Yeah, the fact that you basically need to be a Christian to even 'qualify' to become a politician in 80%+ of the country is.. yeah.
People in this country are more religious than probably anywhere else in the Western world. I don't think that wanting people who share your values to represent you politically is a bad thing.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
Anyone, even elected officials have the right to practice whatever religious belief they choose. However, an elected official ignoring the people and forcing the agenda of the church he attends is a big no-no.
Separation of Church and State is not synonymous with separation of religion and State.
Thomas Jefferson would disagree.
And I think a great first step we can take when it comes to separating church & state a bit more in our public lives would be to strip religious groups of their 501(c)(3) status; as it stands now, they have all sorts of restrictions on the type of speech they're allowed to engage in that are basically ignored; I'd like to get the government out of the business of monitoring religious speech.
See, I like the theory behind this idea, but then I imagine someone trying to build a temple or a mosque or something in a fundie town and getting taxed into oblivion by a xenophobic government. That and a lot of small poor churches would have a hard time making ends meet.
I see zero problem with taxing churches bigger than x-number of people, though.
That would be unconstitutional in its own right same to arbitrary zoning restrictions. For instance, we cannot pull a Switzerland and legally ban minarets. We could ban towers, we could ban any new construction in the historic district which just happens to be the size and shape of the United States, &c. but any ban on particular building types or designs would run afoul of the first amendment. This holds true to tax policy as well.
What's more, since most churches perform charitable works almost all of them would be able to get tax exempt status again on that basis rather than proving to the IRS that they're a church. Which is itself kind of fucked up. Basically the only downside to this is that people would freak out and not understand what it actually means but instead what they imagine it means.
The reason its good Carrot is it keeps government from having all the influence that comes with writing tax policy over religious institutions, and it keeps mega churches and the like from having the sway that being such a large chunk of revenue for the government would give them.
*bitter laughter* You think they don't already run a lot of shit even with a Democrat in office?
Yeah, the fact that you basically need to be a Christian to even 'qualify' to become a politician in 80%+ of the country is.. yeah.
People in this country are more religious than probably anywhere else in the Western world. I don't think that wanting people who share your values to represent you politically is a bad thing.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
The thing is, they seperate the two. Being pro-life and being christian are two seperate things that a candidate must have.
Do you really think the right would support an openly atheist pro-lifer?
Your religion has nothing to do with your ability to operate in office, yet it sinks campaigns all the time.
It's not just about holding particular views on issues like abortion. An atheist who had concluded abortion is wrong or that marriage is only one man and one woman would still have a tough time connecting culturally with religious people.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Ross, the First Amendment isn't "the very first words that began the design of our nation". The main body of the Constitution might qualify, though, depending on how you look at it.
Yeah, he has a lot of things that are backwards, upside down, or just plain wrong. The overall point is interesting, though.
The reason its good Carrot is it keeps government from having all the influence that comes with writing tax policy over religious institutions, and it keeps mega churches and the like from having the sway that being such a large chunk of revenue for the government would give them.
*bitter laughter* You think they don't already run a lot of shit even with a Democrat in office?
The reason its good Carrot is it keeps government from having all the influence that comes with writing tax policy over religious institutions, and it keeps mega churches and the like from having the sway that being such a large chunk of revenue for the government would give them.
*bitter laughter* You think they don't already run a lot of shit even with a Democrat in office?
So your solution is to give them more influence?
I also don't think that them paying taxes would affect their influence at all. I mean, the wealthy and large corporations don't have lots of power because they pay most of the taxes, they have power because they have enormous amounts of money. Tax revenue is irrelevant.
Yeah, the fact that you basically need to be a Christian to even 'qualify' to become a politician in 80%+ of the country is.. yeah.
People in this country are more religious than probably anywhere else in the Western world. I don't think that wanting people who share your values to represent you politically is a bad thing.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
The thing is, they seperate the two. Being pro-life and being christian are two seperate things that a candidate must have.
Do you really think the right would support an openly atheist pro-lifer?
Your religion has nothing to do with your ability to operate in office, yet it sinks campaigns all the time.
It's not just about holding particular views on issues like abortion. An atheist who had concluded abortion is wrong or that marriage is only one man and one woman would still have a tough time connecting culturally with religious people.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
And thats a problem similair to not wanting a guy in office because he's "too intellectual". People are basing their choice for president on things that have nothing to do with his/her ability to perform the tasks required.
The reason its good Carrot is it keeps government from having all the influence that comes with writing tax policy over religious institutions, and it keeps mega churches and the like from having the sway that being such a large chunk of revenue for the government would give them.
