|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 30, 2014 14:50:49 GMT -5
Bruce: Playing Carrollian Humpty Dumpty* won't help. There's a significant distinction among and between senses of "religion" as used in casual conversation and in serious discussion of, well, religion. If you think I have a religion because I have a moral sense or a systematic set of hypotheses about how the universe works, you're wrong. I have no religion. I do, however, have an excellent knowledge of what words mean. 'faux: Your response is so full of misapprensions and/or distortions of my post that it would take the rest of the afternoon to unpack them. Maybe I'll get around to it when I've met my overdue column deadline. But the short version is, you misrepresent what I wrote and conflate my position with a couple of straw men not of my acquaintance. * Brain fart there--it's not the caterpillar. Obviously, I can't speak for Jeff but that's not why I think you have a religion.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 30, 2014 15:07:59 GMT -5
Obviously, I can't speak for Jeff but that's not why I think you have a religion. (Ducking in from marathon writing session.) You know something about me that I don't?
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Oct 30, 2014 15:09:16 GMT -5
The distinction you draw between a commercial transaction and a charitable transaction is arbitrary and based on deeply rooted religious attitudes and traditions in our culture. No, I don't think its arbitrary at all. Commercial transactions are clearly designed to give material (usually monetary) benefit to one or both partners in an exchange. In fact, legally, without an exchange of things of value, a contract is not valid. Whereas, in a charitable transaction (which is not really a transaction) there is no exchange of things of value, there is simply a transfer of value from one party to another. To the extent that WalMart chooses to give away food and clothing to the poor, that would also be tax deductible, but when they sell it to the poor, its not tax deductible. Furthermore, we're singling out religion in this discussion when the section of the tax code they are operating under is open to a number of different organizations. I am on the board of directors of a (c)(3) cultural organization. There are a number of limitations on what we can do monetarily. One thing we CANNOT do is engage in politics. We can invite speakers to talk on issues, we can hold seminars of various kinds as an educational function, but we cannot endorse a specific candidate, or do fundraisers for them. That would be politics and would invalidate our status. Churches operate under the same rules, I don't see why it is such a big deal for them.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 30, 2014 15:27:02 GMT -5
If waitress tips are income then the tips you put in the plate for church are income. So it's a transaction. Give money and god treats you good.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 30, 2014 15:33:35 GMT -5
"Churches operate under the same rules, I don't see why it is such a big deal for them."
Churches have a protected status under the Constitution and you don't. They have a Constitutional right to practice a religion. You have no corresponding right to practice a cultural organization. Prior to 1954 those rules didn't even exist. Presumably there was a problem that needed to be addressed in 1954 and that problem was LBJ trying to get re-elected. hardly a good reason to infringe on anyone's right to free speech or religion.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 30, 2014 15:37:06 GMT -5
1054 Was LBJ the one defending England 12 yrs later in 1066.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 30, 2014 15:38:39 GMT -5
No, I don't think its arbitrary at all. Commercial transactions are clearly designed to give material (usually monetary) benefit to one or both partners in an exchange. In fact, legally, without an exchange of things of value, a contract is not valid. Whereas, in a charitable transaction (which is not really a transaction) there is no exchange of things of value, there is simply a transfer of value from one party to another. To the extent that WalMart chooses to give away food and clothing to the poor, that would also be tax deductible, but when they sell it to the poor, its not tax deductible. Furthermore, we're singling out religion in this discussion when the section of the tax code they are operating under is open to a number of different organizations. I am on the board of directors of a (c)(3) cultural organization. There are a number of limitations on what we can do monetarily. One thing we CANNOT do is engage in politics. We can invite speakers to talk on issues, we can hold seminars of various kinds as an educational function, but we cannot endorse a specific candidate, or do fundraisers for them. That would be politics and would invalidate our status. Churches operate under the same rules, I don't see why it is such a big deal for them. Tramp did a pretty good job of laying out how churches were (inadvertently seems like the right word here) sucked into the same category as other organizations back when the whole c3 thing got started, so I'll not bother going through that again, other than to say that if, at the time, it had occurred to anyone that the government would someday endeavor to treat churches the way you propose now, they would have never ended up in the same category in the first place. "Congress...does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes." As to the definition of a transaction, I think they are countless. Or at least the motivations behind them are countless. But to go back to where this started, I remain of the opinion that saying WalMart (or farmers, or field workers, or truck drivers, or whatever) don't "feed the poor" because they receive financial compensation is arbitrary, Eurocentric, and rooted in concepts of charity we inherited from Judeo-Christian tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 30, 2014 16:06:26 GMT -5
aying WalMart (or farmers, or field workers, or truck drivers, or whatever) don't "feed the poor" because they receive financial compensation is arbitrary, Eurocentric, and rooted in concepts of charity we inherited from Judeo-Christian tradition. See "equivocation."
