Skip to comments.
Bill would give voters voice on church closings (Gov't interference alert!)
Boston Herald ^
| July 13, 2005
| Kevin Rothstein
Posted on 07/13/2005 12:03:43 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: All
Anyone got mailing info for these people? I have the sudden urge to educate them about the Constitution.
21
posted on
07/13/2005 12:47:20 PM PDT
by
Romish_Papist
(The times are out of step with the Catholic Church. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.)
To: TattooedUSAFConservative
I hope they pass this one. They won't be able to enforce it, and I don't want them to, so don't get me wrong, bur boy what great hits we could squeeze out of this one!!!!!!
Imagine the great ads and mailings. Again, provided they could not enforce it - then it won't be fun at all.
22
posted on
07/13/2005 12:53:01 PM PDT
by
jmaroneps37
(Dealing with liberals? Remember: when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and he loves it.)
To: NYer
23
posted on
07/13/2005 1:10:57 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: NYer
Not that I doubted you, but I couldn't believe this was for real. I still don't believe it. This article is going to get a lot of e-mail mileage.
Wonder what these brains had to say about Bush's Faith Based Initiative.
To: Sam Cree
"Isn't this slightly Un-consti-freakin-tutional?........" It's about as clear an example of it as anything I've ever heard of...'course that's no big deal these days. Ranks up there with Barbara Boxer attempting to get Federal money to repair the mission in San Miguel, California, after the 2003 San Simeon earthquake. Details
25
posted on
07/13/2005 1:53:24 PM PDT
by
AnOldCowhand
(The west is dead. You may lose a sweetheart, but you will never forget her - Charles Russell)
To: NYer
This is strait out of atlas shrugged. The lawyers are allowed to pillage the church until it is bankrupt for child abuse scandals, but then the libs hollar when it shuts down social services. Would like to see more info on this.
26
posted on
07/13/2005 2:02:39 PM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
To: Red Badger
Isn't this slightly Un-consti-freakin-tutional?........
It certainly is. It makes you wonder, what if the people didn't like a certain church, would they vote it out?
27
posted on
07/13/2005 2:05:22 PM PDT
by
moog
To: joebuck
Government should not interfere in the Church.
28
posted on
07/13/2005 2:06:29 PM PDT
by
moog
To: NYer
Oh I see. If we want to interfere with a religion, that is O.K., but if you have a religion, keep it secret or you'll be labeled as interferring with the government.
That must be the new definition of "separation of church and state".
29
posted on
07/13/2005 2:32:01 PM PDT
by
Wuli
To: traviskicks; maryz
The lawyers are allowed to pillage the church until it is bankrupt for child abuse scandals, but then the libs hollar when it shuts down social services. That's just about the size of it.
Shutting down the parish run social services (which can be moved out of the parishes, mind you) makes great copy, makes the diocese look bad and uncaring and could possibly end up costing the local government money if they have to foot the bill the diocese was previously footing.
To: NYer
Bump for the afternoon crew.
31
posted on
07/13/2005 4:13:23 PM PDT
by
Blue Champagne
(Quomodo cogis comas tuas sic videri?)
To: seamole
Love it! Thanks for the post!
32
posted on
07/13/2005 4:25:17 PM PDT
by
NYer
("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
To: american colleen
makes the diocese look bad and uncaring Actually, the diocese has been doing a great job of looking bad and uncaring without gov't help. Their manner of handling the closings is just as corporate ("Big Prayer," in Cosmo Maceros' phrase -- Boston Herald business editor in his column evaluating the diocese's actions as corporate decisions) as ever the mishandling of the abuse crisis was.
33
posted on
07/13/2005 4:30:41 PM PDT
by
maryz
To: TattooedUSAFConservative
34
posted on
07/13/2005 4:51:09 PM PDT
by
COBOL2Java
(If this isn't the End Times it certainly is a reasonable facsimile...)
To: TattooedUSAFConservative
35
posted on
07/13/2005 4:53:24 PM PDT
by
COBOL2Java
(If this isn't the End Times it certainly is a reasonable facsimile...)
To: TattooedUSAFConservative
36
posted on
07/13/2005 4:55:17 PM PDT
by
COBOL2Java
(If this isn't the End Times it certainly is a reasonable facsimile...)
To: AnOldCowhand
That's being done to preserve a little bit of CA history, I gather, perhaps a slightly different thing than the gov't adopting a religion as it seems to wish to do in Boston?
Nevertheless I agee, government IMO has no business in such things.
37
posted on
07/13/2005 6:23:53 PM PDT
by
Sam Cree
(Democrats are herd animals)
To: Red Badger; NYer
The city of Boerne, TX tried to halt construction/renovation of St Peter's Catholic Church stating that it was an "historical" building. It wasn't even 100 years old. I guess there's hope that the mobile homes of a trailer park may yet gain the dignity it deserves if buildings less than a century may be deemed "historical" in value.
Can you believe that the fight went all the way to the US Supreme Court?
What was the secular city/state so afraid of? Maybe it's the explosive growth of Catholics in Texas.
Mammon is lost.
38
posted on
07/14/2005 4:27:48 PM PDT
by
SaltyJoe
("Social Justice" begins with the unborn child.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
