Something the American gov't has yet to understand...

[dcmdale]

No. I just think they should have to pay taxes and file as PACs.

So lets take this out of the context of Linda doesn't like fundies. Under this reasoning we probably would never have had the Civil Rights movement. We probably would not have Obama. We likely wouldn't have anything that depends on the black church or social justice preaching. Take away the activities of all those who have Rev. before their names or organized or agitated for justice in the churches and you don't have much of a movement.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the southern racists had figured out that they could virtually close down all of the uppitty black churches using the IRS?

BTW--The IRS takes many positions that are not supportable within the law--often even after the Supreme Court has told them that they are wrong. The official IRS position is, of instance, that if you paint your house by yourself, you owe them taxes on what you would have paid a painter. If the IRS doesn't like a decision, they issue a "non-acquiesce" which effectively means that they will abide by the decision in this case, but they don't like it and a future taxpayer is on dangerous ground to rely on the court ruling. The IRS *has* threatened investigation of a number of large churches for "excessive political involvement," but they have not pressed too hard because they know that the current Supreme Court doesn't have anybody that would support them.

[I_luv_saber]

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Actually, that's pretty close to what you said:

This only ok if the activity is led by somebody completely unaffiliated with the church and it just happens to be a meeting place.

If it is only okay to start political activism and exercise your right to protest (or what have you) if you are "completely unaffiliated with the church", then that is suppressing the rights of those that are affiliated with the church! They have just as much right as you, I, or anybody to exercise those rights. If you are saying a particular group of people cannot do that, that is very clear discrimination.

I'm advocating suppressing running the government on religion, which is what has happened since Carter took office!

The counter-argument to that is that isn't really being done. The only real leg to stand on there is issue of gay marriage, since that seems to be almost entirely a religious issue. But that's a situation that is in the middle of being sorted out, and is far from having been played out completely yet.

I would be in favour of banning religion, but that's a separate issue...

So many things wrong with this I don't even know where to start.

1) Who are you (or anyone for that matter) to say how I must or must not believe? This is akin to thoughtcrime and Big Brother.
2) Who would decide what does and does not count as a religion and what does or does not count as a philosophy?
3) The power to abuse this would be nearly infinite.

I can't possibly see how any of these hurdles could be overcome and I must fundamentally disagree that this is even remotely a good idea or even morally right (by religious or non-religious standards).

Not to mention it is completely against the Constitution as well as "Separation of Church and State" since it is the elimination of church and government encroaching on the church.

[Inquartata]

issues in their law making that they really shouldn't be deciding about at all.

You mean, like interfering in the private economy and providing special benefits to married people?

... and I wanna see the moose!

*bing* And so you shall!

"When I was a young lad I used to like girls,
I'd play with their corsets and fondle their curls.
'Till one day, my lady I caught with some churl,
Now you'd never get treated that way by a moose.

Chorus
Moose, moose, I likes a moose,
I've never had anything quite like a moose.
I've had lots of lovers, my life has been loose,
But I've never had anything quite like a moose.

Now when I'm in mood for a very good lay,
I go to my closet and get me some hay.
I go to my window and spread it around.
'Cause moose always come when there's hay on the ground.

Chorus...

Gorillas are all right on Saturday night,
Lions and tigers, they puts up a fight.
But it's just not the same when you slam your caboose,
As the feeling you get when you humps with a moose.

Chorus

I've done it with beasties with long flowing hair,
I'd do it with snakes if their fangs were not there.
I've done it with walrus, a monkey, and goose,
But it's just not the same when you screw with a moose.

Chorus

Now that I am old and advanced in my years,
I look back on my life and shed me no tears.
As I sit in my chair with my glass of Matheus,
Playing Hide-The-Salami with Melba the Moose."

[jeff]

Wow! I'll never look at Bullwinkle the same way again....

[Inquartata]

It is with some trepidation that I await Magic Moose's discovery of that post...

[jeff]

'Tis Pity She's a Moose...

