I read this story in the Deseret News and got to wondering. One aspect of the issue is (as mentioned in the article) the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1998. Another aspect is a bankruptcy reform law the article says went into effect in 2005. Yet another aspect, in my opinion, is the Constitution, specificaly the First Amendment:
So, is it constitutional to prohibit someone from making tithing payments if they’re bankrupt? What if they’re not religious (or they are but their church isn’t into the tithing thing) and want to contribute to charity–should they be prohibited from that?
This is where religion and the State come into direct conflict. But as Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” By extension, render unto MasterCard what is Mastercards. I think it is a fair ruling.
Well, that would only address Christians in that situation, right? I gather that Conservative Judaism requires their members to pay an annual contribution to be members of a synagogue. Isn’t that considered a charitable donation?
Interesting question. I have to admit I didn’t imagine on opening the thread I didn’t think it would be concerned with tithing, which is not a practice I’m very familiar with.
I don’t know how bankruptcy works in the US, but in Australia you are allowed reasonable living expenses by the trustee. These aren’t terribly stingy and take into account things like number of dependents. In that case, I’d be inclined to say the right position is not to count donations (whether religious or not) in the calculation of reasonable living expenses, but not to ban bankrupts from choosing how spend the allowance. I suppose I agree with the Court.
A person who was tithed could either choose to continue paying the large amount (and live rather frugally) or gross up the living allowance to a notional income and calculate the tithe from that.
A charitable donation is not a living expense. But I’m not sure whether a tithe is a charitable donation (I’m not talking legally here). It seems more like a club due based on income.
Sheesh. For “I have to admit I didn’t imagine on opening the thread I didn’t think it would be concerned with tithing”, just read “I didn’t guess this would be about tithing”.
Well, tithing is a religious practice and many people of different religions feel it is a requirement of their faith. Apparently, it’s considered under US law to be a charitable donation.
It is possible to be a Jew without being a member of a synagogue. You can even go to services at a synagogue every week without being a member. You can’t go to Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur services at many synagogues without being a member (or being a guest of a member), but synagogues with open Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur services do exist.
Also, at most Conservative synagogues that I have any experience with, dues are on a sliding scale based on your ability to pay. If someone were bankrupt, they could explain that to the synagogue leadership and probably be charged minimal or no dues until they got back on their feet financially.
::minor nitpick::persons in bankruptcy are referred to as debtors; bankrupt is an archaic term.
The New York decision, although perhaps a forecast of things to come, has very limited reach and applicability. Essentialy it is binding precedent in one courtroom – that of the judge that wrote it. In places like Utah, we’re unlikely to see a sweeping change to a Ch. 13 debtor’s ability to tithe.
You wouldn’t happen to have a cite for that, would you? Here’s for it being current:
I understand that it’s a precedent in one courtroom; however, it is still a precedent and other courts may refer to it. Even so, my questions as stated in the OP and above still stand.
I am a bankruptcy lawyer. I cite my experience in over 20 jurisdictions over a period of 7 years. It is generally* not used any longer in either written opinions or in open court. As for definitive cites, see 11 U.S.C. sec. 101(13) - that’s the Bankruptcy Code – which defines the term “debtor.” There is no definition offered for “bankrupt.” Archaic might have been a little strong to the extent that it connotes ancient, but if taken to mean, “of an earlier time, no longer in use” it is a spot on description of the term “bankrupt,” which is not used today by those who practice bankruptcy law. I am not a bankruptcy law historian, but I would reckon the usage of “bankrupt” dates back to the Bankruptcy Act and before. The Act was replaced by the Bankruptcy Code at the end of the 70’s.
*I say generally because there are an awful lot of bankruptcy judges out there and there may be some dinosaur that still uses the term.
Fine buddy. You wanna sound like somebody who found a section of the Wall Street Journal in the men’s room and marries the incomplete story he read there to some far off recollection of a conversation he had with his grampa about the “bankrupts” and the “referees” and “wage earner plans” knock yourself out. That’s just what you’ll sound like – some old man who knows about half as much as he thinks he does. I was offering you some advice from someone in the know. By all means, continue to talk out of your ass.
Also, next time you go to the doctor make sure he checks you for the vapors.
BTW - one of your defitions for “bankrupt” (someone who is insolvent) has nothing to do with being a debtor in bankruptcy – as you can be insolvent and never file for bankruptcy or you can file for bankruptcy and still be solvent.
