The Catholic Church Should Burn

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

No kidding.

The way I see it, is if the government can ban cigarette ads... they can pretty much censor any kind of free expression as long as they have the political support for it.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be pleased as punch if cigarettes themselves were banned, but the constitutional basis for the ban on advertising (with the surgeon general's warning) seems.... weak?

I can but say:

 

[Free]

Don't get me wrong, I'd be pleased as punch if cigarettes themselves were banned, but the constitutional basis for the ban on advertising (with the surgeon general's warning) seems.... weak?

Whatever case can be made against the constitutional basis for it, cigarette companies are not likely to dispute it for fear the states' attorneys general would take up their litigation against them, and in the process possibly bankrupt them - or worse.

 

[Clara D.]

Furthermore:

So I'd be perfectly justfied in shooting them because my 2nd amendment liberties are more important than their health.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

So I'd be perfectly justfied in shooting them because my 2nd amendment liberties are more important than their health.

In a 'stand your ground' state like ?Florida?, probably. "Offishur, 'e look'd lahk 'e wuz comin fer mah gunz&ammo! I hadda put him down!"

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

What a can of worms that is in US constitutional law.

What a lot of these "mai freedumbs" people seem to forget is that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which means that nobody's freedoms can infringe on that right. That includes contributing to the spread of a potentially deadly disease just because you don't want to be cooped up in your house.

 

[Clara D.]

In a 'stand your ground' state like ?Florida?, probably. "Offishur, 'e look'd lahk 'e wuz comin fer mah gunz&ammo! I hadda put him down!"

Unfortunately, Arizona is just Castle Defense and I wouldn't want one of those fuckers in my apartment.

 

[Free]

What a lot of these "mai freedumbs" people seem to forget is that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

That's the ""unalienable rights" from the Declaration of Independence.

If the Constitution guarantees anything to the individual or citizen, it's what's in the Bill of Rights. Plus a handful of additional rights like the right to trial by jury, no religious test or qualification for holding federal office, etc.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Lawyer writes on fire in threatre topic.

Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough

In her Los Angeles Times opinion piece justifying prosecution of the author of the “Innocence of Muslims” video on YouTube, Sarah Chayes opens exactly the way I’ve come to expect:…

www.popehat.com

 

[Willow Matthews]

Seems we are back to George.
New news and I wont link to it.
Bastard. Knew.

And he let kids know horror. He allowed it.
FOR DECADES.
He could have stopped it.

Every time you look at an image of George?
Look at his fingers.
Know where they have been.

 

[Dancien]

More than 12,000 Catholic churches in the U.S. applied for PPP loans – and 9,000 got them

Gonna go look for tables to flip

 

[Free]

More than 12,000 Catholic churches in the U.S. applied for PPP loans – and 9,000 got them

Gonna go look for tables to flip

Fuck the tables, I'm off to flip a few churches.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Depending on the churches, they might actually need the money, though, did they actually apply for PPP loans? I mean, people accused Harvard of that, and it was a completely different source of assistance.

I just know, growing up, our particular catholic church was so poor that we met in a Funeral Home, and our priest came in from a different parish.

 

[Dancien]

Depending on the churches, they might actually need the money, though, did they actually apply for PPP loans? I mean, people accused Harvard of that, and it was a completely different source of assistance.

I just know, growing up, our particular catholic church was so poor that we met in a Funeral Home, and our priest came in from a different parish.

They should have got it from the Vatican then. They're not hurting.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

They should have got it from the Vatican then. They're not hurting.

It doesn't work that way. Maybe if they had expected so many catholics in rural Ga, but they didn't.... but I maintain that people should double check the PPP claim claims before being mad - because, while there are plenty of reasons to be mad at the Church, but this just feels like when people went after Harvard for the same thing, except, it wasn't the PPP monies they were getting help from.

 

[Free]

I maintain that people should double check the PPP claim claims before being mad

From the CBS News article Dancien linked to:

Pat Markey, the executive director of the Diocesan Fiscal Management Conference, an association of finance officers from Catholic dioceses, estimates that around 6,000 Catholic parishes had their applications for federal funding approved in the first round of PPP and around 3,000 have received loans so far in the second round.

A new survey by LifeWay Research found that 40% of Protestant churches in the U.S. also applied for government assistance offered either through the CARES Act or the Small Business Administration, and 23% of those church's pastors reported that their applications were accepted — meaning that 59% of Protestant churches that applied for assistance were approved.

A representative for the The Jewish Federations of North America told CBS News that they conducted a survey on April 21 and learned that "573 Jewish organizations were approved for PPP loans, with a total value of $276 million. Among that group were 219 synagogues who received just over $50 million in loans."

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, "Churches (including temples, mosques, synagogues, and other houses of worship), integrated auxiliaries of churches, and conventions or associations of churches qualify for PPP and EIDL loans as long as they meet the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and all other PPP and EIDL requirements."

Essentially, the requirements for PPP loans are the same whether a business or organization is secular or not. Churches are automatically granted nonprofit status. So, as long as a house of worship employs 500 people or fewer, it can now request a federal loan for an amount 2.5 times its average monthly payroll.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

From the CBS News article Dancien linked to:

Essentially, the requirements for PPP loans are the same whether a business or organization is secular or not. Churches are automatically granted nonprofit status. So, as long as a house of worship employs 500 people or fewer, it can now request a federal loan for an amount 2.5 times its average monthly payroll.

I'm not familiar with the background here, so can someone please explain?

Congress passes law authorising loans on very advantageous terms to both secular and religious non-profit organisations.

Non-profit organisations, both secular and religious, successfully apply for loans under the scheme.

Assuming the applications were dealt with correctly, what's the problem?

If Congress wanted to attach conditions -- which might, with hindsight, have been a good idea -- to exclude wealthy universities like Harvard, or individual congregations that are part of a large and wealthy church, then it was open to it so to do, but since it didn't, I don't see how the beneficiaries of this congressional largesse can be criticised for applying for loans that Congress voted to offer them.

Laws represent what the legislature intend to happen, and if legislators want to avoid particular consequences they don't intend, then they should draft the laws accordingly, but I don't see how an organisation can fairly be criticised for applying for funds to which it's legally entitled.

Unless the legislation gives the decision-makers this sort of discretion, you can't have a system whereby the government department responsible for processing the applications says, "while this application meets all the criteria for a loan, we're denying it because we don't think this is the sort of thing Congress had in mind when it passed the law," and neither -- it seems to me -- can organisations fairly be criticised for applying for financial assistance to which they're entitled under a specific programme.

 

[Arkady Arkright]

They should have got it from the Vatican then. They're not hurting.

It doesn't work that way.

Well, maybe it should work that way...

 

[Dancien]

Yeah, Central branch of the corporation and all that.

 

[Free]

Congress passes law authorising loans on very advantageous terms to both secular and religious non-profit organisations.

Non-profit organisations, both secular and religious, successfully apply for loans under the scheme.

Assuming the applications were dealt with correctly, what's the problem?

Tax status. It's the same reason people bitch about corporations who've applied for a PPP loan - legally - but are known to pay little to no taxes.

Benefitting from a system they don't pay into. Is it OK that some of us don't happen to like that?

 

[Dancien]

The Catholic Church is worth $10 billion to $15 billion.
Mom and Pop Hardware Store who didn't get the loan because their spot got taken up by a church isn't.