If the Catholic Church Can Lobby, so Can Others
Senator Ben Nelson’s United Methodist Church sent out a sharply-worded email this afternoon to its members in Nebraska, urging them to push Nelson to vote for health care legislation, a sign of the increasing organization and sophistication of left-leaning religious groups.
For what it’s worth, my wife and I left the Catholic Church earlier this year and joined a United Methodist Church in our neighborhood. Increasingly, we found that our political and social views diverged too much from what the Catholic Church teaches. We decided it was unfair of us to criticize Catholic clergy for their teachings or expect them to change. After all, they are only acting (in most cases) in a manner consistent with what they sincerely believe. So we left and found a new church, the teachings of which are more consistent with what we sincerely believe.
I couldn’t feel better about that decision than I did today when I read this news.
16 Responses to “If the Catholic Church Can Lobby, so Can Others”
I am now waiting for Kathy to call out this un-Constitutional mixing of church and state.
But I bet that doesn't happen. And we all know why.
Best of luck with the new church Pete. I attended Sunday School at our local Methodist church as a child, eventually went through confirmation, and attended for awhile after that. I credit the church with having some positive influence on my moral structure and giving me a good grounding of what christianity is. I also spent time with Mennonites as a child, had Quaker influences as a teen, and then augmented my spiritual quest with some more “exotic” religious adventures. Now I'm more of a (dreaded and misunderstood) secular humanist – with some partial atheistic leanings, yet also with deep appreciation, love, and awe for the miracles around me. Go figure… In any case, good luck and I'm glad your church is active in it's advocacy of what really amounts to a basic interest in human rights.
When the U.S. Senate calls in the Methodist church to sit with them in committee and draft legislation to the church's specifications, you let me know, k?
Until then, just keep being your normal totally obnoxious self.
Ah, I just love it when you prove me right.
That's where we're different, AR. It gives me no joy at all when you prove me right. I wish you'd prove me wrong once in a while.
Commenters: Please stick to the topic of the article, not each other, Thanks,
dr,e
“When the U.S. Senate calls in the Methodist church to sit with them in committee and draft legislation to the church's specifications, you let me know”
When the Methodist church provides 15% of the nations hospital care then they should be invited. In fairness they didn't speak with the “Catholic Church”, the Pope didn't show up at the capital. They spoke with representatives from Catholic Charities which run 15% of the Nations health care. Decisions made in the health care bill could directly effect willingness and ability to continue to do so. You don't think it was worth talking to them? Even if it's just to replace them as healthcare providers you have to talk to them anything else would just be stupid.
They spoke with representatives from Catholic Charities which run 15% of the Nations health care. Decisions made in the health care bill could directly effect willingness and ability to continue to do so.
Thank you for pointing this out, EEllis.
And in case the discussion takes off into complaints about various churches 'lobbying' in violation of their tax exempt status, people should become familiar with what is meant by the prohibition of 'lobbying.' Reference the definition and explanation here:
What AR was referrring to, albeit in too personal a manner, is that we often see liberal commenters criticizing conservative churches for commenting on policy or attempting to influence their members (usually with an incorrect assessment that this represents inappropriate and/or illegal lobbying) but there's usually an absence of commentary when liberal churches speak out or involve themselves in policy matters that favor the liberal side.
And actually, I just realized that Pete used the word 'lobby' in the title- which again, is incorrect to describe this activity. It is, however, consistent with the law when either conservative or liberal churches give position statements on issues on either side.
They spoke with representatives from Catholic Charities which run 15% of the Nations health care. Decisions made in the health care bill could directly effect willingness and ability to continue to do so. You don't think it was worth talking to them?