[Rockstar44]

It's called "separation of church and state". I believe it's in the constitution.

Common misconception. Actually, it's not. I believe it came from Jefferson first, in a letter to a constituent (?).

Yes it was. And, in fact, the context was to prevent the government from meddling with religion, not the other way around.

I am always amazed at how many people think that this is part of the Constitution. Of course, this idea is actually taught in the public schools. Folks love to trot this phrase out to supposedly support their agenda, yet they obviously know little about the document. I suppose that you would have to actually read the thing to know what it really says....

[I_luv_saber]

Yes it was. And, in fact, the context was to prevent the government from meddling with religion, not the other way around.

Either way, I think it's not one or the other, it's a two way street. The idea is to keep from having the church evolve into a state religion so that 1) Religion does not play a direct role in government and 2) As you say, so government does not interfere with others practicing their religion.

It's meant to both protect government AND protect religion.

[lindajdunn]

So lets take this out of the context of Linda doesn't like fundies. Under this reasoning we probably would never have had the Civil Rights movement.

I disagree. While the Civil Rights movement owes much to the organization of the black church, they could (and did) organize in other ways and in other places.

[dcmdale]

I disagree. While the Civil Rights movement owes much to the organization of the black church, they could (and did) organize in other ways and in other places.

Examples of comparable places that provided similar freedom to meet, organize, and develop leadership consistently where open proclamation of social injustice was (mostly) tolerated by the white community? If I am wrong, educate me.

The main question though that I am putting to you is whether it is acceptable to you that politically active (and poor) black churches could have been suppressed during the Civil Rights era by state tax authorities because of their political activities when the "non-political" racist, rich white church next door continued to have a tax exempt status? Political involvement is a theological requirement of many (though certainly not all) Christian denominations: more liberal than conservative.

[dcmdale]

Either way, I think it's not one or the other, it's a two way street. The idea is to keep from having the church evolve into a state religion so that 1) Religion does not play a direct role in government and 2) As you say, so government does not interfere with others practicing their religion.

It's meant to both protect government AND protect religion.

This confuses me. The 1st Amendment prohibits the United States from having an "established" church. (It does not prohibit states from having established churches, and many did into the 1800's). The historic goal of the Establishment clause was to prevent Federal interference with the historical state ties to different religious denominations. In 1939, the Supreme Court, as part of a FDR initiative to erode state's rights (you will remember that while FDR didn't get his "packed" court, he eventually was able to pick "suitable" justices through longevity in office and was able to reverse all of the states rights rulings from his early administration), decided that the 14th amendment applied the 1st amendment to the states. It also prohibited the (federal) government from interference in the free exercise of religion.

I am not sure that I see anything that somehow protects the government from the churches. Revolutionary era churches were heavily political.

[lindajdunn]

Examples of comparable places that provided similar freedom to meet, organize, and develop leadership consistently where open proclamation of social injustice was (mostly) tolerated by the white community? If I am wrong, educate me.

Paschal's restaurant in Atlanta, GA. is one well-known location.
Community centers [note communities formed patrols to prevent the locations being burned to the ground.
Theresa hotel in NY.
Highlander Folk House
Koinonia Farm

I note that the white community didn't exactly tolerate meetings, even in black churches. Some were burned because meetings were held there.

The main question though that I am putting to you is whether it is acceptable to you that politically active (and poor) black churches could have been suppressed during the Civil Rights era by state tax authorities because of their political activities when the "non-political" racist, rich white church next door continued to have a tax exempt status?

Yes. Has it occurred to you that there was absolutely NOTHING preventing this from having occurred? Of course, violence was probably more effective for the racist whites in the church next door.

[dcmdale]

Paschal's restaurant in Atlanta, GA. is one well-known location.
Community centers [note communities formed patrols to prevent the locations being burned to the ground.
Theresa hotel in NY.
Highlander Folk House
Koinonia Farm

I note that the white community didn't exactly tolerate meetings, even in black churches. Some were burned because meetings were held there.

