Thread: Immigrants - And Christian Charity - Unwelcome In Alabama

Immigrants - And Christian Charity - Unwelcome In Alabama

From Legal As She Is Spoke
By David M. Krisch

In response to passage of the law, Alabama’s Episcopal, Methodist, and Roman Catholic churches have sued the state, arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it violates their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Sharon L. Blackburn, a federal judge in Alabama, has temporarily blocked a controversial state law that has been called the toughest immigration statute in the nation. The injunction will remain in effect until September 29, when the court will enter a ruling. Signed by Governor Robert Bentley, the Alabama law criminalizes those who knowingly employ, harbor, or transport people they know to be illegal immigrants.

In response to passage of the law, Alabama’s Episcopal, Methodist, and Roman Catholic churches have sued the state, arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it violates their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The churches argue that the law criminalizes core practices of Christianity such as providing food, clothing, shelter, and transportation to the needy.

The bible, you see, does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to helping the needy.

While nearly every blog and news network ran something about this story, there has been no analysis about the likelihood of success for the churches’ claim. We will.

The Supreme Court has handled cases of this nature since as far back as 1879, when it decided the constitutionality of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, passed by Congress in 1862. The act outlawed polygamy, and Mormons argued that it was unconstitutional because it deprived them of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion. A Mormon plaintiff, who ignored the statute, was indicted, and the Utah Supreme Court upheld the indictment. When the case reached the United States Supreme Court, the Court held that duties of a religion were not a suitable defense to a statute. “Religious belief cannot be accepted as a justification of an overt act,â€

Taxpayer charity should not be determined by Churches that are actively involved politically to the point that they should lose their tax status.

In addition to racial guilt, they are now trying religious guilt.

Again, Big Religion, the hierarchy of any church, is like any other Special Interest Group, just follow the money. Most Special Interest Groups are only concerned for "their" agenda of profit and/or power, not the people they attempt to speak for or save from harm. Something about living in a Glass House, the Churches should be able to clean their own house before they tell others what they are doing wrong! Of course they are expecting money to flow in from "our" Federal Government, Citizen Taxpayers, to assist with their Big Religion ministering to the ILLEGALS or they just may receive some funds from the ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS who benefit financially from their ILLEGALS! Doubtful they will get any monetary help from the ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS of course expect the United States Taxpayers to pick up the bill for their ILLEGALS while they soak up all of the PROFIT, you have to admit the SOAKING of United States Taxpayers is good.

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Taxpayer charity should not be determined by Churches that are actively involved politically to the point that they should lose their tax status.

In addition to racial guilt, they are now trying religious guilt.

===========================================

RELATED
Bishops Criticize Tough Alabama Immigration Law
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-246872-baptist.html

Alabama's 'Clergy Criminalization Act' prohibits helping ill
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-246738-baptist.html