Thursday, January 26, 2006

There's been plenty of coverage already. But a couple of important points connected to yesterday's House smackdown of the religious-disclosure bill seem to have been missed.

First, according to State House News Service's House session notes, Speaker Sal DiMasi was out sick for the debate and the vote. Since I've been feeling like crap myself, I shouldn't be skeptical. Still, doesn't it seem odd that DiMasi--who predicted the bill's passage back in November--didn't show up for one of the highest-profile votes his chamber will take this year?

Second, if this bill became law, religious organizations of all sizes would have had to disclose the salaries of their five highest-paid employees. This, in turn, could have created some awkward moments, with congregants discovering just how profitable the salvation business can be--not in all cases, but in some.

Back to DiMasi. It would be very, very interesting to know whether the speaker's mind changed--and what conversations he had with his members--over the last three months.

I still don't know what I think about this bill, to be honest. I like the idea of churches and other religious entities following the same protocol as other nonprofits, but I'd also like to keep church and state as far apart as possible. In any event, whether you think religious disclosure is a good idea or a bad one, yesterday's outcome raises some big questions--about the way the House works under DiMasi, and also about the privileges churches should and shouldn't be granted in a secular society.

1/26/2006 5:20:06 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |