The establishment clause. Anyway, that’s how I was taught. If there are cites to the contrary, I’ll happily look at them.
I definitely agree that the peril exists in the abstract, and that there are a small handful of theocrats who are trying to expand the power of the church to interfere in ours lives.
I just believe that, at this point in time, the secular power of the church to interfere is fairly minor. They have not come to agree to leave the rest of us alone. If they could, they’d re-institute many of the old “blue laws” that were such a burden and imposition. If they could, they’d compel you and me to kneel on prayer mats and acknowledge how great Jesus/Moses/Mohammed/Llandru is.
But…right now…they can’t.
Some might say this is the time to press our advantage and hobble them even more. I say no, because this would make us little better than they are.
In a way, this is a no-win situation. It’s like dealing with fire. When the conflagration is out of control and destroying entire city blocks, it’s too late to institute reasonable controls. But when the fire is fully under control and limited to wood-stoves and fireplaces, there isn’t any need for further restrictions. Tyranny is like that.
I think this is incorrect, and that religious organizations get the break out of the spirit of the establishment clause. Here is a cite which gives me at least a little support in my interpretation.
You’ve been here around a year. I’ve been here for ten years and have not been secretive about my religious beliefs. Why do you want to know when I choose not to answer?
(cite?) (Beyond some Westboro members)
Besides, who thinks that he has the creator of the universe in his corner?
(cite?)
(cite?) (Beyond Westboro)
Generally, Christians are aware that they continue to do things wrong on a daily basis. That’s why they admit that they are “sinners.” And it doesn’t mean that they do hateful things on the level of the Westboro Church. Which cities have been burned in the name of Christianity?
(cite?)
When most religions are aggressive and tyrannical, they are at their weakest. When they are calm and peaceful, they are at their strongest. Could it be that you see tyranny as strength and peacefulness as weak?
I learned more “about” other religions from reading when I was a teenager – and still do when I keep my ears open. And I began college as a religious education major. (Changed to liberal arts because of an excellent professor.) But it has been for the last 47 or so years that I have learned from other faiths directly. Who said that I wanted to give others incentive to do the same? Let them learn to “Inquire Within” if they wish. My path is not their path.
The establishment says that the country cannot establish a specific religion, or infringe on the practice of a religion. It says nothing about religion get tax breaks.
But these theocrats are quite powerful, some of them hold office in this country.
The only reason this is in any way true is because they are constantly being fought as they try to do so, yet another cost to bear.
It isn’t a matter of hobbling them, it’s more a matter of not giving them special privileges anymore. I think that this costs society more than it benefits it.
Thank you for the link. It is informative. It appears you are looking especially at this part:
The theory seems to be that by having the IRS scrutinize the financial dealings of churches, they are imposing judgement on what constitutes a religious belief.
However, we do have the IRS scrutinize some aspects of church activities, such as political lobbying and political campaigning. So there is some grounds that the government can scrutinize the activities of churches, especially if these are criteria established for other non-taxed organizations.
Yet
Here is a privilege extended to religious organizations not given to other non-taxed organizations. So the argument can be made that the nature of this privilege is biased in favor of religion over non-religion, and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause.
I will also note your cite says below this part:
So there does not appear to be any reason for churches to have a privileged tax-exempt status over any other non-taxed organization.
Some might argue that the current situation, to extend the analogy, has fires mostly contained to wood-stoves and fireplaces, except for the occassional house fire let burn free to appease the arsonists.
For example, it was just on the local news about a local city government that opens City Council meetings with a prayer. While in the grand scheme of things, a prayer in itself is pretty benign and does not constitute a significant threat to anyone’s liberty, the impression it creates is an attitude of exclusion and hostility for those not of the particular sect. Even if the prayers are generic christian in nature, that still creates an environment where alternative faiths and non-believers are not welcome. And while the First Amendment cannot guarantee members of the community, even the elected officials, will not hold those attitudes, the fact that the City Government sponsors that prayer makes that exclusion and hostility a Government attitude toward some of its citizens. The very idea of a prayer to start the meeting is certainly not neutral with respect to religion.
Similarly, putting a slogan on our currency “In God We Trust” and displaying that slogan in court rooms, and having testimony in courts sworn “so help me God”, contribute to that oppressive environment of “you are not one of us”.
I know there are work arounds for “so help me God”. The matter still exists that the default position is use of that phrase, and avoiding it takes an effort on the part of the person who does not wish to use it. The Supreme Court has ruled those slogans and such are allowed because they are ceremonial in nature and do not constitute a statement of belief. This seems odd, given the very claims the statements make, but essentially the Supreme Court is saying those statements are meaningless formalities, sort of like writing the date as 2013 A.D. They don’t feel meaningless.
The problem is to decide which of these intrusions are really worth attacking, and which are trivial enough that going after them will just stir up a backlash rather than a sympathetic publicity.
Yeah, that’s definitely far afield of tax-exemption.
Hmm, I thought churches were organized under a different level of 501c, but it appears I am mistaken. Searching links, all indicate they fall under 501c3.
Nevertheless, Churches get special exemption in that they are not required to file to be recognized for status (unlike other 501c3 organizations). There are also special rules limiting IRS authority to audit a church, that do not apply to other 501c3 organizations.
The rationale for these special privileges appears to be the idea that because religious beliefs hold a special position, there have to be extra restrictions to prevent government meddling in churches to preclude aspects of supporting or opposing organizations based upon their beliefs rather than their actions.
Anyone with the motto “Gott mit uns”? Or the same thing in some other language.
