something as important to a person and her absolution depends upon a church and the dogma of the church, can that person be trusted to be independent? I think that was the basic argument, anyway.

[Andy_Stephenson]

28. What about taking comunion away from Bishops that...

fondle little boys?

[Selwynn]

30. You know what, I don't think the church of pedophiles, inc should be...

Passing judgement on other peoples morality.

[Capeador]

48. The pedophile priests violated their vows. You're making it sound like the

church teaches that pedophilia is acceptable. Every organization has people who bad things. It doesn't make the organization bad. This is akin to calling Islam the religion of terrorists. Would you consider that acceptable?

[Terwilliger]

52. The Catholic church knew of the problems and actively covered-up

there's your difference

[Capeador]

53. Forgiveness has always been the cornerstone of the Church

We now know in retrospect that pedophiles are almost never rehabilitated. This wasn't always known. Forgiveness and the promise not to sin again has been the tradition in the Church, and as long as these priests confessed to violating their vows, it was believed they could have a new start. I think had the bishops who transferred the priests around known of the damaged caused coupled with the inability of rehabilitation, they would not have done so. I believe these bishop just erred. But let's assume their guilt was deeper. Does that mean the Catholic church officially sanctioned pedophilia? Of course not. But the church is made up of flawed humans, and bad things sometimes happen. So I invite you to please stop taking cheap shots at millions of good people who make up this glorious institution because of the transgressions of a few. Thanks.

[Rabrrrrrr]

78. No, it wasn't about forgiveness at all

I am all for forgiveness, but the truth is, the Catholic Church knew those men were pedophiles, their bishops knew taht pedophiles will always be pedophiles, and instead of dealing with the problem and getting rid of the priests, they hush hushed it up and sent them off to different parishes. It wasn't about the church giving them another chance becuase the bishops were so into redemption and forgiveness. It was about the church being afraid to even get rid of the bad priests for fear that it would become known why those priests were defrocked. They were protecting each other, and have done so for a long, long, long time, and their house of cards finally fell on them.

And by knowing there was a serious problem and not doing anything about it, then yes, the Church become culpable. Not the millions of normally decent PEOPLE of the Church, but the heairarchy of the church.

[CO Liberal]

35. CO Liberal Says: No Tax Exemptions for Churches Involved With Politics

Posted as a former altar boy and ex-Catholic.

[sasquatch]

40. I endorse that idea

Also kick the doors open for to look child molesters like they do drug users. Maybe they'll get the message then.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Why not just burn churches like they do down South?

That seems the direction this is heading.

Or, you can rein in your more ridiculous notions and remember that we have this lovely thing called freedom of religion.

[Dookus]

72. How on earth

is anybody trying to stop anyone's freedom of religion?

Go to church, believe what you want - no problem.

Become a political action committee, though, and lose the benefits associated with being a church.

Seems simple to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Losing tax exempt status, kicking in doors

Those are taking away rights.

Like it or not, you can't separate moral and religious beliefs. Our beliefs systems are who we are and religion is a part of that for most of us.

[Dookus]

76. You and the bishops

are free to have whatever moral and religious beliefs you want.

When you become a political action commmittee, though, you lose your right to a tax-exempt status. You've gone from a church to a PAC.

Running a PAC out of a cathedral shouldn't give it special rights.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flaminbats]

43. Thank God for separation of church and state.

I love all my good Christian friends, but I'll be damned if my Priest or Bishop tells me who to vote for! I would never give my tithes to pay such bastards..

No honest spokesperson of God would also be a spokesperson for such political lies.

[dansolo]

56. What about those who supported the war?

The Pope declared the Iraq invasion to be immoral. I guess the Pope's opinion doesn't matter to these people.

[flaminbats]

58. Wait a second!

We need some fat politicians around for taking communion, killing gods enemies..even if some of them are pregnant, doesn't equal the sin of a murderous abortion.

[mitchum]

61. Fuck him and the gold-plated horse he rode in on

[Rabrrrrrr]

79. I'm with Dookus - that diocese, at least, needs to lose its tax exemption

This Bishop - as true to the gospel as he thinks he is - has just crossed the line into the church enacting legislation. The Bishop has now put the state - and the nation - in jeopardy, becuase now our catholic lawmakers, whom we voted in in order that they might uphold and make law in accordance with the consitution and the good of the people, they have to decide whether they do what they think is best for the nation (as we voted them to do) or what will grant them eternal salvation.

I DO NOT WANT ANY OF MY LAWMAKERS PUT IN THE POSITION THAT THEY MUST MAKE LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE CHURCH (any church) WANTS.

If memory serves, that's one of the reasons we have our Constitution written the way we do.

Our legislators can have whatever religion they want, and the catholics and bishops can have whatever beliefs they want, BUT AS SOON AS THE CHURCH SAYS TO OUR LEGISLATORS "YOU MUST VOTE FOR LEGISLATION A OR YOU ARE CUT OFF FROM GOD", then a) we must recall those lawmakers who follow that direction, and b) must strip the tax exempt status away from that religious organization.

It's plain and simple.

This Bishop has so far crossed the line, it's appalling. And that's not even to touch the inherent hypocrisy of the thing.

[CHIMO]

81. OK

So where are the fingerprint machines and cameras going to be installed?