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Oct 30, 2014 18:55:43 GMT -5
"Churches operate under the same rules, I don't see why it is such a big deal for them." Churches have a protected status under the Constitution and you don't. They have a Constitutional right to practice a religion. You have no corresponding right to practice a cultural organization. Prior to 1954 those rules didn't even exist. Presumably there was a problem that needed to be addressed in 1954 and that problem was LBJ trying to get re-elected. hardly a good reason to infringe on anyone's right to free speech or religion. No, CHURCHES don't have protected status, religion does. There's a difference. Simply because your organization calls itself a church doesn't mean that you are exempt from the rules of other organizations. If a church decides to purchase Shell Oil, that doesn't make the business operations of Shell Oil somehow different from the operations of Chevron. I fail to see how being required to pay taxes on the monetary functions of a religious organization are different from those of a secular organization. The tax laws don't single out religion (that would violate the 1st amendment) but neither is there any reason to specifically treat them differently.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 30, 2014 19:02:23 GMT -5
Well it does. Women Catholic Priest? Black in the Mormon church (till very recently) etc. Obama care says they are exempt. Even animal sacrifices are legal and drugs.
And those things are legal because of the 1st Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 30, 2014 19:07:00 GMT -5
I guessing that if some Aztec religion sprouts up that they may find something wrong with ripping the hearts out of living people. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 30, 2014 20:25:24 GMT -5
Even animal sacrifices are legal and drugs. And those things are legal because of the 1st Amendment. Well, it's not quite that simple. See this rather long analysis: www.animallaw.info/article/free-exercise-does-not-protect-animal-sacrifice-misconception-church-lukumi-babalu-aye-vOne helpful paragraph: However, Lukumi stops far short of declaring a constitutional right to sacrifice animals. The challenged ordinances failed because they were found to be not neutral and not generally applicable. The Court found the historical record of the legislation, coupled with ordinance’s numerous exemptions, revealed the aim of the ordinances was to persecute a religious practice. If the ordinances had instead been neutral in their aims, and largely applicable to both secular and religious conduct, strict scrutiny would never have been invoked. The ordinances would then have withstood the free exercise challenge, the Court no doubt finding that protection of public health and prevention of animal cruelty were legitimate public interests to justify the laws. I also note that prohibitions of polygamous marriage have so far withstood challenges on First Amendment grounds. (Though my libertarian side doesn't see why consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to make their own domestic arrangements, as long as they don't frighten or slaughter the horses.) www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 31, 2014 6:05:30 GMT -5
Obviously, I can't speak for Jeff but that's not why I think you have a religion. (Ducking in from marathon writing session.) You know something about me that I don't? You're as evangelical about your beliefs as any snake-oil evangelist on TV. It's the way you talk down to anyone who doesn't agree with you. It may be the result of your Catholic education, I don't know but your view of the universe is, in your opinion, as infallible as any pope. Therefore, in my opinion, you have as much a religion, perhaps the church of Russell, as any pope.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2014 7:08:05 GMT -5
Even animal sacrifices are legal and drugs. And those things are legal because of the 1st Amendment. Well, it's not quite that simple. See this rather long analysis: www.animallaw.info/article/free-exercise-does-not-protect-animal-sacrifice-misconception-church-lukumi-babalu-aye-vOne helpful paragraph: However, Lukumi stops far short of declaring a constitutional right to sacrifice animals. The challenged ordinances failed because they were found to be not neutral and not generally applicable. The Court found the historical record of the legislation, coupled with ordinance’s numerous exemptions, revealed the aim of the ordinances was to persecute a religious practice. If the ordinances had instead been neutral in their aims, and largely applicable to both secular and religious conduct, strict scrutiny would never have been invoked. The ordinances would