*bitter laughter* You think they don't already run a lot of shit even with a Democrat in office?
So your solution is to give them more influence?
I also don't think that them paying taxes would affect their influence at all. I mean, the wealthy and large corporations don't have lots of power because they pay most of the taxes, they have power because they have enormous amounts of money. Tax revenue is irrelevant.
This may or may not be so, but you're ignoring the church's rights here.
It's not just about holding particular views on issues like abortion. An atheist who had concluded abortion is wrong or that marriage is only one man and one woman would still have a tough time connecting culturally with religious people.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
He's making this up, isn't he? It sounds like, standing lone in some throwback to a 12th century thorp, is The Lord's Astrodome.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
A decent chance if the conservatives didn't actively push them away.
I think the percentage of atheists who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage is vanishingly small.
And, from the perspective of a religious person, why would you vote for someone who considers your worldview to be, at best, misguided and wrong?
You're painting with some extremely broad brushes here. By your own stated reasoning a Protestant shouldn't vote for a Catholic, Christians shouldn't vote for Jews, &c. yet they do all the time. I understand your broader point that winning an election requires 50+1% of the vote and as such can require all manner of random beliefs in order to appease that many voters which wouldn't run afoul of any laws or constitutional requirements, but you're making it in a rather convoluted way.
Yeah, the fact that you basically need to be a Christian to even 'qualify' to become a politician in 80%+ of the country is.. yeah.
People in this country are more religious than probably anywhere else in the Western world. I don't think that wanting people who share your values to represent you politically is a bad thing.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
The thing is, they seperate the two. Being pro-life and being christian are two seperate things that a candidate must have.
Do you really think the right would support an openly atheist pro-lifer?
Your religion has nothing to do with your ability to operate in office, yet it sinks campaigns all the time.
It's not just about holding particular views on issues like abortion. An atheist who had concluded abortion is wrong or that marriage is only one man and one woman would still have a tough time connecting culturally with religious people.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
And thats a problem similair to not wanting a guy in office because he's "too intellectual". People are basing their choice for president on things that have nothing to do with his/her ability to perform the tasks required.
That's one perspective.
But, for many religious people, a certain viewpoint is a crucial part of doing the tasks required of a politician.
Once the religious background of a politician starts to differ too much from that of the voter, they're less likely to pull the lever for that politician. A fundamentalist might vote for a pious Catholic or an Orthodox Jew, but would be less likely to vote for a Muslim or atheist. And this goes both ways. I doubt many atheists would vote for a pious Catholic or an Orthodox Jew.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I may well have done so. I don't look at a politician's religious beliefs, I merely consider the positions on various issues. For all I know, whoever ran against Tom Davis in 2006 was Catholic.
Yeah, the fact that you basically need to be a Christian to even 'qualify' to become a politician in 80%+ of the country is.. yeah.
People in this country are more religious than probably anywhere else in the Western world. I don't think that wanting people who share your values to represent you politically is a bad thing.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
The thing is, they seperate the two. Being pro-life and being christian are two seperate things that a candidate must have.
Do you really think the right would support an openly atheist pro-lifer?
Your religion has nothing to do with your ability to operate in office, yet it sinks campaigns all the time.
It's not just about holding particular views on issues like abortion. An atheist who had concluded abortion is wrong or that marriage is only one man and one woman would still have a tough time connecting culturally with religious people.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
I think it'd be hard for a normal person to accurately represent the American equivalent of the people protesting against not executing blasphemers in Pakistan, but reasonable people of different belief systems can absolutely work together / lead each other / etc.
Frankly, people who wouldn't vote for a reasonable person of a different religion are dangerous, in my view. They undermine the unification of this nation and pretty much universally hold very dangerous notions.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
A decent chance if the conservatives didn't actively push them away.
I think the percentage of atheists who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage is vanishingly small.
And, from the perspective of a religious person, why would you vote for someone who considers your worldview to be, at best, misguided and wrong?
Anti-gay marriage is this century's pro-segregation movement. People electing based on it are morally wrong, legally wrong (insofar as I think it conflicts with a reasonable reading of the Constitution), and honest history will look upon them very poorly.
It's not just about holding particular views on issues like abortion. An atheist who had concluded abortion is wrong or that marriage is only one man and one woman would still have a tough time connecting culturally with religious people.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
He's making this up, isn't he? It sounds like, standing lone in some throwback to a 12th century thorp, is The Lord's Astrodome.
