My mistake. They can discriminate in who they hire to teach religion to the kiddies, or who offers religious instruction. I suppose if the secretary offers religious advise, which I'm sure they could make the case, they can fire her. Upshot, their CEO's don't get protection from the US government. So, if a southern baptist church finds out their minister is half black, well, they can fire him for it.Originally Posted by Iris lily
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sup...mination-laws/
The empirical evidence shows that this just does not work. Health insurance is not a widget.
This has nothing to do with constitutional limits on government. I know you are trying to deflect , but that isn't the question. Yes, US law does trump religious law if there is a question of one over the other. That's not the same as religious beliefs. You can believe anything you want, but you can't make up your own laws, in violation of US laws, because of it. that's the difference. By your reasoning, we should allow Sharia law in the US. Is that how you see it? that's a religious law. How do you stand on that?
But let's get back to this tax exempt status. That IS in violation of the constitution, in that giving them special consideration, blanket special consideration just by virtue of being a 'religion' is a form of establishment of religion. Charities have to apply, with documents and proof in the form of reams of paperwork, to their non-profit status. Each one must prove this. Let churches do this too. Each one should have to prove it, and the minute a church displays even a whiff of politics, which many of them do openly, they should lose their tax exempt status. But, for a charity to gain tax exempt status, they can't discriminate who they serve. Goodwill can't hang a Whites Only sign in the window, and a church should not be able to turn gays away from their services, or not allow the divorcee the sacraments. And yet, even though we grant them tax exempt status, we allow them to get away with all sorts of bad behaviour in the name of religious freedom.
Well, frankly I'm tired of it. Religions don't deserve any more special consideration than anyone else. In anything. If you want to pray at my dinner table, go ahead, but don't expect me to hush and bow my head. Don't expect me to stop what I'm doing while you pray to your Deity. I believe there is a mad hatter living on the moon holding a tea party, but I don't expect special consideration or tax exempt status because I believe it. And that belief is no goofier than many religious beliefs. I can give examples!
Do I respect religious beliefs? Do you respect my mad hatter?
Of course it does, but than again, lots of things this administration has pushed through over the last couple of years violates constitutional limits on government. You've probably just become accoustomed to it.
That is the major reason individual churches do lost their tax exempt status. It happens from time to time.....and the minute a church displays even a whiff of politics, which many of them do openly, they should lose their tax exempt status.
Sure, I respect your right to believe in whatever you like. I also don't believe anyone should ask you to violate those beliefs, would you agree with that?Do I respect religious beliefs? Do you respect my mad hatter?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
+1
Peace through homemaking. ~ My blogs: Antique Photographs and Mindful Beginnings
IMHO, yes. I believe the separation of church and state was wise 240 years ago and is still wise today. That said, I would like to hear logical arguments to exempt churches and other so called "non-profits" from taxes. The Catholic Church is one of the largest land holders in the world (behind only a few governments, I believe). The organization rivals or exceeds any corporation in terms of resources and influence. With all that going for them why should the fact that God is their business, rather than oil or olives, exempt the Church from supporting the country that supports them? I'm not trying to pick on Catholics (or be blasphemous), they just happen to be at the center of today's controversy.
There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. An exemption restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.
Last edited by Alan; 2-10-12 at 4:02pm. Reason: to repair broken link
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well they only had 8 years of Bush to get accustomed to it!!Of course it does, but than again, lots of things this administration has pushed through over the last couple of years violates constitutional limits on government. You've probably just become accoustomed to it.
Um err ... I mean I'm sure glad this type of stuff never happened before this administration (although almost all of the strong critiques of the Bush administration - and they were much stronger than stuff about birth control, they were actuallly definitive issues like Gitmo - were precisely about constitutional violations). I guess I better just elect a Republican and things will be all better .... I feel all warm and fuzzy already (note a Paul administration actually might be interesting but the rest of them no).
Trees don't grow on money
rosebud, can you provide links for that evidence? I would be interested to see it.
i'm inclined to agree with bae about individuals buying their own insurance in a truly free market. . . but I haven't seen anything about whether or not it works.
1) the position that all birth control is bad including even barrier methods like condoms and diaphrams is completely ridiculous and insane. So I can't say I have much respect for that as a philosophy!
2) I actually am somewhat sympathetic to a freedom of conscience arguments for what churches should fund, no matter how nutty their ideas, but when churches become MAJOR employers it gets complex like I've said. OTOH birth control isn't even expensive so I don't think it's some great catastrophe if churches don't fund it. I mean bringing up another thread here, couldn't people just go to planned parenthood? Seriously ... So because the consequences of not forcing this on churches are pretty low, I'm going to have to go with not doing it
3) If this is the issue people get most upset about for consitutional reasons, well I can't even fathom those priorities. Just mouth wide open ... not NDAA?
4) I kinda think churches should at times be political, not so much in terms of "you must vote for ...". But, I mean the Catholic church is given a hard time for being complicit with fascists, what if churches in response to fascism had gone full scale on the offensive: "down with fascism!' (with all the influence they had, a serious fight). But being political is very very very difficult to square with tax exemption ...
5)Yea how do you even try untried ideas like this( and some comparison to 100 years ago or something really isn't apples to apples)? They can't really be tried on a national level IMO. I mean applying completely experimental ideas on a national level is just very risky IMO. I mean if the alternative is an even worse catastrope fine, but otherwise. I mean I could come up with the most hippy dippy idea in the universe also (and believe me my sympathies are often there), one with no historical precedent (things like socialized medicine actually do have historical precident - they are all over really), but saying it should necessarily be tried instantly on the whole country tommorow hmm ..."i'm inclined to agree with bae about individuals buying their own insurance in a truly free market. . . but I haven't seen anything about whether or not it works."
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 2-10-12 at 8:09pm.
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote