Voting for Kerry is now considered a sin.

[Trinity]

I may be wrong, but business skirting through tax loopholes tend to play a very large role in the election process. The Catholic Church is not trying to sway any election, or contribute to one side, rather their intent for the spiritual well-being of their people. Now according to 1st amendment, the government may take no action against them for that endeavor.

 

[linwood]

You know - that's a great point, Scott. I wonder what the reasoning is that any religion should recieve tax exempt status? Perhaps Pah or Linwood could shine some light on the reasoning behind this.

I couldn`t tell you the reason churches are tax exempt in this nation.

It`s not an issue with me though.

 

[chlotilde]

This is a point, lets take a look at the law we keep referencing in generalities. There are a few ramifications that this has on the way our society currently runs:
1. If congress can not respect the est. of any religion, than no one should receive favorable tax status. It appears that we have gone to the other extreme, every religion receives this benefit.

Good point,(I hope this is not getting off topic).

As concerns taxes, Congress is given their right to collect taxes in Section 8 of the constitution. Part of Section 8 was amended in the 14th amendment, which says:

Article XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

To me, that seems to be saying that they can set tax laws to give special status to certain groups (in that, they can do to it without regard to certain groups). Anyone?

Tangent: Curiously, Conn., Rhode Is., and Utah have not approved this amendment, so perhaps in those states, federaltax exemptions for charities aren't done?

 

[Doc]

The Church has denied the sacrement to gays and documented with photos,
-pah-

I find this as completely wrong for the Catholic Church to do. The Bible Thumpers can point out all the things in which the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. But it was these same Bible Thumpers hundreds of years ago that were saying slavery according to the Bible was okay according to certain passages. In a decade or two, gay marriages will be a common thing and eventually the prejudice against it will decline somewhat!

 

[Pah]

This is a point, lets take a look at the law we keep referencing in generalities. There are a few ramifications that this has on the way our society currently runs:
1. If congress can not respect the est. of any religion, than no one should receive favorable tax status. It appears that we have gone to the other extreme, every religion receives this benefit.
2.Congress may also not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Now to make a minor point, Cardinal Ratzinger speaks for the Church as a whole (as an institution). Individual bishops speak to their faithful of their diocese. In other words, they are helping the souls they are responsible for guiding and sheparding, make decisions that flow according to the natural law.

There has been a court interpretation that complete impartiality in the recogition of religion is not the same as recognition of a particular religion. Supporting religion as a way of life and benefit to society is permitted if all who call themselves religion (various sects and cults) receive the same government provided benefits.

A strict interpreation would lead to some of the following:

• an incursion into the confessional booth much the same way a warrant my be obtained against doctors.
• the lose of all special tax privilages which would close many, many places and organizations of religion
• loss of control of tradtional discrimination (i'e., homosexual and female priests, a pastor of a differant faith, the faith of the members of the religion)
• a serious loss at defining sin
• the removal of all religious symbols from government facitilites
• impartial zoning laws that would not favor new religious facilities.
• the hiring and teaching in religiously affiliated schools

The basis of this would be the anti-discrimination laws now in effect and the action of the Internal Revenue Service. The tax issue could be enforced at all local levels. Religious would have to register with the same staus as any other non-profit corporation and be subject to the same laws.

-pah-

 

[DrM]

New York Times - registration required.



This church, silent to Hitler, considers Kerry worse?


-pah-

Quite absurd! Did you see the special on CNN Sunday night re: religion and politics? What a country. The fundamentals do not want to simply be religious, they want to control this country. They want to control politics, money, morality and make this a better place in which to live. This is a growing cancer on our society. What is the best thing to do with cancer?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

OK, I think the point of the statements made by all these fine upstanding officials of the Church is that DESPITE the fact that a case could be made for NOT voting for Kerry on the grounds of his stance on abortion, you can vote for him (which is essentially voting for the commission of a sin) for whatever your reasons may be (as long as it isn't BECAUSE you support the sin in question) and as long as you confess you can be absolved.
What the Church is doing as far as I can see is actually saying,'If you feel Kerry is the better candidate vote for him and as long as you're prepared to get into the confessional,stand up and say 'I've sinned' we can rectify that problem.'
It's the offer of a loophole for the people who couldn't get past the abortion issue because of the sin aspect and so would not vote for the better candidate.

If you look at it the right way it's actually an endorsement for Kerry rather than Bush.

 

[Trinity]

This church, silent to Hitler, considers Kerry worse?

Lets leave the mud slinging to the professionals... I mean the politicians

 

[Trinity]

There has been a court interpretation that complete impartiality in the recogition of religion is not the same as recognition of a particular religion. Supporting religion as a way of life and benefit to society is permitted if all who call themselves religion (various sects and cults) receive the same government provided benefits.

A strict interpreation would lead to some of the following:

• an incursion into the confessional booth much the same way a warrant my be obtained against doctors.
• the lose of all special tax privilages which would close many, many places and organizations of religion
• loss of control of tradtional discrimination (i'e., homosexual and female priests, a pastor of a differant faith, the faith of the members of the religion)
• a serious loss at defining sin
• the removal of all religious symbols from government facitilites
• impartial zoning laws that would not favor new religious facilities.
• the hiring and teaching in religiously affiliated schools

The basis of this would be the anti-discrimination laws now in effect and the action of the Internal Revenue Service. The tax issue could be enforced at all local levels. Religious would have to register with the same staus as any other non-profit corporation and be subject to the same laws.

-pah-

Pah,

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. How would "the government should not interfere with the practice of religion" mesh with an incursion into the confessional booth or redefining sin? I don't get it. If the Church is so wrong on everything, why do you "plural you" even care about it? Why don't you just leave those stoneaged people to their own devices?

The only thing I can come up with is there is some interior draw towards the Church, and you would like the wisdom of the Church and of God to bless your ideas and values, rather than the way it has been for thousands/millions of years, where we learn from God. This is a little too Hegelian for me.

 

[Pah]

Pah,

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. How would "the government should not interfere with the practice of religion" mesh with an incursion into the confessional booth or redefining sin? I don't get it. If the Church is so wrong on everything, why do you "plural you" even care about it? Why don't you just leave those stoneaged people to their own devices?

If there is a complete separation of church and state, then the church would be recognized as everyone else - pay all the applicable taxes, obey all the laws that anyone else would.

What I'm saying is that since the antidiscrimination law prohibits anyone from discrimination because of religious faith then the church would be liable to follow those laws. They could not discriminate against women who might want to be priests. They could not withhold communion to someone of another faith. They could not refuse to hire a Baptist minister on religious grounds.

There would be no special privilage for the church to not obey a court ordered warrant and that could easily breach the confessional. I have in mind the abusive priests. The must report all cases of child abuse and any other crime that they become aware of.

-pah-

 

[Pah]

For Immediate Release
October 26, 2004
Media Contact:
Michelle Ringuette
+1 (202) 986 6093;
+1 (202) 550 1321
Catholics for a Free Choice Files IRS Complaint
Against Archdiocese of St. Louis
St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke violates election law
with consistent and rigid instruction to voters.
Statement of Frances Kissling, President, Catholics for a Free Choice

Washington, DC—One week before the United States presidential election, Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against the Archdiocese of St. Louis, MO, for Archbishop Raymond Burke’s statements in violation of its status as a public charity and his illegal interventions in campaigns for public office.

Archbishop Burke, the leader of the archdiocese, has used official archdiocese communications to explicitly urge Catholics to vote against candidates who support abortion rights, euthanasia, reproductive cloning, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. Additionally, he has issued overt directions to Catholics to vote against candidates who support positions opposed by the archdiocese, a clear violation of the restrictions placed on all tax-exempt organizations.

CFFC has called on the IRS to “immediately exercise [its] authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and bring an action to enjoin it from conducting further efforts to intervene in the imminent elections.”

