The church is a private organization. If it does not take government funds it cannot and should not be compelled to conform with equal opportunity in hiring.

That said, since they already have a shortage of priests, if they actually get rid of all the gays they're going to basically destroy themselves. I'm curious how they plan to make up for the shortage in personnel.

I'd also like to see an official statement on whether fornication, as a venial sin, is not a violation of celibacy.

Dave

But should they be able to operate in the United States without affording equal oppurtunity to everyone?

Colleges don't afford equal opportunity to all students, they practice racial discrimination. States allow indians to run casinos while others ethnicities cannot. Inequality is built into our system, why should churches be any different?

Well, they recieve federal money through the faith based initiatives. That is a good place to start. Any organization that receieves federal money is mandated to recognize the Civil Rights Act. So you can't have it both ways. Either the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional (doubt it) or the faith based initiative is unconstitutional (more likely) One of them has to go. Which one do you want?

Studies linking homosexual priests, pedophilia and sodomy are unnecessary.

We have poster-boy defrocked priest Paul Shanley, who was convicted of child rape.

Shanley's activities included participation at a pedophile conference that evolved into the North American Man-Boy Love Association, where he spoke openly as an advocate of sexual contact between boys and men.

It is clear the Church doesn't need any more Shanleys.

Back to BASICS:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Trump Card.

Executive Order 13087, amending Executive Order 11478, was signed on May 28, 1998, to provide a uniform policy for the federal government to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Executive Order 11478 section 1 reads:

It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or sexual orientation and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the federal government, to the extent permitted by law.

Executive Order 13087 did not create any new rights, however it did set the stage for positive and constructive action by all units of the federal government to make certain that the workplace is one free from harassment and discrimination. Many of the Cabinet level agencies have also issued policy statements prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Some of the agencies have developed parallel EEO complaint procedures allowing federal employees to file EEO complaints based on sexual orientation within their agencies.

So what trump card? If the church recieves one dollar of federal monies they must comply with our constitution!

(Hat tip to Mr. Clinton, the greatest president to ever live)

child abuse is a horrific event. The church condemns homosexuality with so much animosity, that many questioning young gay men turn to the church to find answers. To find help. They become priests.

But the church's answer to sexuality is so fucked up, that as these young men grow older within the church, they do not get advice, help or anything, so they remain emotionally immature, stunted. Like Michael Jackson, where you relate better to your youth than your actual age.

Why do you think such a high number of sexually confused gravitate to the church? For help of course, the answer is obvious.

Why do you think, then that they go on to molest rather than be healed? Because there is no legitimate healing/help within the church. They are emotionally stunted/crippled and given no help. THis should show you how much knowledge the church has when it comes to sexuality.

The church supressing safe sex information in third world countries is also harmful and negative sexually related information.

Knowing and seeing how harmful the church is, in relation to human sexuality, WHY they are given any credibility whatsoever in that realm is beyond me.

All the pedophiles in their midst are of their own creation.

There is the church's answer to human interpersonal relations and then there is the real world. Until people demand a separation of the two, things are just going to keep on being fucked up.

Steve,

I agree to disagree but that is neither here nor there. The argument is whether the Church must recognize our God given rights provided under the constitution if they recieve money from the federal government.

If they recieve even one of my hard earned tax dollars then they cannot discriminate.

What right has been given by God?

comment 8 was in response to comment 5.

"So what trump card? If the church recieves one dollar of federal monies they must comply with our constitution!"

GO BACK AND READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

An Executive Order is NOT the Constitution!

An executive order tells the federal government what they should be doing. This executive order also covers the fact that if you recieve money from the federal government you must comply with the Civil Rights Act or you get no money.

Is that so hard to understand?

AND STOP YELLING!

An Executive Order does not trump the CONSTITUTION.

Is that so hard to understand?

Wow. So much for all that "separation of church and state" stuff that the left keeps hollering about.