Koinonia and Highlander are both church affiliated. They are far older and dwarf, in my estimation, Pascal's and Theresa in their influence on the Civil Rights movements. Highlander owes its beginnings to Presbyterian Vacation Bible School in the early 1930's and became a leading center of social gospel theology. Rosa Park and MLK Jr. both had affliations. Koinonia was built on "New Testament Pacifism" in 1942 and, in addition to its role in the Civil Rights movement, it was the birthplace of Habitat for Humanity.

Toleration is relative. There are tens of thousands of Black churches throughout the South that meet every Sunday--many of them since slave days. Most of those churches meet every Sunday without opposition. In the part of the country I live in, older white churches invariably have a black church a couple hundred yards down the road and that goes back to racist beliefs that meant that they didn't want blacks in their churches. Absolutely, there are counter-examples to the tolerance.

Yes. Has it occurred to you that there was absolutely NOTHING preventing this from having occurred? Of course, violence was probably more effective for the racist whites in the church next door.

Nothing other than a fundamental belief that prohibited government interferrence in churches. The use of tax law as a hammer to influence religion belief and activity didn't come until later.

[dcmdale]

I have never made a secret on f.net that I am a fundamentalist though some of the people who have joined in the last couple of years may have missed that. That fact together with my frequent defense on f.net of the rights of certain elements of right wing fundamentalism to their beliefs and their right to advocate for their beliefs in political forums has confused people into believing that I am part of the latter group.

I very much believe in religious freedom. This includes the right to belief (or not) what one believes in and act in accordance with those beliefs. It also includes a right not to have other beliefs shoved down one’s throat either by adherents of another system or by government. I believe this both as a matter of legal philosophy and my own theology (that is, if being a Christian is a freely made choice, coercion defeats that). While I complain about the Supreme Court trampling the Constitution, I would happily see the first amendment language adopted universally in the states (and it may well be, I have not looked); however, that is also consistent with my religious beliefs.

Frankly, while most Americans would claim to accept the principles of religious freedom, they want their own beliefs to be “first among equals.” However, beyond that, there are widely held belief systems and legal philosophies that don’t support the concept of religious freedom. The pagan Roman philosophies around jus divinum placed the state as guardian of public morals, a notion that became intertwined with Catholic (and subsequently Lutheran and Reformed) theology. Jus divinum also influenced non-Christian legal thinkers, such as Jefferson, who were seeking to disentangle the roles of church and state, but who believed that there was a role for the state in enforcing moral decency. Other Christian denominations, without the historic ties to the state church, have strong beliefs around being a positive influence (whatever they mean by that) within society—including politically.

You cannot have free exercise of religion without freedom to translate religious belief (or unbelief) into political belief/advocacy/action.

The establishment clause exists to prevent minority beliefs/unbeliefs from political power wielded by another belief/unbelief system. Freedom of religion means that the religious right (whoever they are) has the right to advocate for prayer in schools. They have a right to vote for people sympathetic to their views. They have a right to advocate for a change to the constitution. Under the current constitution, they do not have a right to *have* prayer in schools. (And I personally would not like to see it). An Islamic group has a right to advocate for Sharia. Atheists can advocate that Christians not be allowed in public office. As a fundamentalist, I do not advocate for changes in high school science texts (although High School American Lit texts are something else), religious displays on public property, or many of the other political positions often attributed to fundamentalists, but I absolutely support the right of other fundamentalists to advocate their beliefs.

