The RCC's objections re: the Obama Administration wages war against religion, is pure bull$#!+.

First of all, read Syllabus of Errors.  The RCC's official posture is that the right to individual conscience doesn't exist if it draws conclusions contrary to RCC doctrine.  The RCC also, in that document, denies freedom of worship to non-RCC churches.  This if for real; it's official; check it out.   The RCC has a long and documented history of bullying and demeaning of non-RCC churchs; it's hardly the one to cry "victim".

No church or private organization has the automatic right to govt. funding of its affialiated social agencies.  If those agencies fail to meet federal criteria, then no funding should be forthcoming.  The RCC assumes as an apriori fact that it is the One-True-Church, established by Jesus Christ, the source of all divine truth, and is therefore exempt from the same laws which govern the rest of humankind.  That is arrogant bull$#!+, and the Republican candidates are attempting to make electoral hay out of it.   The RCC, Protestant Evangelicals and Mormons have made common cause in pushing their retrogressive agendas.

Laicite', the maximum possible separation of church and state, is a foundational principle of most free, democratic Western societies.  It is also the principle the RCC has never fully accepted.   I'm sick and tired of the RCC's bullying conduct and univalent claims, and then it's posturing as "victim" when it doesn't get its own way. 

It can go to hell and stay there.

I agree with he author.  Neither side is representing the whole story.   

Does a family with traditional religious views, who decide to rent an apartment have a right to exclude homosexuals? Does a racist who is renting an aprtment have a right to exclude a particular race?  Our laws require that the "market place" be open to all people.  

In the employment "market place" (right or wrong) the government has established certain standards.  A political group that is opposed to minimum wage laws is not exempt from minimum wage laws for anyone they hire.   In the same way a church cannot be exempt from compensation laws.

IMO adoption agency is different.  The church is acting on behalf of the parents.  The parents have a right to exclude, and so does the church as their agent, but they do not have a right to public money.

It's funny. The RCC claimes persecusion when they are "forced" to close their parishes and soup kitchens. But what happened to using their own funds?? They could easily just use their own money...or has the well run dry in the congregation dispite the packed houses?

Jan 8, 2012 -- 3:12PM, Roodog wrote:

This is why, that as a staunch Baptist, I support Obama.

 The R's seem bent to gut the First Amendment and establish a state church. Trust me, it will not be yours , nor will it be mine. We could go to jail together if these yutzes have their way.

Your remarks about a state church are correct as far as they go, but they can be taken much further.

What we would have is a  state church based on conservative evangelical (or capital-F Fundamentalist) Christianity.  Perhaps a form of conservative evangelical faith, via the Presbyterian church, was part of the identity of the Scots-Irish in old Ulster before so many Scots-Irish emigrated to the US of A.  I can be sure that any such church would be hostile to Darwinian evolution to and beyond the bitter end (scientific creationism, intelligent design, and what ever follows it).  It would surely belittle our way of belief by saying that Anglicanism is "a form of Christianity that gave in to secualsrism," or words to that effect.  I even fear that Americans--once they realize the differences between Canadian and American religious practice--would be motivated to remake Canada in their image by military force; this could easily happen if such a Church were ever to become the state religion in the USA.  For the life of me, I wish I could see a different end result.

It seems today that one of the primary religions in the US today is "victimism". Everbuddy claims to be a victim. In some cases the self-proclaimed victim is the persecutor and needs to be named as such publicly.