then have withstood the free exercise challenge, the Court no doubt finding that protection of public health and prevention of animal cruelty were legitimate public interests to justify the laws. I also note that prohibitions of polygamous marriage have so far withstood challenges on First Amendment grounds. (Though my libertarian side doesn't see why consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to make their own domestic arrangements, as long as they don't frighten or slaughter the horses.) www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html2009 - United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless. The court ruled that the Merced case of the freedom of exercise of religion was meritorious and prevailing and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas, from enforcing its ordinances restricting his religious practices relating to the use of animals.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Oct 31, 2014 8:33:49 GMT -5
2009 - United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless. The court ruled that the Merced case of the freedom of exercise of religion was meritorious and prevailing and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas, from enforcing its ordinances restricting his religious practices relating to the use of animals. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans had no right to use hallucinogenic drugs in the practice of their religion, because the law that prohibited their use had a clear secular purpose and applied to the entire population, 1st amendment or no. (Ironically, it was Antonin Scalia who wrote that opinion and phrased those rules. He then overturned his own ruling and logic in the Hobby Lobby case, without hesitation.)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 31, 2014 9:11:26 GMT -5
2009 - United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless. The court ruled that the Merced case of the freedom of exercise of religion was meritorious and prevailing and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas, from enforcing its ordinances restricting his religious practices relating to the use of animals. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans had no right to use hallucinogenic drugs in the practice of their religion, because the law that prohibited their use had a clear secular purpose and applied to the entire population, 1st amendment or no. (Ironically, it was Antonin Scalia who wrote that opinion and phrased those rules. He then overturned his own ruling and logic in the Hobby Lobby case, without hesitation.) Probably because forcing someone to pay for someone else's birth control doesn't have the same "clear secular purpose" cachet.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Oct 31, 2014 18:16:13 GMT -5
Probably because forcing someone to pay for someone else's birth control doesn't have the same "clear secular purpose" cachet. If you are obligated by law to provide health insurance, you are obligated to pay for lots of "someone else's" whatever. But no one else gets to pick and choose what they want to pay for. And your comment abandons the constitutional argument entirely. Scalia's ruling banned an aspect of the actual PRACTICE of a religious ceremony, much the same as a law potentially prohibiting the consumption of wine would target the Catholic Mass. Entirely different than simply providing the compensation for an employees labor that they are legally entitled to.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2014 18:35:25 GMT -5
That's called slavery.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 3, 2014 7:41:40 GMT -5
Probably because forcing someone to pay for someone else's birth control doesn't have the same "clear secular purpose" cachet. If you are obligated by law to provide health insurance, you are obligated to pay for lots of "someone else's" whatever. But no one else gets to pick and choose what they want to pay for. And your comment abandons the constitutional argument entirely. Scalia's ruling banned an aspect of the actual PRACTICE of a religious ceremony, much the same as a law potentially prohibiting the consumption of wine would target the Catholic Mass. Entirely different than simply providing the compensation for an employees labor that they are legally entitled to. Hmmmmm......... You'd think that if that were true, the best and brightest of the governments lawyers would have brought it up. Or maybe they did and it wasn't convincing. Hmmmmmm.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 11:02:48 GMT -5
The right to political speech, from the pulpit etc., is reserved for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharptongue, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton.
|
|