Sadly, no. The idea is that the members are insulated from secular society because the church provides all the trappings.
Yeah, the fact that you basically need to be a Christian to even 'qualify' to become a politician in 80%+ of the country is.. yeah.
People in this country are more religious than probably anywhere else in the Western world. I don't think that wanting people who share your values to represent you politically is a bad thing.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
there's no probably about it.
Spain/Italy?
The US is more actively religious than both of those - less than a third of Spanish or Italians regularly attend church, which is slightly less than the 40% of Americans that reportedly do so. Both Spain and Italy allow homosexuals to serve in their militaries, and Spain recognises same sex couples (Italy doesn't), and both have looser abortion laws than some parts of the US.
What I find disturbing is religion's influence on our politics, best stated in this article. Pastors wield entirely too much power when they can get 1000+ people to believe God will send them to Hell for voting for Clinton.
How far can a church go to get it's tax exempt status revoked?
What I find disturbing is religion's influence on our politics, best stated in this article. Pastors wield entirely too much power when they can get 1000+ people to believe God will send them to Hell for voting for Clinton.
How far can a church go to get it's tax exempt status revoked?
Currently, it's an active endorsement of a specific political candidate.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
A decent chance if the conservatives didn't actively push them away.
I think the percentage of atheists who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage is vanishingly small.
And, from the perspective of a religious person, why would you vote for someone who considers your worldview to be, at best, misguided and wrong?
Anti-gay marriage is this century's pro-segregation movement. People electing based on it are morally wrong, legally wrong (insofar as I think it conflicts with a reasonable reading of the Constitution), and honest history will look upon them very poorly.
Feel free to use that as your stump speech in an area with high church attendance and tell me how it goes.
You see you're making my point for me, right?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
A decent chance if the conservatives didn't actively push them away.
I think the percentage of atheists who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage is vanishingly small.
And, from the perspective of a religious person, why would you vote for someone who considers your worldview to be, at best, misguided and wrong?
Anti-gay marriage is this century's pro-segregation movement. People electing based on it are morally wrong, legally wrong (insofar as I think it conflicts with a reasonable reading of the Constitution), and honest history will look upon them very poorly.
Feel free to use that as your stump speech in an area with high church attendance and tell me how it goes.
You see you're making my point for me, right?
You do know why the Southern Baptists came into being, right?
What I find disturbing is religion's influence on our politics, best stated in this article. Pastors wield entirely too much power when they can get 1000+ people to believe God will send them to Hell for voting for Clinton.
How far can a church go to get it's tax exempt status revoked?
Currently, it's an active endorsement of a specific political candidate.
How do they enforce that? And is that the only thing?
I mean there was a big deal here in California with the Mormon church donating a metric fuckload of money to the "Yes on 8" people, was that actually legal?
What I find disturbing is religion's influence on our politics, best stated in this article. Pastors wield entirely too much power when they can get 1000+ people to believe God will send them to Hell for voting for Clinton.
How far can a church go to get it's tax exempt status revoked?
Currently, it's an active endorsement of a specific political candidate.
How do they enforce that? And is that the only thing?
I mean there was a big deal here in California with the Mormon church donating a metric fuckload of money to the "Yes on 8" people, was that actually legal?
Not really, but the courts either ignored it or slapped them on the wrist, IIRC.
What I find disturbing is religion's influence on our politics, best stated in this article. Pastors wield entirely too much power when they can get 1000+ people to believe God will send them to Hell for voting for Clinton.
How far can a church go to get it's tax exempt status revoked?
Currently, it's an active endorsement of a specific political candidate.
How do they enforce that? And is that the only thing?
I mean there was a big deal here in California with the Mormon church donating a metric fuckload of money to the "Yes on 8" people, was that actually legal?
Not really, but the courts either ignored it or slapped them on the wrist, IIRC.
And if the IRS decided to go after the Mormon Church's tax-exempt status, Orrin Hatch would hold the arms of the chief of the IRS while Mike Lee repeatedly kicked him in the balls, then they'd switch.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It's not just about holding particular views on issues like abortion. An atheist who had concluded abortion is wrong or that marriage is only one man and one woman would still have a tough time connecting culturally with religious people.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
He's making this up, isn't he? It sounds like, standing lone in some throwback to a 12th century thorp, is The Lord's Astrodome.
Sadly, no. The idea is that the members are insulated from secular society because the church provides all the trappings.
So less about meeting the demands of its members via expanded services, and more to alienate them from everything outside the church. Thanks.
