They said they would shut down if the bill passes and they are not allowed to operate as they have always been and not perform abortions

These Far Left dems are trying to take them over and tell them how to run.

I’ve managed to find a link to the actual bill, which makes reference to an existing statute. I haven’t found a link to the existing statute which the bill purports to modify, but according to one of the posts I found on this thread the existing statue starts

CONNECTICUT
CHAPTER 598*
RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS AND SOCIETIES
(D)
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Sec. 33-279. Organization as corporation.

and the existing statute dates back to 1949. So if the legislature can’t pass the change, they should never have been able to pass the 1949 statute. I’m not specifically familiar with the site, so I won’t vouch for the thoughtfulness of the posts there or where they stand politically. But at least the text looks like the sort of thing I would expect to see in a statue.

We should also be careful about raising this as a constitutional issue. Clearly the state has some authority to regulate the manner in which legal entities within its jurisdiction operate. You wouldn’t want the state to not be able to prevent a religious order from funding terrorist simply because it is a religious order (and in fact, I would like to ensure that WHENEVER a religious order does so the state prosecutes that order to the fullest extent of the law).

We look as almost as bad as the other idiots if we don’t look at the whole all of the issue in context. I’m not saying the legislators who proposed this aren’t attempting to bash Catholics, or even that the legislation is a good idea. I’m saying don’t paint with too broad a brush in trying to stop it.

When so-called conservatives and RINOs stray from those ideals, they should be called to task. That is called honesty. I am not trying to paint ALL Republicans with the same brush as Democrats, I was merely pointing out that disregard for the Constitution has been done by both parties (often in different ways and on different issues). We all know how crummy the Democrats are on governing in a manner that is in accordance with the Constitution, that part is easy. Of course there are certainly Republicans who are great champions of the Constitution and I applaud them when they do. But party affiliation does not make one immune from abandoning our founding principles. That is all I was trying to point out, and I don’t think that is “serious, vaguely libelous, and totally unsubstantiated.”

If someone challenges your position on something, and your first instinct is to ban that person and stifle debate, then that is rather sad. I don’t think that it would be beneficial to turn this website into a bunch of “yes men” for the Republican party. Should Erick be banned because he is criticizing the RNC on their lack of transparency and openness?

If I were a moderator, I’d ban anyone who tries to tar the Republicans with the same brush as the democrats, because 1) it’s patently untrue, and 2) it doesn’t further the purported aims and goals of this website.

Your charge is serious, vaguely libelous, and totally unsubstantiated.

I really have to wonder, as my old headmaster used to say, “if you wouldn’t be happier going someplace else.”

Imagine if the state could take over Catholic schools. It end all that annoying debate over vouchers if the Catholic schools became equal to the rest of the government schools.

But of course it would be a different story were some legislature to say they want to take over all the mosques for some trumped-up reason like trying to stop the spread of terrorist preaching.

Absolutely, *not* impressed with this.

There was a period of time in my formerly fair city were the Roman archbishop was always able to name the fire chief. Romans simply don’t understand that they have lost control of the Democratic Party and that it now wants to tell them where to get on and to get off.

Wow. Just wow. I don’t even have to get to the equal protection issue to be appalled.

I think you meant this to sound different. The Republicans do it a little less, and mostly when they are in power and not acting conseravite. I could be wrong.

Hopefully this will wake up some of the Catholics in CT who instinctively vote Democrat to perhaps consider that an entrenched one-party rule is not in their best interests.

As for that cop-out about the financial shenanigans at the parish in Darien, he was charged with embezzlement and went to jail. It would appear that the laws on the books concerning fraud seem to be working just fine. And I know for a fact that the diocese where that priest was arrested has significantly upgraded and modernized it accounting and financial systems in recent years. In fact, that diocese’s financial model is being examined and emulated by dioceses around the country. And this was done on the diocese’s own initiative without the help of the tyrannical state.

Henry the VIII did it and it became the Anglican Church.

Hmmm…what shall we call it here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.?

How ’bout the Murican Church, since we’re all Amuricans.