Gray areas where politics, legal activism, and election results have great influence:
1. To what extent is it the responsibility of the state to limit attempts to proselytize? Does the state have an obligation to create a cocoon around you so that you don’t have to deal with unwanted beliefs or is it required to take a hands off approach or something in-between?
2.Are local differences allowed? The original understanding of the constitution allowed for religious communities (and irreligious communities). As I have related before, my patronymic ancestors had “different” beliefs about sexual morality and spent most of the 1600’s and 1700’s in America trying to get as far away from the Puritan church as possible. They were among the first settlers of 4 states as a result. When they finally stopped, it was in an area where the community belief was that Puritan morality really wasn’t welcome. Allowed?
3.Not all moral legislation is being pushed through by recognizable religious organizations. In fact, most moral legislation has support from a variety of religious, non-religious, social religious, and other sources reflecting the collective moral sensibility of the community. Assigning a “this is a religious law” tag to particular legislation is usually tough. Laws can almost invariably be supported by non-religious considerations regardless of underlying motivation.

[Phaeton]

No. I just think they should have to pay taxes and file as PACs.

If we assume A: the government likes money and wants to increase its revenue (Which has historically proven to be generally true. The size of government has only grown throughout the history of the US, as have taxes revenues as well as expenditures)

And if we assume B: The amount of money a religious "PAC" would have would be based on the constituency and size of the religion.

Then we can say that it would be in the government's best interests to foster religious participation so that they could make more money on taxes.

This to me is a very, very scary idea.

It becomes in the country's interest for its citizens to become more and more religious. If one religion is more popular in a given region it may lead towards near exclusive support. And that would violate the establishment clause.

[keith]

In 1939, the Supreme Court, as part of a FDR initiative to erode state's rights (you will remember that while FDR didn't get his "packed" court, he eventually was able to pick "suitable" justices through longevity in office and was able to reverse all of the states rights rulings from his early administration), decided that the 14th amendment applied the 1st amendment to the states.

How exactly could he erode something that did not exist? The states simply behaved in an unconstitutional manner up until they where corrected via the, eventual, arrival of the constitutional process .

You cannot have free exercise of religion without freedom to translate religious belief (or unbelief) into political belief/advocacy/action.

That does of course depend upon the nature of your religious conviction. It is unclear, to me, why religious conviction, as opposed to simple political conviction, should be treated differently by the tax code.

As to historical questions, we might raise a parallel with other laws that are justified as being needed 'back then' but are quite superfluous, or even unconstitutional, today.

Nothing other than a fundamental belief that prohibited government interferrence in churches. The use of tax law as a hammer to influence religion belief and activity didn't come until later.

While the use of tax law may be a later development, the first part strikes me as an artificial construction.

[dcmdale]

How exactly could he erode something that did not exist? The states simply behaved in an unconstitutional manner up until they where corrected via the, eventual, arrival of the constitutional process .
...
That does of course depend upon the nature of your religious conviction. It is unclear, to me, why religious conviction, as opposed to simple political conviction, should be treated differently by the tax code.
...
As to historical questions, we might raise a parallel with other laws that are justified as being needed 'back then' but are quite superfluous, or even unconstitutional, today.
...
While the use of tax law may be a later development, the first part strikes me as an artificial construction.

Not sure how much of this was intended as snarky comment vs. discussion.

To Linda's position, I wasn't really intended to discuss whether regulation/taxation of political/religious speech is permitted or to what degree, but rather whether regulation/taxation of one brand over another is acceptable.

I am not willing to cut ties between modern constitutional law and the document itself.

[lindajdunn]

If we assume A: the government likes money and wants to increase its revenue (Which has historically proven to be generally true. The size of government has only grown throughout the history of the US, as have taxes revenues as well as expenditures)

I'll agree with this assumption.

And if we assume B: The amount of money a religious "PAC" would have would be based on the constituency and size of the religion.

I do not agree with this assumption. There are many variables that come into play regarding the amount of money a religious "PAC" would have.

[Phaeton]

Just because there are a number of factors does not mean that those two would perhaps be the most influential. An even scarier scenario is one that a government begins to endorse a religion because its members have just the right qualities to give to a PAC.

Political support could come for religious groups that have a kind of mandatory PAC tithing.

[lindajdunn]

An even scarier scenario is one that a government begins to endorse a religion because its members have just the right qualities to give to a PAC.

We've already had the equivalent of this under the Bush administration, imho.