Wow. You really do need to work on understanding humor, friend.
Or maybe I’m using the language like so many others, who just don’t happen to all be lawyers and judges, use it. To be fair, when I’m busy talking in English, I’m usually in a group of people where I’m the sole American among a bunch of Englishmen, Irish, Scots, Australians, and others, so perhaps I’m picking up a bit of their usage. That being said, my cite was from a current American dictionary.
By all means, continue to post inappropriately in this forum. Actually, that’s not serious advice–I hope you settle down and understand my actual point.
Don’t need to do that. See above comment about humor.
Right. And that definition refers to a person as a bankrupt. That kind of goes against what you were asserting upthread, but let’s just both ignore that for a moment so we can concentrate on the actual issues.
Speaking of the actual issues: What’s your take on the merits of the decision?
Moderator’s Note: Starting from now, let’s everyone be debating the issue raised in the OP, not making personal observations on the vocubulary choices of other people in the thread.
My appologies for the attitude. I did indeed misinterpret the humor. As for my opinion on whether a debtor should be allowed to tithe, I say, yes he should, within reason provided he has and is able to show a consistent history of doing so. I think that a lot of it has to do with the amount that his unsecured creditors are getting paid. Sometimes, though rarely, they get 100% of what they’re owed, including interest, in 36 months or less. In these cases, a debtor should have lots of lattitude in charitable contributions. It is obviously much cloudier in the (more common) instances where unsecured creditors are getting pennies on the dollar.
I don’t think it matters, Consitutionally, what people consider to be a requirement of their faith. The government is not obligated to allow all actions by religious people merely because those actions are sanctioned by religion.
For example, in Employment Division v. Smith, the court found that controlling the use of peyote, a hallucinogen, did not unconstitutionally violate the right to freedom of religion for those who ingested it as part of a religious ceremony.
Scalia, writing for the majority, wrote “a private right to ignore generally applicable laws - is a constitutional anomaly.”
The problem with using the OP’s suggested argument as a standard, that a generally applicable and otherwise reasonable law is unconstitutional because it keeps people from performing certain actions associated with religion, is that it allows people to assign themselves arbitrary rights based on a claimed religion. The government then either has to qualify a religion as “valid” in some sense (which leads to obvious problems) or qualify whether the interested party really believes it, or something else that horribly mangles the separation of church and state. And even then, there’s always going to be some limit. We wouldn’t permit human sacrifice when it’s performed as a religious service.
In the case of bankrupcy, there’s clearly a rational reason to make laws that allow the bankrupt limited income and prohibit arbitrary spending of money, so the law is reasonable. I would be in favor of a law that established spending limits but did not specify where the money was to go more than I would a law that required exact payment to specific sources, but neither would be unconstitutional.
On the other hand, the government has a track record of recognizing tithing (a religious practice) as a charitable contribution and allowing tax deductions for it.
I don’t see how this relates to the OP.
Well, it’s been generally accepted by the government for quite some time now that tithing is a permitted religious practice.
The government, at least the IRS does, determine if a particular group is a religion. Note that the government is not making any assertions on the validity’s of the group’s theological assertions nor does it determine if a person who is a member has an actual belief in the group’s theology.
Of course the government doesn’t permit human sacrifice as a religious rite (or as any other rite for that matter, unless you want to count government executions). But for tithing, the government has a long track record of recognizing–and even rewarding–people for doing that.
Fulfilling a religious duty, one the government obviously hasn’t had a problem with for years, is arbitrary?
As for me, I think that anyone going through bankruptcy proceedings should be required to deliver both a budget and a spending history on a monthly basis to the court for whatever reasonable time the court decrees. And I have no problem with one item on that budget & spending history being tithing or contribution to charity.
doing this every month would simply consume too much time for the debtors, the trustees, and the courts (to the extent they became involved) – there are tens of thousands of cases filed each month; however, the debtor presents a budget with his proposed repayment plan and is expected to adhere to it. used to be that in order to get away with tithing you had to show a history of the practice; same is probably true in most courts.
I don’t think the IRS determines if a particular group is a religion. Rather, I believe it determines if a particular group is eligible to receive tax- deductible contributions. If a group claiming to be a religious group doesn’t qualify, the IRS hasn’t determined that it’s not a religion - just that contributions are not tax-deductible. Eligibility doe snot depend only on the groups purpose.
