I also think that the church is wrong in this case - if they really want to hold onto their anti-LGBTQ stance (and you all know much more about the biblical absence of any comments about that), they could very easily prioritise the care of children. After all there's loads of biblical comments about looking after people and in particular children.
I think the American catholic church has led itself up the garden path, they've taken a far more virulent anti-LBGTQ stance than eg around here.
For regular people? Not hard at all. For the Free Exercise Clause absolutists pushing this? Their livelihoods depend on not understanding. (The Establishment Clause is an afterthought to them.)
The Catholic Church and I went our separate ways nearly sixty years ago. Every article I read about the church today confirms that was a good decision. The Catholic church did not stop burning people alive because they saw the error of their ways, but because they were forced to stop by secular government.
Considering the multiple violations regarding sexual abuse that the Church has committed over the centuries, it SHOULD be censured and denied the right to operate in the US, full freaking stop.
On the day that actually happens, catch me, because I WILL FAINT FROM SHOCK.
I was brought up Catholic. I used to take my younger brother to church on Sundays (my mother and father did not attend). I couldn't control him, and eventually refused to take him.
The priest came round to ask why he was no longer going, and my mother explained. He looked around and asked whether there were only the two children, which my mother confirmed. He then asked whether she had considered getting rid of the dog, and having more children.
When he got to the safe side of the garden gate, pursued by my mother and the dog, he said, "You'll burn in hell for this".
To which my mother responded, "Well, when we get there, we won't be able to get near the fire for you buggers stoking it".
I left the Catholic Church and school shortly afterwards...
It turned me into what I would now call an "apatheist". I had nothing to do with religion until the death of my father at the age of 46.
My grandmother was still alive, and a devout Catholic, so we gave him a Catholic burial, something that he would have hated. The priest took great delight in castigating my father for leaving the faith. It took a lot of restraint to avoid decking him after the service.
He was not invited to the get-together after the service.
It was this, as much as anything, that moved me from apatheist to atheist.
Can you imagine the uproar if they DID? Will never happen, though. They're too full of themselves and their presumed lack of bias to even consider such a thing.
Because they want discrimination to be legal again. They want to eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They want white conservative Christian men to be declared the only demographic qualified to be full citizens.
Church greed and lust for power says that is unacceptable. Christian Fucking Privilege makes them feel entitled to taxpayer money while not having to follow rules that limit their iron fisted control.
I do truly wish our government as a whole could stare down the RCC and in one voice say, "READ THE FIRST FREAKING AMENDMENT, you asses! You don't deserve the money. YOU DON"T GET THE MONEY!"
Hell, I wish they'd do that here in Ohio, but once again, not holding my breath.
And to think, Ohio was much more progressive when I was growing up in the 20th. Now? I think Ohioans are being served poorly, and also our Ohio Democratic Party sucks. We'll be lucky if we get Sherrod Brown again.
Sherrod Brown is WAY better than the alternative. FACT: I've written him about issues. HE'S WRITTEN BACK (or at least one of his aides has)! All I've gotten from Husted and Moreno are non-topic form letters which amount to BULLSHIT. I don't even try to deal with them anymore.
I'm having a bit of trouble wading though all the legalese, so I'll concentrate on the basics:
Quote: "a “Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity.”"
This is bollocks, absolute horse manure! Let's remind ourselves, we're talking about children here. Small children. And the priority for those young children is that they're getting childcare and an education! Whether their Dad wears women's panties on Saturday night and their Mum lives in a blended family has got no influence on that this child needs childcare and education.
Is it really so hard, to concentrate on that aspect of the whole situation?
By all means as a church stick to your 'we don't like the gayz' line, but you should, you really should rank the education and childcare for young children higher than that!
The kids will get an education, all right. They'll see how the Church treats their parents, whom they likely love, and think, "What's wrong with these guys in dresses??? What happened to: 'love thy neighbor as thyself?'"
The Church wants to wonder why they're losing adherents? There's at least ONE answer.
