Archbishop Aquila Tells 1500 Pro Lifers/ Go Door To Door To End Abortion In Colorado

[TheMastersNemesis]

The Denver Post today featured a nearly 1/2 page article about Archbishop Aquila of Denver telling 1500 protesters to go door to door to their neighbors and solicit support to end abortion in Colorado. Planned Parenthood has been singled out as a chief abortion provider in Colorado. And it seems that the intent is to shut down.

In essence the Catholic Church and its allies desire to have a "family planning free country in the long term. The Church and its allies believe all efforts to control birth as abortion. And the real goal is all out. Women have not right to choose their fate.

It is time to TAX churches since they now want to dictate public policy for non believers They are determined to make this a nation run on Biblical principles just like radical Islamists want nations run by Koran principles. They pay no taxes but they want to dictate to non believers how their tax dollars will be spent.

And how HYPOCRITICAL it is that these churches support anti worker and anti labor policies and do no really support fair wages or economic justice. And how ironic that they also want to end money for domestic programs unless they get the money to control who they help. And how ironic that they are still determined to essentially end all the rights of the LGBT community.

We will rue the day when "contraception itself" could become illegal. And that could happen.

[Dawson Leery]

1. Our freedom is being assaulted overtly and covertly.

Overtly by groups such as ISIS, Covertly by the "Christian" right.

[NaturalHigh]

2. Contraception is not going to become illegal.

It's not nearly as controversial as abortion. Hell, most Catholics aren't even anti-contraception.

[Major Nikon]

12. Don't be so sure

There's already a concerted wingnut effort to ban at least some forms of contraception and even if they can't ban it they will make it progressively less available which simply insures more abortions and unwanted pregnancies.

[Initech]

3. It's way past time to start making churches pay taxes.

They've long been abusing the privilege.

[branford]

11. That's fine, so long as you are prepared to accept that the only way to accomplish this

is to end the tax-exempt status for virtually all nonprofits, including organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Churches receive favorable tax status not because they are churches, but because they fulfill all the requirement of tax-exempt nonprofits organizations.

You cannot constitutionally treat an organization differently because they are religious or conservative, and those individuals who are religious have the same free speech and assembly rights as everyone else.

[Major Nikon]

14. All that's required is to strike the word "religious" from 501(c)(3)

Not all non-profits receive tax exempt status, but rather only those listed specifically under the tax code section 501. Churches already are treated differently because they are religious organizations, just like every other organization which receives tax exempt status because they qualify under 501. With the stroke of a pen, congress and the president can change section 501 at will by striking or adding any category just like the tax code is routinely changed all the time.

[branford]

19. It would most certainly no be that simple.

First, it's little more than a political pipe dream that Congress and the President, regardless of party, will even suggest removing the benefits provided to religious organizations. The legal and political trends nationally and in the states are actually to provide more protections to religious groups and individuals, no less. Contraception insurance mandates for private companies were a contentious national issue, which our party lost. Uprooting the entire relationship between churches and the government is only really subject of discussion among a fringe.

Further, "churches" receive certain additional benefits, mostly administrative, but the tax exemption is because they are "religious" organizations, a term interpreted VERY broadly by the IRS for obvious constitutional and political reasons, To remove "religious" from 501(c)(3) would impact innumerable groups, including a great many liberal and progressive organizations.

Churches and other religious groups could also arguably be included in other classifications such as "charitable" or "educational," and any attempt to purposely exclude organizations because they are religious would encounter serious First Amendment problems. This is the very reason why the IRS avoids defining, no less particularly analyzing any "church" or "religious organization" for compliance. The focus is normally only on more objective criteria. Analysis of lobbying and political efforts are even avoided because it implicates examination of religious expression. Trying to only exclude conservative religious organizations would be wholly impossible without question.

[Major Nikon]

23. It most certainly would be that simple

That doesn't mean in the current political climate it's going to be probable.

I was addressing your assertion:

That's fine, so long as you are prepared to accept that the only way to accomplish this is to end the tax-exempt status for virtually all nonprofits, including organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Churches receive favorable tax status not because they are churches, but because they fulfill all the requirement of tax-exempt nonprofits organizations.

This is simply not true. Churches receive tax exempt status because organizations formed exclusively for religious purposes are specifically qualified by section 501. Subservience to an invisible sky daddy doesn't qualify anywhere else in the tax code. Furthermore there's nothing enshrined in the Constitution that guarantees religious organizations tax exempt status. The specific tax exclusion of religious organizations is actually quite arbitrary.