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
It's not just about holding particular views on issues like abortion. An atheist who had concluded abortion is wrong or that marriage is only one man and one woman would still have a tough time connecting culturally with religious people.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
He's making this up, isn't he? It sounds like, standing lone in some throwback to a 12th century thorp, is The Lord's Astrodome.
Sadly, no. The idea is that the members are insulated from secular society because the church provides all the trappings.
So less about meeting the demands of its members via expanded services, and more to alienate them from everything outside the church. Thanks.
That's not really accurate. In a lot of the sprawling suburbs in the US, there isn't really any other point of focus for the community. There's no real downtown and the housing developments aren't really designed with any sort of center where people can gather.
The only place where a lot of people can gather and have a sense of community are the churches. So, it's not surprising that they've become the center for more than just religious activities. If that's not your thing in a community like that, you'll often find yourself on the fringe of the community.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
Not to mention that the same laws that allow churches to avoid paying taxes as long as they don't actively participate in electoral politics are the same ones that allow secular non-profit groups to do likewise.
If you change those laws to allow taxation of churches, then secular groups would have to be taxed as well.
Or you could suggest a law where religious groups could be taxed but not secular ones, but then there's that pesky First Amendment again.
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
So you're just going to completely ignore the arguments that have been promoted and rely entirely on the basis of status quo bias?
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
So you're just going to completely ignore the arguments that have been promoted and rely entirely on the basis of status quo bias?
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
I'm not really convinced it's fair at all. If the government were to deny tax exempt status to religious organizations, there'd be a huge outcry, even if that action was necessitated (by, say, a religious organization's support of a specific candidate).
I mean, the polling location for a precint where I live used to be in a Catholic church which routinely put out signs supporting specific candidates within 20 feet of the door (in violation of a state law regarding polling locales) with absolutely no repercussion (until the polling location was changed). That sort of thing is completely absurd.
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
I'm not really convinced it's fair at all. If the government were to deny tax exempt status to religious organizations, there'd be a huge outcry, even if that action was necessitated (by, say, a religious organization's support of a specific candidate).
I mean, the polling location for a precint where I live used to be in a Catholic church which routinely put out signs supporting specific candidates within 20 feet of the door (in violation of a state law regarding polling locales) with absolutely no repercussion (until the polling location was changed). That sort of thing is completely absurd.
Hey if a church wants to get in politics then they can be treated like a political organization, I have no problem with that, and I think the tax-exempt status of churchs needs to be challenged more. The mormon church goes way over the line for instance, or the Catholic church, which routinely bullies governments.
So you're saying it's a matter of enforcement. Which means nothing will change and the situation will continue to be shitty.
Whats your solution? Remove the tax exempt status of all churchs? That's a shit road and you know it. Not to mention that would mean removing the tax exempt status of a lot of charities.
I do think that more appropriate enforcement would seem warranted and would certainly be a good thing, but I haven't the faintest idea how you'd bring the political pressure necessary to force that kind of change. Take the case with the Mormon church and Prop 8. Who has the standing to... fine them for that? What is the punishment even supposed to be?
Posts
Spain/Italy?
That would be unconstitutional in its own right same to arbitrary zoning restrictions. For instance, we cannot pull a Switzerland and legally ban minarets. We could ban towers, we could ban any new construction in the historic district which just happens to be the size and shape of the United States, &c. but any ban on particular building types or designs would run afoul of the first amendment. This holds true to tax policy as well.
What's more, since most churches perform charitable works almost all of them would be able to get tax exempt status again on that basis rather than proving to the IRS that they're a church. Which is itself kind of fucked up. Basically the only downside to this is that people would freak out and not understand what it actually means but instead what they imagine it means.
In large parts of this country, religion is very much a part of everyday culture. The large mega-churches serve as sort of a community nexus. In addition to religious activities like services, Sunday school and Bible study, they also offer things like Christian singles groups, sports leagues, youth groups and the like.
If you're running for office in a place where that is the norm, you are going to have a very hard time if you're not part of that culture.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah, he has a lot of things that are backwards, upside down, or just plain wrong. The overall point is interesting, though.
So your solution is to give them more influence?
I also don't think that them paying taxes would affect their influence at all. I mean, the wealthy and large corporations don't have lots of power because they pay most of the taxes, they have power because they have enormous amounts of money. Tax revenue is irrelevant.
And, from the perspective of a religious person, why would you vote for someone who considers your worldview to be, at best, misguided and wrong?
Rigorous Scholarship
And thats a problem similair to not wanting a guy in office because he's "too intellectual". People are basing their choice for president on things that have nothing to do with his/her ability to perform the tasks required.