(Only semi-facetious - claiming that god has your back when going to war is pretty common).
It forbids laws regarding an establishment of religion. This is a bit stronger than merely forbidden the establishment of an official religion. It points in the direction of “Separation of Church and State,” and is the essential basis for not taxing religions.
That’s rather a stretch. The Constitution doesn’t grant this same protection to, say, golf courses or barber shops. It specifies non-interference with religion. Taxation has been ruled to be a form of interference (“The power to tax is the power to destroy”) and thus the Constitution advises (many people interpret it as making a rule) that churches not be taxed.
The Constitution also discriminates against people under 18 years of age: it doesn’t forbid them to vote, but it doesn’t guarantee them the right to vote either.
You seem to be trying to interpret a new “right” in the document, saying “Churches must be treated exactly the same as every other institution.” But that isn’t what it says. The Constitution specifically and explicitly categorizes religion as being different from other institutions, not least for religion’s own protection.
I didn’t name any specific denominations. I attended several types of churches growing up, ranging from Presbyterian to Baptist, and every one of them taught that if you aren’t a Christian you are going to Hell.
In the encounters I’ve had with you on these boards, Lekatt, you’ve talked about your belief in a whole lot of things that I was taught good Christians shouldn’t believe in – “witchcraft” like ouija boards. I’ve referred to you before as one of the most credulous people I’ve ever talked to, believing in everything from ghosts to dousing. I don’t think you have much standing to speak as an authority on Christianity.
So none of those churches taught the ten commandments, where God specifically says
[QUOTE=God]
“You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
[/QUOTE]
'Cause I’m pretty sure that Wiccans and Pagans have another god before him.
. . . So none of those churches taught the ten commandments, where God specifically says [“You shall have no other gods before me.”]
'Cause I’m pretty sure that Wiccans and Pagans have another god before him.
[/QUOTE]
There is a mild logical fallacy here. Zoe’s church could very well have taught that commandment, without going into detail about the specific faiths that violate it, and easily have done so without naming Wicca. They might never have mentioned the Hindu gods, or the Norse gods. It’s harder to teach the Bible without mentioning the Greek and Roman gods, but it isn’t impossible. It’s harder yet to teach the Bible without mentioning Baal (Samson, Gideon, etc.) but, again, it isn’t impossible.
If I say “everyone who eats a four-legged animal is bad,” do I specifically have to mention every single four-legged animal, or would it just be assumed that I’ve just said people who eat goats are bad?
Er, that’s my point. Zoe’s church could have taught the Commandment of the Lord without naming the Wiccan faith as being a violation of it. This contradicts your declaration that “So none of those churches taught the ten commandments.”
If I say “everyone who eats a four-legged animal is bad,” do I specifically have to mention every single four-legged animal, or would it just be assumed that I’ve just said people who eat goats are bad?
[/QUOTE]
How do you fell about those who only *stare *at goats?
As I said, it is a complex situation, but your reading seems in disagreement with the Supreme Court. In Employment Division v. Smith, *
Underlining added. Income tax legislation is a neutral law of general applicability, not applied only to religions, but equally across the board to all activities, organizations, as well as individuals. Similarly, the 501c3 tax exemption status is enacted generally as a neutral law, applying to many various groups for a variety of purposes, with religion only being one of those purposes. In theory, then, treating churches the exact same as any other organization qualifying for 501c3 tax exempt status would be the most neutral application of that law. However, churches get certain loopholes in qualifying (they do not have to apply for status, but are assumed valid unless proven otherwise) and in monitoring (there are explicit special restrictions on the IRS for monitoring church tax exemptions that do not apply to other organizations).
The effect of those special privileges is to treat religion different from non-religious organizations, and privileges by their very nature are promotionary. Ergo, religion is being supported above non-religion.
I realize the Supreme Court has not explicitly weighed in on my line of argument here. However, I feel my line of argument is directly supported by prior Court rulings.
The flipside argument is that because religious beliefs are specially protected, the privileges granted to churches are reasonable attempts to limit the power of the government to de facto discriminate about religious beliefs by evaluating the beliefs as part of their evaluation of the church’s status for tax exemption, as opposed to evaluating the churches by the same criteria as other organizations, i.e. their fiscal behaviors. While this is an understandable concern, it seems to me that the rules evaluating other organizations only speak to their behaviors, not their beliefs, so the existing rules should be adequate.
Also, you said:
This is false. The Constitution says nothing directly about taxation of Churches. Walz v. Tax Commission has already been cited, starting with the very page you used as your support, where they said that there is no entitlement to tax exemption.
*It should be noted that subsequently, peyote use for religious purposes has had explicit legislation inacted to protect it. This does not invalidate the rationale displayed by the Supreme Court above.
No, it doesn’t contradict my declaration.
The word “taught” implies more than just reading those paragraphs out loud. It implies explaining them. If their pastor/preacher/minister quoted “You shall have no other gods before me,” but didn’t explain what that means, then he didn’t actually teach it. Are there Christians who think that Pagans and Wiccans worship the same god that they do?
The preacher could have explained the lesson by alluding to the Greek and Roman gods. Not mentioning the Wiccan religion is not a sign that the lesson wasn’t taught.
“My church never mentioned John Wilkes Booth.”
“Then your church never taught the Ten Commandments, ‘Thou shall not kill.’”
“My church never mentioned the reclining Buddha of Ushiku.”
“Then your church never taught the Ten Commandments, ‘Thou shall make no graven images.’”
Or the same thing in some other language.