The Archdiocese of St. Louis and Archbishop Burke have patently violated their tax-exempt status by releasing an official Pastoral Letter aimed at Catholic voters, specifically instructing them how to vote in the upcoming election. The letter informs voters about church teachings and implores Catholics to vote accordingly. Through his letter “On Our Civil Responsibility for the Common Good,” the archbishop presents a step-by-step protocol for voters when choosing a candidate. He states that Catholics are “morally bound” to choose voters according to the archdiocese’s plan, a plan that includes the requirement of Catholic voters to consider a candidate’s stance on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia “above every other consideration.”

Archbishop Burke’s letter outlines a number of different scenarios involving hypothetical candidates and their positions. These hypotheticals, suspiciously reminiscent of presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry, instruct members of the archdiocese to pick the proper candidate at the risk of “assisting another to achieve evil…which is never morally permissible.”

The archbishop’s directives have also been consistently articulated in the St. Louis Review, the weekly archdiocesan newspaper.

Through the Pastoral Letter and the St. Louis Reporter, Archbishop Burke and the archdiocese have clearly crossed the line into political intervention because these materials invite the audience to compare a candidate’s positions with the organization’s own views, another violation of IRS restrictions.

This year, CFFC has filed complaints with the IRS against Catholic Answers, Inc., Operation Rescue West, the Culture of Life Foundation, Priests for Life and the Archdiocese of Denver for their flagrant violations of their tax-exempt status.

In filing these complaints, Catholics for A Free Choice does not infringe on either the right to free speech or the practice of religion. Each of these groups made a contract with the federal government and the IRS when they sought to be exempt from paying taxes. In return for such a privilege they agreed not to participate in election campaigns in ways that constitute an endorsement or opposition to specific candidates, explicitly or implicitly. In much the same way that campaign involvement by individuals and profit making corporations is regulated by law, the involvement of tax exempt organizations is regulated to prevent the indirect use of taxpayer funds in political campaigns. We think these laws are equitable and we call on all tax exempt organizations to follow them.

###

Catholics for a Free Choice is a non-partisan organization. We do not support or oppose candidates for public office. CFFC shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well being, and respect and affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make sound decisions about their lives. Through discourse, education, and advocacy, CFFC works in the US and internationally to infuse these values into public policy, community life, feminist analysis, and Catholic social thinking and teaching.

 

[Pah]

Press Releases
For Immediate Release
October 25, 2004
Media Contact:
Michelle Ringuette
+1 (202) 986 6093;
+1 (202) 550 1321
Catholics for a Free Choice Files IRS Complaint
Against Denver Archdiocese
Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput violates election law with repeated efforts to direct voters toward Bush vote.
Statement of Frances Kissling,
President, Catholics for a Free Choice

Washington, DC—With eight days remaining until Americans will choose their next president, Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against the Archdiocese of Denver for Archbishop Charles Chaput’s attempts to influence the outcome of the election.

CFFC has called on the IRS to exercise its “immediate action against the Archdiocese of Denver, which has violated its status as a public charity under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 501(c)(3) by intervening in campaigns for public office.”

Archbishop Chaput, leader of the Archdiocese of Denver, has repeatedly engaged in voter instruction by explicitly urging Catholics to vote against candidates who support abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. In fourteen of 28 of his columns in the archdiocese’s weekly newspaper, Archbishop Chaput has repeatedly and continuously urged voters to reject candidates opposed to the organization’s views. This publication has been made widely available through the archdiocese website, as well as through traditional print subscriptions. The archbishop has also attempted to influence voters during public speeches, interviews and on Friday, October 22, in an op-ed in the New York Times.

Without mentioning anyone by name, the archdiocese has frequently equated a vote for certain candidates as sinful and even outright “evil.” In the “Archbishop’s Column” in the Denver Catholic Register, Archbishop Chaput has instructed Catholics how to vote by suggesting that voting for Catholic candidates who do not agree with the archdiocese betrays the church. In an April 14, 2004 column entitled “How to tell a duck from a fox: Thinking with the Church as we look toward November,” the Archbishop questioned the honesty of Catholic candidates who do not walk lockstep with the church on abortion issues. Expanding on this he implicated the responsibility of voters to reject these candidates, “God will hold each of us accountable – from the average voter to senators and presidents – for how well we have used our political power to serve the common good and the human person.”

The archbishop concluded by specifically charging, “Candidates who claim to be ‘Catholic’ but who publicly ignore Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life are offering a dishonest public witness. They may try to look Catholic and sound Catholic, but unless they act Catholic in their public service and political choices, they’re really a very different kind of creature. And real Catholics should vote accordingly.” [Emphasis added.]

The Catholic church, along with other religious institutions, is a tax-exempt charitable organization. In return for that exemption, religious institutions agree to neither explicitly nor implicitly endorse nor oppose any specific candidate for elected office.

According to the New York Times, Archbishop Chaput has also instructed voters during public speaking appearances by reiterating presidential nominee John Kerry’s opposition to church teachings (“Group of bishops using influence to oppose Kerry,” October 9, 2004). In an interview for the same article, the archbishop likened a vote for a prochoice or pro-embryonic stem cell research candidate as a sin against the church, “If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil? … And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer if yes.”

The archdiocese has made the full transcript from this interview available on its website, where Kerry is specifically mentioned as one of the Catholic candidates contemplated by the archbishop.

Archbishop Chaput points out that the archdiocese has never endorsed a particular candidate; however, this does little hide the fact that he is providing clear guidance to voters on who to choose. Urging voters to reject prochoice candidates and those who favor embryonic stem cell research, specifically John Kerry, is the unmistakable goal of these communications.

A 501(c)(3) organization need not explicitly urge voters to support or oppose a particular candidate for illegal campaign intervention to take place. As the IRS staff training manual on election-year activities by tax-exempt organizations puts it:

“[A] 501(c)(3) organization may avail itself of the opportunity to intervene in a political campaign in a rather surreptitious manner. The concern is that an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate’s name in its messages, such as “conservative,” “liberal,” “pro-life,” “pro-choice,” “anti-choice,” “Republican,” “Democrat,” etc., coupled with a discussion of the candidacy or the election. When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening – an intervention is taking place.”

This year, CFFC has filed complaints with the IRS against Catholic Answers, Inc., Operation Rescue West, the Culture of Life Foundation and Priests for Life for their flagrant violations of their tax exempt status.

In filing these complaints, Catholics for A Free Choice does not infringe on either the right to free speech or the practice of religion. Each of these groups made a contract with the federal government and the IRS when they sought to be exempt from paying taxes. In return for such a privilege they agreed not to participate in election campaigns in ways that constitute an endorsement or opposition to specific candidates, explicitly or implicitly. In much the same way that campaign involvement by individuals and profit making corporations is regulated by law, the involvement of tax exempt organizations is regulated to prevent the indirect use of taxpayer funds in political campaigns. We think these laws are equitable and we call on all tax exempt organizations to follow them.



###

Catholics for a Free Choice is a non-partisan organization. We do not support or oppose candidates for public office. CFFC shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well being, and respect and affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make sound decisions about their lives. Through discourse, education, and advocacy, CFFC works in the US and internationally to infuse these values into public policy, community life, feminist analysis, and Catholic social thinking and teaching.

 

[Trinity]

If there is a complete separation of church and state, then the church would be recognized as everyone else - pay all the applicable taxes, obey all the laws that anyone else would.

What I'm saying is that since the antidiscrimination law prohibits anyone from discrimination because of religious faith then the church would be liable to follow those laws. They could not discriminate against women who might want to be priests. They could not withhold communion to someone of another faith. They could not refuse to hire a Baptist minister on religious grounds.