Now it's certainly possible that a church could qualify under other provisions of the tax code, but this would mean most of the church's endeavors must be dedicated to those activities. The vast majority of churches in the US would not qualify under those circumstances and those that did would be in actuality something other than a church.

[branford]

27. Although our Constitution does not guarantee that religious organizations receive tax exempt status,

it most definitely does prohibit the government from treating similarly situated groups or individuals differently based on religious belief or doctrine. The privilege versus right dichotomy is no the only factor in determining legality.

The IRS has largely avoided this issue because religious organizations explicitly receive comparable preferential tax status, and IRS interpretation of what constitutes a "religious" group is so broad and inclusive as to often be meaningless.

Your simple "stoke of a pen," without regard to its political impossibility, would yield intense litigation, with potential pro-religious results than many here would definitely not appreciate.

[Major Nikon]

34. Any litigation would be fruitless

All sorts of activities are routinely added and removed from taxable status all the time. As I've already explained, non-profit status in an of itself does not qualify one for tax exempt status. Those are two different things. You keep assuming that striking the religious tax exemption would somehow be discriminatory to churches without citing any legal basis. Thousands of non-profit organizations do not qualify for federal tax exempt status. Adding churches to that group would be no more discriminatory than any other non-profit which does not qualify.

Whether removing churches from blanket tax liability is probable or would or would not piss off someone is irrelevant to whether or not such a thing is possible under the tax code without affecting other non-profits' taxable status.

[branford]

37. You misunderstand my argument.

I'm not claiming non-profit status automatically qualifies an organization for tax exempt status, only that the government cannot treat similarly situated organizations differently because of religion. Congress can theoretically strike the term "religious" from 501(c)(3), but religious organization might still be entitled to the same treatment as non-religious nonprofits, so long as they met all other objective statutory criteria.

Many a vociferous defendant has claimed their opponent's lawsuit would be fruitless, only to be left astonished reading an unfavorable opinion. If, as I surmise, you might be an attorney or tax professional (I'm a commercial trial attorney), you should know that to be the case.

Again, although the discussion is interesting, it's nevertheless purely academic. No matter the complaints on DU or elsewhere, there's absolutely no chance of such a radical revision to the tax code for the foreseeable future, no less with a conservative, fairly pro-religion Supreme Court.

[Major Nikon]

63. I'm addressing your original argument, not your supplements to it

That's fine, so long as you are prepared to accept that the only way to accomplish this is to end the tax-exempt status for virtually all nonprofits, including organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Churches receive favorable tax status not because they are churches, but because they fulfill all the requirement of tax-exempt nonprofits organizations.

Regardless of what your anonymously claimed credentials are, you are mistaken about the federal tax code. Both sentences here are incorrect. Your supplements to your original assertion only make it more baffling. How on earth can "virtually" all non-profits lose something virtually all of them never had to begin with? You have yet to explain this. Neither have you explained how churches "fulfill all the requirement of tax-exempt nonprofits organizations". Simply by virtue of being a church they most certainly do not. If you think otherwise, you should support your assertion with a specific reference in section 501, because I've read it many times and I certainly can't. Now your claim is they "might still be entitled to the same treatment as non-religious nonprofits". Here again you use the terms "nonprofit" and 'tax exempt' interchangeably when they certainly are not. Non-profit is defined at the state level and has no bearing on whether or not any organization is entitled to federal tax exempt status.

Many a vociferous defendant has claimed their opponent's lawsuit would be fruitless, only to be left astonished reading an unfavorable opinion. If, as I surmise, you might be an attorney or tax professional (I'm a commercial trial attorney), you should know that to be the case.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be a defendant in this sort of hypothetical lawsuit you floated, so all of this seems to be getting pretty far out into left field. If you think such a hypothetical lawsuit has a basis, then you should state it. A reference to the tax code or case law would be helpful. Otherwise it just doesn't seem fruitful entertaining it in the first place.

As far as anonymously claimed credentials go, I'm currently on the executive board of a non-profit corporation in the state of Texas and have been for many years dealing with all sorts of tax issues at the state and federal level. Believe it or not, you don't have to be a tax attorney to read the tax code, and many of them manage to get it wrong.

[Initech]

20. I think you may need to read section 501(c) better.

Because in that section the IRS very clearly defines nonprofit organizations and religious nonprofit organizations as two separate groups each having their own separate rules and regulations. And because of that, it also very clearly defines tax exempt status as a privilege, not a right. And there's a laundry list of things that can cause a religious nonprofit or any nonprofit to be able to lose that status.