'Quote: "a “Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity.”"'
What it is effectively saying, is that canon law overrides civil law.
Here's a solution: stop funding private school pre-K programs with tax dollars and send it all to the public schools. Public school, public money. Private school, private money.
I would give real money to see that happen in Ohio. The public school coffers here are being hammered because idiots in the Buckeye think that it's okay to fund private schools with public money. Where they got THAT idea from, I don't know.
It's a great idea. However, if you want to ramp up a programme, it's easier for a state/county/country to pay other organisations to put in the hard work of setting up the organisation, rent the building, hire the staff and then deliver the services.
This one SHOULD be open and shut. Church discriminates against LGBTQ+ parents? Church SHOULD receive NO PUBLIC FUNDS. Period, end of discussion.
That's how it SHOULD work. With a Supreme Court with SIX CATHOLICS on it and an administration where up is down and left is right, there is no real telling where SCOTUS will come down on this one. It would be nice to believe that The Nine could be bothered to recognize something as fundamental as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and maintain the separation between State and Church.
It'd be nice if Donald Trump would come to his senses and vacate his office, too, but that ain't gonna happen.
If there was a god, Trump would have had an aneurysm on his way down that golden escalator. But he’s still hanging on today despite his obvious debilitating health conditions. Die already you fucking orange dickhead.
You've got a point, but there are catholics and there are catholics. There are people who can distinguish between their (private) faith and the requirements of their office and the constitution.
On the case of Joe Biden - somewhere somehow it's somewhat funny (funny peculiar) that all those 'christians' are so keen on a bloke, who hasn't willingly gone to a church in decades and couldn't quote a bible verse if his life depended on it while Mr Biden, who was an actual believing, church-going religious person got no credit whatsoever.
Biden had a (D) after his name, so to the evangelicals he worshipped Satan. Meanwhile, they worship a man who fits the description of the antichrist pretty nicely.
democrats though usually try to be actual christians, case in point Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton life-long Methodist, Obama lifelong baptist, Kamala Baptist. Never were they ever acknowledged as christian. Repubs only like the performative fakes.
Minor correction: There are actually five Catholics on the SC. According to his Wikipedia entry, Gorsuch is an EX-Catholic (He was raised Catholic by his family, but now as an adult attends an Episcopalian church).
Maybe so, but I'd bet you a cup of your favorite beverage that the influence of the Church is still with him, to one degree or another. In any case, I could throw that son of a bitch* further than I'd ever trust him!
I still remember how Al Franken took him apart over that during his senate confirmation hearings and he did not know where to look. Mr Gorsuch drank an awful lot of water during that exchange .....
I am not a constitutional lawyer so have no idea if this would be a good strategy but I’d love to see a SCOTUS justice — especially one of the Catholic ones — grill the RCC on their cherry-picking which Catholic doctrines matter and which to ignore. What if the parents were previously divorced? What if the parents aren’t married? What if the parents openly advocate for contraception? Why can the preschools accept all of that? If that stuff is okay, then it really seems like this is less about religion and more about discrimination.
Read the 4 gospels. Point to us the exact scripture where Jesus told his followers to hate and discriminate against LGBTQs. Bet you can't find a single reference to LGBTQs in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This would be understandable, since psychological orientations were not understood at the time.
Nearly 50 years ago, I was in a debate with a Catholic woman about an anti-gay political measure. She was going on and on and on about sex practices that she did not approve of, and which justified in her tiny tiny tiny mind whatever was done too gay people.
A loud and sassy woman stood up to ask a question: “ show me in the Bible where it says anything about oral sex!’ the Catholic woman’s response was perfect: “well, it’s all through the Bible!” the loud and sassy woman asked again: “show me in the Bible where it says anything about oral sex.” Catholic lady said that that wasn’t her job to explain it.