There would be no special privilage for the church to not obey a court ordered warrant and that could easily breach the confessional. I have in mind the abusive priests. The must report all cases of child abuse and any other crime that they become aware of.

-pah-

There is another side to this argument and I know you are not going to want to talk about it. What about what the Church gives back, in exchange for the tax relief...what about all the services the Church provides for the community. In many cases now, and it was more true 150 years ago, that the Church takes care of many of the needs that would normally fall on the State, City, and eventually the nation. Many diocese fully fund multi-million dollar programs to help people with psychological problems, drug and alcohol problems, hearing impaired, blind, troubled in other ways, absent parents... the list goes on and on. If the Church would drop that bill off at city hall, it would be much heavier than any tax relief they get. Now to address the question more directly, the Church does not discriminate. I know it may appear that way, if one does not take the time to understand it, however there is no discrimination.

 

[Pah]

There is another side to this argument and I know you are not going to want to talk about it. What about what the Church gives back, in exchange for the tax relief...what about all the services the Church provides for the community. In many cases now, and it was more true 150 years ago, that the Church takes care of many of the needs that would normally fall on the State, City, and eventually the nation. Many diocese fully fund multi-million dollar programs to help people with psychological problems, drug and alcohol problems, hearing impaired, blind, troubled in other ways, absent parents... the list goes on and on. If the Church would drop that bill off at city hall, it would be much heavier than any tax relief they get. Now to address the question more directly, the Church does not discriminate. I know it may appear that way, if one does not take the time to understand it, however there is no discrimination.

If the Church is set to give society tit for tat, then it completely misses the point of much of what Jesus stood for. If the Church dropped that bill off at city hall it would be remiss.

I was asked to explain something of the Constitution in regards to separation of Church and State. I did that and I explained it further. A good working definition of discrimination is denial or making something exclusive on the basis of a person's race, gender, or religious faith. The Church certainly does two of those and could be subject to State intrusion into articles of faith in a strict interpreation of the First Amemndment. You need to read BOB JONES UNIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES

-pah-

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Pah -

Interesting reaction from CFFC. Do you know how any of their other legal actions (mentioned in the press release) are doing in the courts?

TVOR

 

[Pah]

I don't think there are any court actions sought by Catholics for a Free Choice.

But this is a statement of the organization:

Why do we exist?

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) was founded as a voice for Catholics who believe that women and men have the moral capacity to make sound and responsible decisions about their lives, including decisions about abortion and family planning.

Surveys confirm that Catholics use contraceptives and believe abortion should be legal. CFFC works through research, policy analysis, education, and advocacy to make sure prochoice and pro family planning Catholic views are known to journalists, policy makers, and the general public.

Access to contraception is proven to reduce maternal and infant deaths, slow the spread of HIV/AIDS, reduce the number and need for abortions, and improve the life expectancy of children. Every year:

* Half a million women die of pregnancy-related causes each year, because the pregnancies come too often, too close, too early, or too late in life.

* Seven million infants die because their mothers were not physiologically ready for pregnancy or lacked obstetric care.

* 75,000 women die worldwide from unsafe illegal abortions, according to conservative estimates.

CFFC is a respected and credible voice for progressive Catholic views about gender, sexuality, and reproduction, and about the appropriate role of religion in the policy process. With headquarters in Washington, DC, seven partner organizations in Latin America, activists and colleagues in over 100 countries, and a US staff of 20, CFFC works to protect and expand access to family planning and safe and legal abortion around the world.


What have you accomplished?

