Okay, what cover-ups did Catholic Charities engage in? Keeping in mind that you seem to be asserting that organizations are not responsible for the actions of their employees.
Regards,
Shodan
I am not a Catholic, but I do not see the camparison; Catholic charities haven’t used the money to pay the priests, it goes (as far as I know) to help people of all faiths. The money collected on Sundays etc. is a different account and the priests get money for saying masses, presiding at weddings etc. .
FTR, the statement that there has been “no voter fraud” is false. This has been repeatedly cited in the past, so there is no need to do so again.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, there have been criminal convictions of ACORN workers for voter registration fraud, but no criminal convictions of ACORN itself for voter fraud.
Just in case the issue is the distinction between those two crimes (or those defendants) I thought I’d make that clear.
What cover up? Here is one, of the many.
I have no idea if Catholic Charities operate in Canada, I hadn’t heard of them until I moved to the US, why do you think that is relevant?.
It’s interesting that you tried to turn this around. But you missed a couple of key points.
- My goal isn’t to destroy the Catholic Church, that would make me a partisan hack. My goal is to apply the law consistently, even if it turns out to be uncomfortable.
- As far as I know Canada doesn’t have a recent precedent of government action specifically targeting and destroying a charity (other than when the Red Cross fucked up blood donation)
- The US DOES have a precedent of targeting a specific charity. Were you aware of Congress’ actions to defund ACORN?
Do you see how we have a situation where a charitable organization was accused of wrong doing, and was specifically targeted by Congress?
But then, we have another charitable organization, with convictions, that goes unchecked.
Why this disparity? Why is Shodan suddenly acting like the accusation of voter fraud is worse than convictions of child molestation?
If Congress (and the American voters) went after ACORN for a reason, surely that reason would also apply to the Catholic Church and dozens of other charities that we don’t seem to care about.
Thanks, but
Regards,
Shodan
You do understand that “Catholic Charities,” and “the Catholic Church,” are distinct organizations, yes?
No, he doesn’t.
This, I think, is a key point. The government does not “fund” the Catholic Church in the sense that it pays for priests and altar cloths and other paraphernalia used in Catholic rituals, and it doesn’t pay the Church to proselytize.
What it does do is contract for services, mostly with Catholic Charities, services like hospitals and social services.
Now, one may believe that the government should not be doing business with the Church, and that might be a debate worth having, but the government is not funding Catholicism. It is purchasing services from an organization with the infrastructure and experience necessary to deliver those services.
The Catholic church and Catholic Charities does more for the people of the State of Maine then the state does for the poor. The state loves Catholic Charities. It has a very low overhead and almost every dollar goes to people in need.
Many food pantries and orphanages are run by the Catholics. The money that is set aside for the poor is not in any way rationed to Catholics but to all poor people.
The reason Catholics do this is because of the, “Corporal Works Of Mercy” not for profit. Hence, the ‘non profit status’. If you are looking for phony non profits you are wrong about Catholic Charities. Do some homework on it.
If this were a distinction to be taken seriously, it would be applied consistently. If it is not so applied, it is just a dodge.
Regards,
Shodan
The distinction, if it exists, is irrelevant, since it wasn’t an issue with the ACORN situation.
Whether or not Catholic Charities are efficient or nice people is immaterial. The point is whether they have participated in criminal activity, a la ACORN.
Catholic Charities USA is an umbrella organization for local diocesan charities, and both are (mostly) run by priests. Do you think a parent company should be held accountable for misdeeds by one of its subsidiaries (or vice versa)?
Personally, I have nothing against CC. However, I certainly oppose federal funding of the organization, even if they aren’t guilty of any wrongdoing.
I’m not aware of any criminal allegations against Catholic Charities. But it’s a perfectly reasonable position to take that the government should refuse to contract with Catholic Charities in the future, for any reason it wishes. I have no heartburn whatsoever with that proposition; Catholic Charities is no more entitled to a share of government money for its services than I am.
Well, since all we’re concerned about are allegations, here was an accusation against a priest at Catholic Charity. Should have been enough to ACORN them? Or does it make more sense to wait until after the facts are revealed?
Again, ACORN was held responsible for the actions of it’s employees.
Who did or did not get away with what is more important than who argued what.
If that is really your view of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, that is disturbing to me. The government should be permitted to refuse to contract with Catholic Charities because it is Catholic?
Obviously in the current U.S. that isn’t going to happen. But a government refusing to contract with an Islamic group because it is Islamic is definitely plausible.
“No voter fraud” or “no voter registration fraud?”
Is there no distinction? Or was your statement incorrect?
Bricker is Catholic. I believe his point is that the government should be permitted to refuse to contract with Catholic Charities because it is a religious organization.
I fully agree - in fact, government funding of Catholic Charities is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, in my book.
I have no idea what you’re asking.
Could this accusation serve as the basis for withdrawal of federal funding? Certainly it could.
Is it wise to withdraw funding based on an allegation like this? No, it’s not.
But as I’ve said before, the government is free to withdraw funding for Catholic Charities for any reason it likes. So this would certainly qualify as “any reason.”
I don’t think it would be wise.
I don’t think the government’s actions against ACORN were wise.
They were, however, permissible.