[branford]

24. I'm well aware of the text of Section 501.

Read my comment above in Post #19.

Claiming that tax exempt status is a privilege, not a right, also doesn't necessarily obviate potential constitutional problems. These problems arise when the government treats similarly situated groups differently because of religion, and denying a "privilege" because a group is religious may certainly trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

In any event, would you or anyone care to offer a viable political strategy to even attempt to remove the tax benefits from churches or religious organizations, regardless of whether it could ultimately withstand a court challenge? To say it's a fringe view and potential career killer among elected officials, including virtually all Democrats, would be an understatement. I doubt you could even get Elizabeth Warren or our resident socialist Bernie Sander to just suggest creating a commission to study the issue.

[dsc]

64. that is actually not true

Churches are not required to fill out any of the forms other non profits are. I think at the very least they should have to do what other non profits have to.

[hunter]

4. I'd be happy to walk alongside them handing out condoms...

... and safe sex brochures.

[hifiguy]

5. "Tax the churches.

Tax the businesses owned by the churches." Frank Zappa

[canuckledragger]

6. Charge them with trespassing and harassment.

Those nutjobs already cross the line at women's health clinics...having them show up on your doorstep is asking for criminal repercussions.

[JDPriestly]

7. I invite Archibishop Aquila to put his vagina where his mouth is, get pregnant over and over,

have lots of kids and be a good father to them. When Archibishop Aquila puts his vagina where his mouth is, then the women of the world will listen to what he has to say.

Families with a working mom and a working dad -- over 80 hours are doing all they can to raise two or three healthy children. Big families are not needed today and should not be encouraged.

What is Archibishop Aquila's plan for feeding all the children that come out of his vagina once he has put it where his mouth is.

Don't judge a woman until you have walked five miles with her vagina in your belly.

[olegramps]

8. I wish he would show up at my door. I would enjoy throwing a bucket of water on him.

I would sic the dog on him if he hadn't died after 16 years of faithful friendship. Scotty would have enjoyed taking big chunk out of his fat ass. Nothing more than a pack of sexually frustrated pedophiles you wouldn't trust to leave your kid with.

[shenmue]

53. Sorry about your dog

[edhopper]

9. And if you are Catholic

And give money to the Church, you should accept you are complicit in this.

[truebrit71]

10. ^^^This^^^

A thousand times....

[NaturalHigh]

13. Well, my wife is Catholic and gives money to the Church.

I'll let her know you don't approve.

[edhopper]

15. I guess you would feel egually apathetic

If she gave money to the GOP. Which shares this agenda.

[ret5hd]

16. Tell her I don't either.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Tell her thanks.

Good to know she's contributing to the largest anti-choice and anti-lgbt rights organization in the world.

[BrotherIvan]

21. You can also let her know that they will take her money

But they think she, her daughters and her granddaughters are all second class citizens and unworthy of being ordained, planning the size of their families, making choices for their own bodies, and divorcing their husbands if they abuse them. I'm sure your wife is a very kind person and only wants to help people, so I'm sure there are many, many charities that would even more grateful for her donation and won't treat her and other women as fallen, unclean, and stupid.

[Arugula Latte]

49. Tell her I don't either. She's aiding and abetting misogyny and homophobia.

Fuck this evil institution.

[NaturalHigh]

51. I'll let her know that Arugula Latte strongly disapproves.

Hopefully she can still sleep tonight.

[Arugula Latte]

52. She should be ashamed of herself. She's donating to help promote this anti-women bullshit.

Maybe one day she'll connect the dots. In the meantime, it's sad and pathetic so-called progressive defend this bullshit.

[BrotherIvan]

18. Yup

One CANNOT have it both ways. And if you are a Catholic who uses birth control, you are a double hypocrite because you are helping to make sure women who cannot afford it no longer have access.

There is a very easy way to fix this: Catholics call up their bishop, cardinal, priest and tell them that until they stop pursuing anti-woman/LGBTQ policy, they won't see a dime.

[rug]

22. Oh that's right. You also say Catholics are members of a criminal organization.

[edhopper]

25. No

The Catholic Church is a Criminal Organization. That is the clergy.

[rug]

26. Yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=178827

[beam me up scottie]

29. "I think you give support a criminal organization."

ed said you give support to it, not that you're members.

He's right.

[rug]

32. Ah, so one who supports criminal activities is not a criminal.

You're as bad at logic as you are at typing an unbiased sentence.