Isn't that also true of other denominations of religious people, though? I mean, why should a Christian vote for a Jew?
This may or may not be so, but you're ignoring the church's rights here.
He's making this up, isn't he? It sounds like, standing lone in some throwback to a 12th century thorp, is The Lord's Astrodome.
You're painting with some extremely broad brushes here. By your own stated reasoning a Protestant shouldn't vote for a Catholic, Christians shouldn't vote for Jews, &c. yet they do all the time. I understand your broader point that winning an election requires 50+1% of the vote and as such can require all manner of random beliefs in order to appease that many voters which wouldn't run afoul of any laws or constitutional requirements, but you're making it in a rather convoluted way.
But, for many religious people, a certain viewpoint is a crucial part of doing the tasks required of a politician.
Once the religious background of a politician starts to differ too much from that of the voter, they're less likely to pull the lever for that politician. A fundamentalist might vote for a pious Catholic or an Orthodox Jew, but would be less likely to vote for a Muslim or atheist. And this goes both ways. I doubt many atheists would vote for a pious Catholic or an Orthodox Jew.
Rigorous Scholarship
I think it'd be hard for a normal person to accurately represent the American equivalent of the people protesting against not executing blasphemers in Pakistan, but reasonable people of different belief systems can absolutely work together / lead each other / etc.
Frankly, people who wouldn't vote for a reasonable person of a different religion are dangerous, in my view. They undermine the unification of this nation and pretty much universally hold very dangerous notions.
Anti-gay marriage is this century's pro-segregation movement. People electing based on it are morally wrong, legally wrong (insofar as I think it conflicts with a reasonable reading of the Constitution), and honest history will look upon them very poorly.
Sadly, no. The idea is that the members are insulated from secular society because the church provides all the trappings.
The US is more actively religious than both of those - less than a third of Spanish or Italians regularly attend church, which is slightly less than the 40% of Americans that reportedly do so. Both Spain and Italy allow homosexuals to serve in their militaries, and Spain recognises same sex couples (Italy doesn't), and both have looser abortion laws than some parts of the US.
How far can a church go to get it's tax exempt status revoked?
Currently, it's an active endorsement of a specific political candidate.
You see you're making my point for me, right?
Rigorous Scholarship
You do know why the Southern Baptists came into being, right?
Rigorous Scholarship
How do they enforce that? And is that the only thing?
I mean there was a big deal here in California with the Mormon church donating a metric fuckload of money to the "Yes on 8" people, was that actually legal?
That the Religious Right has a history.of defending the.indefensible. I really should post the "goo-goo conservatives" speech again.
Not really, but the courts either ignored it or slapped them on the wrist, IIRC.
Rigorous Scholarship
So less about meeting the demands of its members via expanded services, and more to alienate them from everything outside the church. Thanks.
There's a right for church's to be separate from government and visa versa. So to that end the government won't tax churches if they don't use the pulpit to move politics. Its a good arrangement. Its a fair arrangement.
The only place where a lot of people can gather and have a sense of community are the churches. So, it's not surprising that they've become the center for more than just religious activities. If that's not your thing in a community like that, you'll often find yourself on the fringe of the community.
Rigorous Scholarship
Not to mention that the same laws that allow churches to avoid paying taxes as long as they don't actively participate in electoral politics are the same ones that allow secular non-profit groups to do likewise.
If you change those laws to allow taxation of churches, then secular groups would have to be taxed as well.
Or you could suggest a law where religious groups could be taxed but not secular ones, but then there's that pesky First Amendment again.
So you're just going to completely ignore the arguments that have been promoted and rely entirely on the basis of status quo bias?
I've seen no argument counter.
I'm not really convinced it's fair at all. If the government were to deny tax exempt status to religious organizations, there'd be a huge outcry, even if that action was necessitated (by, say, a religious organization's support of a specific candidate).
I mean, the polling location for a precint where I live used to be in a Catholic church which routinely put out signs supporting specific candidates within 20 feet of the door (in violation of a state law regarding polling locales) with absolutely no repercussion (until the polling location was changed). That sort of thing is completely absurd.
Hey if a church wants to get in politics then they can be treated like a political organization, I have no problem with that, and I think the tax-exempt status of churchs needs to be challenged more. The mormon church goes way over the line for instance, or the Catholic church, which routinely bullies governments.
Whats your solution? Remove the tax exempt status of all churchs? That's a shit road and you know it. Not to mention that would mean removing the tax exempt status of a lot of charities.