Any sex I don't like is sodomy. And any sex I don't like but really want to is sodomy. And any sex I don't want you to have because it makes me feel funny down there is sodomy
Same old story. I remember during the AIDS crisis, Catholic organizations firing employees AIDS, leaving them to die without insurance. I guess just like Jesus would do?
It’s so funny how the religious groups spend so much energy denying access to their churches to people they don’t like, not realizing that those are the exact people they should be trying to welcome. They all want perfect little Christians while telling everyone that they’re sinners too, but not that kind of sinner and not really because we know what god really wants and when we do it it’s not a sin. Evangelicals especially, though I know we’re talking about Catholics this is in service to the evangelical fight for Christian supremacy, are hypocritical in this aspect. Like they’re supposed to go and preach to the sinners to convert and get them to be born again, but they actively exclude the very sinners they’re supposed to reach. It’s almost like they just want an excuse to be assholes.
SCROTUS is likely to allow the Catholic schools to discriminate against folks in protected classes, mostly because the current regime is trying to eliminate DEI or as we all know it as civil rights and freedom. As well as getting all the money into their pockets. They might not actually side for the schools because then that money might not go to enrich the right people. The constitution is already ashes, what’s one more match? Coals to Newcastle and what have you. I mean, who knew UNIVERSAL means everyone?
For the nth time, the taxpayer money going into universal prek is not the schools’ money, the customer, as it were, is not the school, it’s not really even the students specifically, but the community. If part of the community isn’t able to access the benefits of the money then that tax money is abused. But we know this regime is all about bleeding taxpayers dry and stealing as much tax money as possible.
I don’t know. If parents are willing to send their toddlers to Catholic spaces still, after all the horrific things they have done to children, they’re not going to care if the space discriminates against people the Catholics have already demonized. And don’t tell me that there are people who don’t know, long before the Boston Globe article, it was an open secret and huge joke that priests were “into” altar boys. This has been a part of the zeitgeist for centuries.
There is a limerick – with several variations – from the 19th century at the very least, which has the last line "with an arsehole like jelly on springs." Presumably in this case about the Anglican church, but as I said – variations.
The answer is very simple, RCC: NO! You do NOT get taxpayer dollars to fuel your bigoty, as the RCC pays ZERO in taxes.
Want to play? Pay. Don't want to pay? Pray.
I am fully confident that this Supreme Court can be counted on to do the wrong thing.
Absolutely so. At least two always vote the opposite of common sense.
Amen
No public oversight, no public monies.
How hard is that to understand?
Too hard for a church that thinks it deserves to be above the law ... or outside of the law or exempt from the law because ... because ... REASONS!
Yeah, that's it. 🤪
The RCC 𝘄𝗮𝘀 the law for centuries. They are just angry that they aren't anymore.
And there are six damned fools on SCOTUS that might just give that back to them!
If you read some history of science, it is notable that the major advances happen when the authority of the churches is weak.
And they want to drag us back, instead of entering this millennia.
I also think that the church is wrong in this case - if they really want to hold onto their anti-LGBTQ stance (and you all know much more about the biblical absence of any comments about that), they could very easily prioritise the care of children. After all there's loads of biblical comments about looking after people and in particular children.
I think the American catholic church has led itself up the garden path, they've taken a far more virulent anti-LBGTQ stance than eg around here.
Absolutely. Thank you.
For regular people? Not hard at all. For the Free Exercise Clause absolutists pushing this? Their livelihoods depend on not understanding. (The Establishment Clause is an afterthought to them.)
The Catholic Church and I went our separate ways nearly sixty years ago. Every article I read about the church today confirms that was a good decision. The Catholic church did not stop burning people alive because they saw the error of their ways, but because they were forced to stop by secular government.
Considering the multiple violations regarding sexual abuse that the Church has committed over the centuries, it SHOULD be censured and denied the right to operate in the US, full freaking stop.
On the day that actually happens, catch me, because I WILL FAINT FROM SHOCK.
I was brought up Catholic. I used to take my younger brother to church on Sundays (my mother and father did not attend). I couldn't control him, and eventually refused to take him.