Let me understand you, unequivocally.

Are you stating:

1) The Roman Catholic Church is a criminal organization.

2) Catholics are supporters of a criminal organization.

Go on, bmus, let it all hang out. They're simple questions.

[beam me up scottie]

33. The cover up of child sexual abuse by clergy was a criminal act.

1) The Roman Catholic Church because it protects pedophiles is a criminal organization.

2) Catholics are supporters of an organization that protects pedophiles.


Quote mine that.


Sucks to be in GD.

[rug]

35. Oh but the objection was on its doctriines on reprodction and same sex marriage, not pedophilia.

So I repeat

1) Do you say it's a criminal organization because of its doctrines.

2) Do you say Catholics are criminals for being Catholics.

Here's a bonus question:

3) Do you say Catholics are misogynist or homophobic for being Catholic.

One more bonus question:

4) Do you say Catholics support pedophilia.

Sucks when you have to resort to pedophilia as your ace card.

[beam me up scottie]

40. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

You want I should type slower?

If I play along you'll just misrepresent my answers.

[rug]

41. I want you should answer the questions.

You make, once again, the most broad-brushed, if not bigoted statements about both a religion and those who belong to it, and then step backwards from the arc of what you said. Is GD too open a place for you to spew this?

The questions are not designed to twist your words. They are designed to measure exactly how twisted they in fact are.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Calling protection of pedophiles a criminal act is bigoted?

Is it not a criminal act?

[rug]

46. Broadbrushing an entire religion and its members is, without a doubt.

Maybe you're simply inured to it.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Except I didn't do that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6103749

[rug]

55. Of course you did.

Either that orb you haven't a clue as to what a criminal organization in fact is.

Enjoying your beer?

[beam me up scottie]

57. Oh, I am enjoying a lot of things today.

Magic Hat is hard to find around these parts so I stock up at Publix whenever I take a trip to the big city.

Got enough for today and then Super Bowl Sunday.

[rug]

60. Don't forget to stock up on another brush. Yours is wearing thin.

[beam me up scottie]

61. By golly, you're right.

I just checked the brush I use when I make garlic butter and it is looking a little frayed.

Just put it on the list, thanks!

[truebrit71]

62. You get mad when someone won't respond to your strawmen?

Typical. You normally get away with this bullshit in the religion forum, but the light shines a little brighter here in GD...

[rug]

65. Lol, no response to you.

Don't get mad.

[edhopper]

36. Thanks scottie

It's easy to understand if you just try.

[beam me up scottie]

38. He didn't think anyone would actually look.

Quote mines your post but misrepresents what you actually said hoping most people won't click on the link.

Backfired on him and now he's after me.

[edhopper]

39. I think I will some how

Survive.

[rug]

42. Oh, horrors. Quoting someone.

Don't worry, bmus, no one's after you. I'm after answers.

[beam me up scottie]

44. You're really worked up about this.

Maybe you should take a break.

I'm watching the Patriots game and enjoying a beer.

[rug]

45. I doubt you're enjoying it.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Well it can't compare to reading your posts in GD today.

But it's my brother's favourite team and I love my brother so I'm cheering them on.

The beer is good too.

Magic Hat.

[rug]

50. Your brother and football make a poor deflection.

And you'll need more than a magic hat to disguise what you wrote.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Ho ho, u so witt-ay!

[rug]

56. Shitty bear accelerates intoxication.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Shitty "bear"?

I think you should stop worrying about my intoxication.

[rug]

59. It wouldn't surprise me if that typo turns out to be the source.

[n2doc]

28. Well we know where they stand. Freedom of Choice supporters need to stand up and fight them n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

30. And yet 'believers' run about claiming THEY face a hostile environment. They come to our doors to

push their shit, and call us aggressive for not buying it. What hypocrites they are. And how 'hostile' could they really think things are when they feel free to knock on doors with this sort of bullshit or with some crackerjack prize about golden plates and the curse of Ham? They behave as though they feel they have impunity in all things, yet they whine that they are ultra victims. They take polls 'how victimized IS religion by homosexuals and atheists?'.
Hypocrites.

[HockeyMom]

31. Do the same as with JW at your door

Either pretend you aren't home, or if you mistake them, get them to leave ASAP, take their literature, and throw it in the garbage.

Catholics ever coming to my door? I would tell them that I am a FORMER Catholic and graduate of their schools. If not enough to make them leave, then shut the door in their faces.

Sorry, Catholics, my patience is very thin when it comes to Catholic proselytizing. Been there, done that.