The organizations that accept the faith-based initiative money are responsible to the government for how that money is spent, and have to abide by the regulations that are involved. That doesn't mean the entire denomination has to.

Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.

Executive orders do not have legal force by themselves. Most are simply orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.

To date only two orders have ever been overturned by the courts. And IF you do some reading you will find out that many people are against executive orders because they do skate around the constitution and are in effect law until someone challenges them.

Thanks for playing!

And the Civil Rights Act is one of them.

This isn't a matter of church and state. If the church is going to accept money from the state then separation of church and state basically go out the window. I could care less but they must honor our constitution and its laws to be able to have the money. Pretty cut and dry.

YOu guys hate the whole child molestation thing as much as everyone else but I see no mass outcrying of "convict the priests" you let the church hide and shuttle them around, I don't get it?

Does the U.S. Constitution guarantee every American the right to employment?

No.

It's not a matter of a right to employment it's a right not to be discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; and because of executive order Executive Order 11478 no one can discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Article I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article XIV.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article XIV covers State Laws, not Church Laws.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

OK smarty pants, than tell me why Rasta's can't smoke part? It is part of their religion.

They can't smoke it legally because pot is against the law regardless of their religious beliefs. And again if the Catholic Church is accepting tax dollars than they must abide by the law. The law being the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Just because you say something is religious does not make it exempt from the law.

I think you need one brave soul to bring your argument for why Rasta's can't smoke pot before the Supreme Court.

I'm not arguing for Rasta's to be able to smoke pot. Don't distort. I was taking you line of thought and showing that just because someone declares something part of their religion does not make it legal here in the United States. The church can pass whatever laws they want but ultimately they must abide by the legal structure of the United States, in essense they are not above the law.

Again, if you take money from the federal government you are bound by the constitution to not discriminate.

What is so hard to understand about that?

"Again, if you take money from the federal government you are bound by the constitution to not discriminate."

Show me what part of the Constitution says that.

Why do you keep mumbling "constitution" and not quote from it?

"The church can pass whatever laws they want but ultimately they must abide by the legal structure of the United States, in essense they are not above the law."

And there it is. The ageless dilemma. In the United States, there is, theoretically, no such thing as separation of church and state. And this is not because something the constitution did or did not say. It is because of the nature of religion. Religious practices have the potential to breech a state or federal law, no?

The ultimate question is, who's your daddy? The law or your religion law? War is inevitable.

"The ultimate question is -- how badly do homosexuals want to be priests?

Ummm, the Civil Rights Act is linked in the post, go read it and then go read the executive order that updated it.

And you are right, how badly do homosexuals want to be priests? Good question, don't know but they should be able to apply because it is their right. And it is law that their sexual preference cannnot be taken into account when deciding whether to hire them or not.

I don't get it, you people all say "love thy neighbor" but are willing to shun people when the have a calling to serve God.

This goes for woman to, how fucked up is a religion that won't let half the world population be priests (i.e. woman).

But to stay on topic, both gays and woman should be able to sue the Church for discriminating based on the protections afforded us under the Civil Rights Act.

"Ummm, the Civil Rights Act is linked in the post, go read it and then go read the executive order that updated it."

So you believe this trumps Article I of the Constitution?

Good Luck.

Article I.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

"gays and woman should be able to sue the Church for discriminating based on the protections afforded us under the Civil Rights Act."

Not in a Robert's Court.

This man knows how to read the Constitution.

It is not a matter of trumping anything, sure religions can practice freely, just as long as they are not breaking any laws, kinda like the Branch Davidions. They weren't bothered until they started stock piling illegal arms.

This is no different, a church cannot just practice whatever they want. They are accountable to the laws as much as anyone else.

If the Church's position is challenged in Court, the plaintiff is very unlikely to win such a case.

Dream on.

But stop drooling.

Sooooooooo--------I win, right?

Sure -- if that helps you to dream.

Anything to get you to stop drooling.