The priest came round to ask why he was no longer going, and my mother explained. He looked around and asked whether there were only the two children, which my mother confirmed. He then asked whether she had considered getting rid of the dog, and having more children.
When he got to the safe side of the garden gate, pursued by my mother and the dog, he said, "You'll burn in hell for this".
To which my mother responded, "Well, when we get there, we won't be able to get near the fire for you buggers stoking it".
I left the Catholic Church and school shortly afterwards...
Great retelling. Wow.
It turned me into what I would now call an "apatheist". I had nothing to do with religion until the death of my father at the age of 46.
My grandmother was still alive, and a devout Catholic, so we gave him a Catholic burial, something that he would have hated. The priest took great delight in castigating my father for leaving the faith. It took a lot of restraint to avoid decking him after the service.
He was not invited to the get-together after the service.
It was this, as much as anything, that moved me from apatheist to atheist.
That sucks. I have two brothers lost to the maga religion.
They molest children and they want to be PAID for it? Oh, hell no.
Most of the Court should recuse themselves.
Can you imagine the uproar if they DID? Will never happen, though. They're too full of themselves and their presumed lack of bias to even consider such a thing.
Oklahoma’s Catholic charter school. That’s why Oklahoma tried again with a Jewish charter school with the same issues.
It wasn’t because of her religion. She had had a professional relationship with one of the lawyers for the Catholic school.
You mean OfJesse"?
The one thing that seems to unite all religions (at least in the US) is their belief that they're being discriminated against.
And in the case of muslims (and maybe also the satanists?) they might have a point:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/theyre-not-bigots-they-just-think-act-sharia-free-caucus-fine-self-ogles-tubberville-roy
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑛-𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙.
Because they want discrimination to be legal again. They want to eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They want white conservative Christian men to be declared the only demographic qualified to be full citizens.
👆🎯
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡, 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒: 𝐽𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒’𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑦.
Church greed and lust for power says that is unacceptable. Christian Fucking Privilege makes them feel entitled to taxpayer money while not having to follow rules that limit their iron fisted control.
I do truly wish our government as a whole could stare down the RCC and in one voice say, "READ THE FIRST FREAKING AMENDMENT, you asses! You don't deserve the money. YOU DON"T GET THE MONEY!"
Hell, I wish they'd do that here in Ohio, but once again, not holding my breath.
And to think, Ohio was much more progressive when I was growing up in the 20th. Now? I think Ohioans are being served poorly, and also our Ohio Democratic Party sucks. We'll be lucky if we get Sherrod Brown again.
Sherrod asks me for money every day. Do you know if he needs it? I assume he is better than the alternative.
Sherrod Brown is WAY better than the alternative. FACT: I've written him about issues. HE'S WRITTEN BACK (or at least one of his aides has)! All I've gotten from Husted and Moreno are non-topic form letters which amount to BULLSHIT. I don't even try to deal with them anymore.
I'm having a bit of trouble wading though all the legalese, so I'll concentrate on the basics:
Quote: "a “Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity.”"
This is bollocks, absolute horse manure! Let's remind ourselves, we're talking about children here. Small children. And the priority for those young children is that they're getting childcare and an education! Whether their Dad wears women's panties on Saturday night and their Mum lives in a blended family has got no influence on that this child needs childcare and education.
Is it really so hard, to concentrate on that aspect of the whole situation?
By all means as a church stick to your 'we don't like the gayz' line, but you should, you really should rank the education and childcare for young children higher than that!
The kids will get an education, all right. They'll see how the Church treats their parents, whom they likely love, and think, "What's wrong with these guys in dresses??? What happened to: 'love thy neighbor as thyself?'"
The Church wants to wonder why they're losing adherents? There's at least ONE answer.
Absolutely. A church which ranks (sexual) bigotry higher than the commandments of looking after vulnerable people deserves to lose adherents!
"Love thy neighbor as thyself"? Come on Troubleshooter, you know that cherry is always left on the tree!