Are you for real, ellis? Representatives from Catholic Charities may or may not have “spoken with” senators, but that's not what I and others have been talking about here. Catholic Charities didn't help write the legislation, as far as I know. That was the Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Conference of Catholic Bishops, ellis. Leading senators like Ben Nelson and several others (at least several) sat down with representatives from the Conference of Catholic Bishops and wrote the legislation together (the abortion language, that is). If the CCB didn't like the way something was worded, they would say, no can't go with that, and Ben Nelson would say, Oh I'm sorry! How would you like it instead? and he would rewrite it to the bishops' specifications.
And no, I do not think that was appropriate. In fact, I think it's among the most outrageous, egregious violations of church-state separation I've ever heard about.
HA HA HA HA!
WTF? Are you REALLY that delusional about yourself?
Of course if gives you no pleasure, not with me or anyone else, because you are too stubborn, obstinate and mean-spirited to ever admit it when you are wrong, back down and acknowledge it.
You have been proven wrong more times than I can count. You are simply too stupid (which I really don't think is it) or pigheaded (my working theory) to ever admit it.
It is THE reason I went from having respect for you despite our strong disagreement on many topics to realizing you are nothing but a bitter, lonely person lashing out the world for every perceived wrong you think it has done.
Austin, you just proved me right again, and again I take no pleasure in it. Maybe you should get away from your computer for a while, take a walk, get some fresh air.
“And no, I do not think that was appropriate. In fact, I think it's among the most outrageous, egregious violations of church-state separation I've ever heard about.”
That's absurd. They provide 15% of the hospital beds in the US. Since you of course think govt should provide all medical that also must be a horrendous violation of church and state, Why do you have this erroneous idea that churches cannot be involved in govt? Some weird delusion that religion should prevent one from speaking a political opinion? It's about the most outrageous, egregious violation of the meanings of the founding fathers I've ever heard of. You twisting their word to what you want. Look the Catholics provide massive amounts of health care in this country. They should be allowed to say if you make us do X then we will quit. That is what it comes down to. That you don't like them saying that, or disagree with their values, mean less than nothing. You would force a devote catholic to give an abortion? How about priests and nuns should they be gaged and forced to participate?
By the way I also believe you have misrepresented the facts. I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that anyone from the Catholic Church has participated in writing any part of the health bill. Mind you since charities can lobby and lobbyists sometimes draft initial legislation there is nothing directly sinister about it, but I don't believe it happened in this case. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo has been very vocal about lobbying for any legislation to comply with the Hyde amendment. So?
“Austin, you just proved me right again, and again I take no pleasure in it. Maybe you should get away from your computer for a while, take a walk, get some fresh air.”
Hey even if you were right it's not like you didn't ask for it
Kathy said;”just keep being your normal totally obnoxious self”
Thanks for this extra information, CStanley. Admittedly, I applied the term “lobby” in a very broad sense in the headline, although I think it's a fair use of the term, to say that both Churches have lobbied for their positions. No, they have not directly boosted candidates, but they have weighed in on (lobbied for) key policy issues, which — as you point out — is perfectly acceptable.
In fact, if you look back, you should not find any criticism from me re: the Catholic church's recent “issue lobbying.” Yes, I remember being bothered by it at the time, but then I thought — why not? They're promoting their point of view, just like any group does; just like the UMC was doing with Sen. Nelson.
Furthermore, I think we all need to remember that even the First Amendment does not prohibit Church’s from issue lobbying; it prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” In that context, one could argue that the Catholic and United Methodist Churches have freely exercised their religion in speaking out on policy issues, and it would be counter-Constitutional for Congress to attempt to stop such free exercise.
Net: I have no problem with what the Catholic Church did; I’m only glad the likes of the UMC are doing the same.
Yes, I probably should have been more clear that I didn't think you were being inconsistent in criticizing the Catholic Church for that kind of activity while condoning it from more liberal churches, Pete. I was really referring to other commenters/bloggers who have done so (I think Jazz may have written a post a while ago saying that it was time for churches to lose their charitable tax exemption status because they involve themselves in political issues- and while he also wasn't using a double standard, I do think he was misapplying the principles about lobbying too.)