“No Church For You!”

More antics from the anti-Obama crowd: The Voice claims those entering the president’s service organization will be denied church attendance. I don’t see it.

I can understand why there might be a prohibition on proselytizing when acting in an official way. If my daughter were to join this, I sure wouldn’t want her getting bugged by evangelicals, or pagans, or others insistent on making converts to their faith. If a young evangelical adult volunteer were actively converting (“sheep-stealing”) teens being helped, as a parent, I would object. I imagine if Jonas Clark’s kids were being tutored by Wiccans, he might object, too. Wouldn’t he?

His commentariat doesn’t seem to buy the lie. Sensible folk.

If this is the best PewSitter can come up with (where I found the original link), I think every criticism of the president there has to be taken with a serious grain of salt. That the truth can be stretched and outright lies passed off as part of an “online Catholic newspaper” is another nail in the political pro-life coffin. The eighth commandment (or the ninth, depending on your counting system) is pretty important in Christian circles. Or at least it used to be.

The pro-life movement has more than ample good points to make in our struggle against the culture. That some Catholics seem satisfied to resort to easy lies muddies any serious effort at making converts.

About these ads

About catholicsensibility

Todd and his family live in Ames, Iowa. He serves a Catholic parish of both Iowa State students and town residents.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “No Church For You!”

  1. Kevin in Texas says:

    It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding of the bill’s language, which is indeed very unclear and, upon the most literal, word-for-word reading of the text, could be interpreted as
    “People belonging to the GIVE program may not engage in any of these activities at all.”

    Because such a provision would be a flat-out violation of the 1st Amendment freedoms of speech/assembly/religious practice, I don’t think that’s what the bill’s supporters intend. If not, then it’s their responsibility to clarify the language they use so that it’s crystal clear. To fail to do so gives ammunition to those who would like to misrepresent the effects of the bill.

    Now, as to whether or not Obama’s proposal that no religious activity should be supported by monies from the GIVE program, that’s another issue entirely for the nation’s religious faithful to consider. However, I agree with Todd’s general principle that if religious groups are funded through such a proposed program as GIVE, there is little to dissuade every bizarre cult from proclaiming that it’s worthy to receive funding. Better to keep things separated and clearly so, not via a needlessly complex text like the present bill appears to contain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s