Fine ... I'LL pick it, and I won't blink or offer excuses when I do so!
'Quote: "a “Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity.”"'
What it is effectively saying, is that canon law overrides civil law.
"canon law overrides civil law"
At least six of the supremes believe this is true.
Almost like Sharia Law :^|
And so ... does sharia law?
Most likely it is the bishop wearing the panties.
Made me laugh - many thanks.
Punishing the kids for the actions of the parents is so on-brand for Christianity.
Here's a solution: stop funding private school pre-K programs with tax dollars and send it all to the public schools. Public school, public money. Private school, private money.
I would give real money to see that happen in Ohio. The public school coffers here are being hammered because idiots in the Buckeye think that it's okay to fund private schools with public money. Where they got THAT idea from, I don't know.
I just wish they'd get shut of it.
It's a great idea. However, if you want to ramp up a programme, it's easier for a state/county/country to pay other organisations to put in the hard work of setting up the organisation, rent the building, hire the staff and then deliver the services.
This one SHOULD be open and shut. Church discriminates against LGBTQ+ parents? Church SHOULD receive NO PUBLIC FUNDS. Period, end of discussion.
That's how it SHOULD work. With a Supreme Court with SIX CATHOLICS on it and an administration where up is down and left is right, there is no real telling where SCOTUS will come down on this one. It would be nice to believe that The Nine could be bothered to recognize something as fundamental as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and maintain the separation between State and Church.
It'd be nice if Donald Trump would come to his senses and vacate his office, too, but that ain't gonna happen.
If there was a god, Trump would have had an aneurysm on his way down that golden escalator. But he’s still hanging on today despite his obvious debilitating health conditions. Die already you fucking orange dickhead.
The demon he signed a deal with doesn't want to collect, just like
Kissinger's.
https://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/good-fucking-riddance-to-henry-fucking?
You've got a point, but there are catholics and there are catholics. There are people who can distinguish between their (private) faith and the requirements of their office and the constitution.
Case in point - Joe Biden.
I'd be a lot more encouraged if I thought that ol' Joe were the rule and not the exception. These days, I'm not horribly confident of that.
Absolutely.
On the case of Joe Biden - somewhere somehow it's somewhat funny (funny peculiar) that all those 'christians' are so keen on a bloke, who hasn't willingly gone to a church in decades and couldn't quote a bible verse if his life depended on it while Mr Biden, who was an actual believing, church-going religious person got no credit whatsoever.
Biden had a (D) after his name, so to the evangelicals he worshipped Satan. Meanwhile, they worship a man who fits the description of the antichrist pretty nicely.
democrats though usually try to be actual christians, case in point Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton life-long Methodist, Obama lifelong baptist, Kamala Baptist. Never were they ever acknowledged as christian. Repubs only like the performative fakes.
Minor correction: There are actually five Catholics on the SC. According to his Wikipedia entry, Gorsuch is an EX-Catholic (He was raised Catholic by his family, but now as an adult attends an Episcopalian church).
Maybe so, but I'd bet you a cup of your favorite beverage that the influence of the Church is still with him, to one degree or another. In any case, I could throw that son of a bitch* further than I'd ever trust him!
* Tome nagi works just FINE to that purpose!
"..but I'd bet you a cup of your favorite beverages..."
I will kindly ask you to leave my precious cappuccinos out of the conversation./s
No worries. For myself, I'll stick to a good single-malt.
Gorsuch? The one of the frozen trucker case?
I still remember how Al Franken took him apart over that during his senate confirmation hearings and he did not know where to look. Mr Gorsuch drank an awful lot of water during that exchange .....
Episcopalian's are basically Catholics without the pope.
"All of the pageantry and none of the guilt." -- Robin Williams
Henry Vlll had to bone Anne Boleyn so, here they are.