CFFC accomplishes what no one else can. From cutting edge research on the vast Catholic health care system to challenging the political power of the Vatican at the United Nations, CFFC stands out in front on behalf of women everywhere. CFFC is a streamlined organization, designed for efficiency and speed to respond quickly to unfolding events around the globe. For example:

1. Catholics for a Free Choice has launched a major campaign to call for a review of the Catholic church's special status at the United Nations. This "See Change" campaign has over 550 endorsing organizations and has collected thousands of signed postcards in support of the effort to examine how the church influences public policy. The Holy See, the government of the Roman Catholic church, is the only religion that has non-member state permanent observer status. All other religions are represented through non-profit organizations like the World Council of Churches. This status allows Vatican officials to influence reproductive health policy at UN meetings, blocking progress on contraception, sex education, and HIV/AIDS prevention. For example, the Vatican and its allies successfully blocked efforts at 1999 UN meetings to include emergency contraception in international policy guidelines. The Vatican attacked the UN Foundation for Population Activities because it distributed emergency contraception to Kosovar refugees who had been raped. For more information on The "See Change" Campaign or to sign on, see www.seechange.org.
2. CFFC was the first to report that most Catholic hospitals in the United States do not prescribe emergency contraception, even to women who have been raped. In a survey of 589 emergency rooms in Catholic hospitals in the United States, CFFC found that 82 percent of those hospitals do not provide emergency contraception. Of those hospitals that will not provide emergency contraception, only 31 percent will give a referral to a hospital that does. Emergency contraception, or the "morning-after" pill, is an increased dose of the birth control pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. Church officials have decried emergency contraception as a form of abortion, even though the medical community agrees it cannot end an established pregnancy. CFFC alerted the media, public officials, and the public to the results of our research, which was covered in USA Today, Newsweek, and Self Magazine, among other media.
3. CFFC protects family planning services threatened by Catholic hospital mergers. When Catholic hospitals and non-Catholic hospitals merge, reproductive health services are often eliminated because the Catholic church prohibits, among other things, tubal ligations, vasectomies, fertility treatments, and prescribing and dispensing contraceptive devices and drugs. In some places, the only available hospital is Catholic which translates to no access to family planning services. CFFC’s publications, including Caution: Catholic Heath Restrictions May Be Hazardous to Your Health; assistance to activists; and media work on the issue have drawn nationwide attention to this threat to family planning. We’ve been quoted in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and Modern Health Care, and featured on ABC World News Tonight on this issue.
4. CFFC organizes Catholics in support of prescription equity. Numerous state and federal legislative efforts are underway to increase access to contraception by requiring insurance companies that cover prescription drugs to also pay for contraceptives. Women of reproductive age currently spend 68 percent more than men on health care, partly because of the cost of contraceptives – for example, the pill costs women $300 a year. Through the Catholics for Contraception Campaign, CFFC organizes Catholics from California to Connecticut to support prescription equity and oppose efforts to include conscience clauses that would exempt religious organizations from providing contraceptive coverage.
5. CFFC helps Catholics in Latin America work for reproductive rights. We help our partner organizations in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Bolivia, and activists in many other Latin American countries as they work to increase access to family planning services, improve sexuality education, and defend women’s rights on a continent with extremely high rates of infant mortality, maternal mortality, and illegal abortion.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Thanks for the update, Pah. Sometimes you amaze me with what you find on the internet.

TVOR

 

[Trinity]

If the Church is set to give society tit for tat, then it completely misses the point of much of what Jesus stood for. If the Church dropped that bill off at city hall it would be remiss.

I was asked to explain something of the Constitution in regards to separation of Church and State. I did that and I explained it further. A good working definition of discrimination is denial or making something exclusive on the basis of a person's race, gender, or religious faith. The Church certainly does two of those and could be subject to State intrusion into articles of faith in a strict interpreation of the First Amemndment. You need to read BOB JONES UNIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES

-pah-

I am not saying the Church should go tit for tat, that would go against everything that Jesus taught. It seems like many people are saying the Church gets something for nothing, and I just wanted to make the point that, that is not exactly true.

