It has come to my attention that you will be chairing a hearing for bill 1098 which is frankly an embarrassment to the entire state of Connecticut. I have lived and attended public schools here in Connecticut through high school and one of the most common and celebrated history and social studies related lesson was the freedom to worship as one pleases, freedom from religious persecution, and the separation of Church and state. Yet in my own state I find the elected officials sent to Hartford to represent the interests of the people are attacking the very heart of these issues. This bill signals a deliberate and malicious attempt to fractionize the dioceses of the Catholic church. Note Sir, not all churches of the state, not all religions- just singly the Catholic church. That Sir, is a disgrace to the very core values of every American. Not only the bigotry and the segregation patently offensive, the precedent that this would set is beyond frightening. This bill sets the precedent that the state has regulatory practices over all religions (implemented or not) and their monetary discretions- including to what charities it can provide to, indeed even limit voiced oppositions by striking down the motion as 'cost inneffective'. This is beyond question a violation of State governments jurisdiction. You Sir, are elected to represent the people- not the desires of Party politic, which I truly feel is the reason for this action. What the purpose of this bill is; I am at a loss for, the financial concern is an absolute farce. Perhaps Hartford should clean up its own financial issues before it ensnarls a working and effective establishment. Sir, I sincerely hope you will reconsider this highly un-Constitutional action and strike down this Bill before it becomes a catastrophic event in the history of the state of Connecticut. This event would undermine my faith in the very foundations of my Country. I ask you to represent me and the many Catholics and proud Americans who reject the melding of State with our right to religious freedom.
I would request your reasoning and your vote on this issue. Please respond to this email address
Thank you Sir for your time and I urge you to reconsider the dire repercussions that Bill 1098 represents.
Sincerely,
4 comments:
So, I may be reading this bill differently, but in my mind the purpose of this bill is to protect the interests of those donating money, and in some cases LARGE quantities of money, to the Catholic church. The reason, I have to imagine, that the Catholic church is pointed out in particular, is because other churches don't have such a centralized organizational structure, which makes them clearly different than Roman Catholic organizations. It seems to me that there must have been some issues within Connecticut where individuals that donated $$ to the Church later felt that their donation was not appropriated properly according to their wishes, and yet they had no ability to take up these issues, which I feel we all have a right to do with any organization, religious or not. If and when I donate to Johns Hopkins, and indicate I'd like that money to go to the Mechanical Engineering program, I would certainly have cause for concern if it did not end up where I so requested. The same goes for a religious institution, and this bill represents that goal. Given that the Church is incorporated in the state, the corporation IS under the law and the government has every right to mandate how it performs it's BUSINESS functions, which this bill does. There already is obviously is legislation in place mandating how the incorporated Roman Catholic church should handle its business, and thus this modifying bill does not undermine the seperation any more than does the current one already in place... The government is only trying to put in place a method of insuring that those individuals that they represent, such as yourself, that donate to the Roman Catholic church have a method of recourse if they feel their donations are mis-appropriated. I see no problem here...
No it implicitly tells the church how it must be organized for all matters of operation. The state's jurisdiction can not extend to that- if thats the case any organisation that accepts money the state could set operational organisation restrictions and requirements on.
As far as that is concerned, ALL states define their own respective Laws of Incorporation, and set requirements for how corporate boards are structured, including the number of representatives from inside and outside the corporation. The difference in the case of the Roman Catholic church is the fact that it receives large quantities of donations, which ordinary for-profit organizations do not, and thus the state is putting into place organizational requirements to hopefully help ensure that those donations are appropriated per the donors wishes. Forcing that lay-people are on the board of directors is done to ensure that there isn't a conflict of interest, just as all states have mandates for the number of external representatives on the Board of Directors for general corporations. This really isn't as extreme as I think you're seeing it... That's just my point of view, anyways...
I just re-read the Bill, and all that it does is require that there is a larger layperson role in how each diocese performs its business functions. The original bill only required for two laypeople to be on the board, along with the pastor of the church, and all this bill really does is provide clearer definition for the role of the board, and mandate that it is larger such that conflicts of interest are minimized. These changes really are only being put in place to protect the financial business of the congregation, to ensure there is no funny business going on. Try to take a step back from this, and see it in that light...
Post a Comment