I am not a constitutional lawyer so have no idea if this would be a good strategy but I’d love to see a SCOTUS justice — especially one of the Catholic ones — grill the RCC on their cherry-picking which Catholic doctrines matter and which to ignore. What if the parents were previously divorced? What if the parents aren’t married? What if the parents openly advocate for contraception? Why can the preschools accept all of that? If that stuff is okay, then it really seems like this is less about religion and more about discrimination.
Divorce and co-habitation and contraception are sins, but they aren't icky like gayness (°-°)
To Holy Mother Church...
Read the 4 gospels. Point to us the exact scripture where Jesus told his followers to hate and discriminate against LGBTQs. Bet you can't find a single reference to LGBTQs in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This would be understandable, since psychological orientations were not understood at the time.
Nearly 50 years ago, I was in a debate with a Catholic woman about an anti-gay political measure. She was going on and on and on about sex practices that she did not approve of, and which justified in her tiny tiny tiny mind whatever was done too gay people.
A loud and sassy woman stood up to ask a question: “ show me in the Bible where it says anything about oral sex!’ the Catholic woman’s response was perfect: “well, it’s all through the Bible!” the loud and sassy woman asked again: “show me in the Bible where it says anything about oral sex.” Catholic lady said that that wasn’t her job to explain it.
Next question.
Of course. Either wave off or ignore a question you don't like or don't have an answer to. Par for the course.
Oh, how I would've loved to quote scripture after scripture about the treatment of women in the bible and the Catholic faith.
I really would have wanted to ask her what direct effect the existence of gay people had on her life.
They make her feel tingly and confused.
IIRC all non-approved acts of sex are lumped under "sodomy", which shows how little they understand anatomy. Or maybe that is laws.
You know how "anything I don't like is woke"?
Any sex I don't like is sodomy. And any sex I don't like but really want to is sodomy. And any sex I don't want you to have because it makes me feel funny down there is sodomy
Yeah I thought that was bizarre.
My iPad did one of its weird things and changed a lot of words. Please reread the comment.
To "Holy" Mother Church...
Fixed that for you, sir.
Same old story. I remember during the AIDS crisis, Catholic organizations firing employees AIDS, leaving them to die without insurance. I guess just like Jesus would do?
It’s so funny how the religious groups spend so much energy denying access to their churches to people they don’t like, not realizing that those are the exact people they should be trying to welcome. They all want perfect little Christians while telling everyone that they’re sinners too, but not that kind of sinner and not really because we know what god really wants and when we do it it’s not a sin. Evangelicals especially, though I know we’re talking about Catholics this is in service to the evangelical fight for Christian supremacy, are hypocritical in this aspect. Like they’re supposed to go and preach to the sinners to convert and get them to be born again, but they actively exclude the very sinners they’re supposed to reach. It’s almost like they just want an excuse to be assholes.
SCROTUS is likely to allow the Catholic schools to discriminate against folks in protected classes, mostly because the current regime is trying to eliminate DEI or as we all know it as civil rights and freedom. As well as getting all the money into their pockets. They might not actually side for the schools because then that money might not go to enrich the right people. The constitution is already ashes, what’s one more match? Coals to Newcastle and what have you. I mean, who knew UNIVERSAL means everyone?
For the nth time, the taxpayer money going into universal prek is not the schools’ money, the customer, as it were, is not the school, it’s not really even the students specifically, but the community. If part of the community isn’t able to access the benefits of the money then that tax money is abused. But we know this regime is all about bleeding taxpayers dry and stealing as much tax money as possible.
I don’t know. If parents are willing to send their toddlers to Catholic spaces still, after all the horrific things they have done to children, they’re not going to care if the space discriminates against people the Catholics have already demonized. And don’t tell me that there are people who don’t know, long before the Boston Globe article, it was an open secret and huge joke that priests were “into” altar boys. This has been a part of the zeitgeist for centuries.
There is a limerick – with several variations – from the 19th century at the very least, which has the last line "with an arsehole like jelly on springs." Presumably in this case about the Anglican church, but as I said – variations.