Now to address your claim here, the case does not apply. This case has to do with admittance to a school, not who is hired to teach at it. Would you hire a high school drop out, with no further education to teach at a high school? Of coarse not, they do not meet the requirements. The same holds true for many of the issues you bring up. Could Jesus have ordained woman if He wanted, of coarse He could have, but He did not. Does that mean the a womans job is any less than a mans, no, it is just different. What are some of the other objections you have with the Church?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Trinity -

I would agree that the Roman Catholic Church (and most all churches) do a lot of charity work in their communities. However, the fact that these charitable works are performed (at not cost, in most cases) should not have any impact on the position that the state should not be influenced by the religion in question. If that were not the case, then effectively, the Church(es) would be buying influence and power within the government by virtue of their charitable acts. This cannot be allowed to happen.

TVOR

 

[Pah]

I am not saying the Church should go tit for tat, that would go against everything that Jesus taught. It seems like many people are saying the Church gets something for nothing, and I just wanted to make the point that, that is not exactly true

The Church gets something for nothing. It is getting special considerations from the State for doing what it is or should be doing without the considerations.

Now to address your claim here, the case does not apply. This case has to do with admittance to a school, not who is hired to teach at it. Would you hire a high school drop out, with no further education to teach at a high school? Of coarse not, they do not meet the requirements. The same holds true for many of the issues you bring up. Could Jesus have ordained woman if He wanted, of coarse He could have, but He did not. Does that mean the a womans job is any less than a mans, no, it is just different. What are some of the other objections you have with the Church?

Bob Jones University is a nonprofit corporation located in Greenville, S. C. 4 Its purpose is "to conduct an institution [461 U.S. 574, 580] of learning . . ., giving special emphasis to the Christian religion and the ethics revealed in the Holy Scriptures." Certificate of Incorporation, Bob Jones University, Inc., of Greenville, S. C., reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A119. The corporation operates a school with an enrollment of approximately 5,000 students, from kindergarten through college and graduate school. Bob Jones University is not affiliated with any religious denomination, but is dedicated to the teaching and propagation of its fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. It is both a religious and educational institution. Its teachers are required to be devout Christians, and all courses at the University are taught according to the Bible. Entering students are screened as to their religious beliefs, and their public and private conduct is strictly regulated by standards promulgated by University authorities

.

The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage

An unbroken line of cases following Brown v. Board of Education establishes beyond doubt this Court's view that racial discrimination in education violates a most fundamental national public policy, as well as rights of individuals

On the record before us, there can be no doubt as to the national policy. In 1970, when the IRS first issued the ruling challenged here, the position of all three branches of the Federal Government was unmistakably clear. The correctness of the Commissioner's conclusion that a racially discriminatory private school "is not `charitable' within the common law concepts...

This Court has long held the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to be an absolute prohibition against governmental regulation of religious beliefs, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 219 (1972); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940). As interpreted by this Court, moreover, the Free Exercise Clause provides substantial protection for lawful conduct grounded in religious belief, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 220; Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981); Sherbert v. Verner, supra, at 402-403. However, "[n]ot all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. . . . The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest." United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257 -258 (1982). See, e. g., McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 628 , and n. 8 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 215; Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).

In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), for example, the Court held that neutrally cast child labor laws prohibiting sale of printed materials on public streets could be applied to prohibit children from dispensing religious literature. The Court found no constitutional infirmity in "excluding [Jehovah's Witness children] from doing there what no other children may do."

The governmental interest at stake here is compelling. As discussed in Part II-B, supra, the Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education 29 - discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation's constitutional history. That governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs.

decisions of this Court firmly establish that discrimination on the basis of racial affiliation and association is a form of racial discrimination, see, e. g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964); Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., 410 U.S. 431 (1973).

It is absolutely clear from the opinion in the case that all racial discrimination is not to allowed in "charatible" organizations because discrimination is established as an overding state interest. This serves as precendent for all discrimination. Further it defines discrimination as "public policy". The oldest public policy in our country is the right of a free vote. The Roman Catholic Church, today violates that public policy in the name of the faith it holds. In a strict interpretation of the Separation of Church and State it would also violate the public policy for discrimination. Should the IRS decline to grant the petition of the Catholics for a Free Choice, that decision could be taken to the federal courts and Bob University v United States would apply.

-pah-