I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

[rotorgun]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

....for the love of money is the root of all evil. (Proverbs I think) I believe that Lemur has gotten to the absolute bottom of things on this one. That still leaves the main question though. Is this an example of Gay activists trying to use secular law to force a change of Religous priviledge for churches, or is it just another bunch of people (Pecuniary Gays) trying to screw some money out of another group of people (Law breaking Greedy Hypocritical Methodists), who are screwing another group of people (The Tax Payers) out of public funds, with everyone involved proclaiming doing it under the auspices of a worthy cause? (Whew...had to take a breath there!)

Wretched indeed!

[Adrian II]

....for the love of money is the root of all evil. (Proverbs I think) I believe that Lemur has gotten to the absolute bottom of things on this one. That still leaves the main question though. Is this an example of Gay activists trying to use secular law to force a change of Religous priviledge for churches, or is it just another bunch of people (Pecuniary Gays) trying to screw some money out of another group of people (Law breaking Greedy Hypocritical Methodists), who are screwing another group of people (The Tax Payers) out of public funds, with everyone involved proclaiming doing it under the auspices of a worthy cause? (Whew...had to take a breath there!)

Wretched indeed!

You mean as a taxpayer you are forced to pay for all the pwnage, screwage and ownage that's going on? Well, I guess that serves you right if you allow your goverment to subsidize religion.

But hey, I feel your pain.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You mean as a taxpayer you are forced to pay for all the pwnage, screwage and ownage that's going on? Well, I guess that serves you right if you allow your goverment to subsidize religion.

But hey, I feel your pain.

The United States "subsidizes religion?" In what way? Through tax credit "vouchers"? Through licensing adoption agencies who do state work? Through creating tax exemptions for churches and charities?

You understand that there is a difference between "subsidizing" not interfering, Adrian.

Any direct subsidies to religious institutions using government money should be questioned and terminated just like any subsidies that havn't been legititimately authorized.

The U.S. doesn't pay money to build Mosques or Churches like our French and Canadian allies.

[Don Corleone]

What Rotorgun and Tuff are failing to grasp is the Orwelian approach to tax-exempt status the left uses. To the left, tax-exempt status, a recognition by the government that they hold no levee power over you, is rephrased as a subsidy to a group by the government. So, by receiving tax exempt status on the beach pavilion, according to this theory, the State of New Jersey is actually 'giving' the tax payment they should receive to the church.

It all stems from where you believe the root of all authority lies. If you believe it lies with the individual, taxation is a levee imposed by a necessary evil, the government. But if you view the government itself as the ultimate authority, and the individuals within it are inherently subordinate, then in fact, taxes are the natural state, and exemptions are gifts. And by the way, you didn't earn a salary last week, the government GAVE you the 55% they didn't take out in taxes.

[Adrian II]

The United States "subsidizes religion?" In what way?

McGruff, my friend, you are not a man of many words, so I am going to be blunt with you. Can you read? If so, read the thread.

[ICantSpellDawg]

McGruff, my friend, you are not a man of many words, so I am going to be blunt with you. Can you read? If so, read the thread.

It is about the fear of the religious institutions being stomped on by a climate of "tolerance at the expense of all". You are suggesting that the U.S. subsidizes religion. There is a substantial difference between a tax break and a subsidy. There is also a big difference between an outside institution doing a paid job for the government and a subsidy.

I've read the first 2 pages of the thread.

[Sigurd]

And by the way, you didn't earn a salary last week, the government GAVE you the 55% they didn't take out in taxes.

100% - 55% = 45% ...
Ouch!! is that from one paycheck?
Any other taxes? (e.g. goods and service, road, fuel, fortune, water & sewer etc.)

[Adrian II]

It is about the fear of the religious institutions being stomped on by a climate of "tolerance at the expense of all". You are suggesting that the U.S. subsidizes religion.

I've read the first 2 pages of the thread.

The Methodist case is revealing. A Church claims its domain is public territory in order to haul in taxpayer pork, then claims it is religious territory in order to sustain its religious precepts.

I disagree with Don that government is a foreign body that extracts taxes from the population. The government, that's you. It represents the community of all inhabitants of a territory. The minnunity taxes itself in order to provide services to itself.

In the case of the Methodist Church land, government provides the public roads that lead to it, the policing that makes those roads and the land itseld safe, the Fire Department that will attempt to save its inhabitants and possessions in case of fire or accidents, etcetera.

Does the tax exemption of the Methodist Church imply that the Church wil not avail itself of these public roads, the police or the Fire Department? No, it doesn't.

Its free pork for a religious establishment. That's what it is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Methodist case is revealing. A Church claims its domain is public territory in order to haul in taxpayer pork, then claims it is religious territory in order to sustain its religious precepts.

I disagree with Don that government is a foreign body that extracts taxes from the population. The government, that's you. It represents the community of all inhabitants of a territory. The minnunity taxes itself in order to provide services to itself.

In the case of the Methodist Church land, government provides the public roads that lead to it, the policing that makes those roads and the land itseld safe, the Fire Department that will attempt to save its inhabitants and possessions in case of fire or accidents, etcetera.

Does the tax exemption of the Methodist Church imply that the Church wil not avail itself of these public roads, the police or the Fire Department? No, it doesn't.

Its free pork for a religious establishment. That's what it is.

I read the Methodist case 2 days ago and it wasn't cut and dry.
There are always loopholes. They will be used innapropriately and people will get away with it - other times they will not.

You made the statment that the U.S. government subsidizes religion when it is not fair to do so. Many other governments DO subsidize religious institutions: ie the United Kingdom, Spain, France, etc. You and I DO have very different understandings of taxation and I'm sure that you take pride in your opinions because of that.

[Don Corleone]

100% - 55% = 45% ...
Ouch!! is that from one paycheck?
Any other taxes? (e.g. goods and service, road, fuel, fortune, water & sewer etc.)

No. The federal income tax is about 30%. The total combined tax burden (state income tax, municipal income tax, sales tax, gas tax, FCC taxes, etcetera) for the middle class is roughly 45%. You get roughly 55% to 60% of your gross income as disposable income. My point is, to a true lefty like Idaho or Jag, God love 'em, in reality, that 55% to 60% is the gift of a benevolent government, as they are entitled to take 100%.

And Tuff, don't argue, just understand that's where they're coming from. As I said, it all comes down to where you view the ultimate source of authority. Some people view the organized society (aka the government) itself as the 'atomic element' and individuals are beholden to the group. Some view the individual as the atomic element, and the group is a construct into which we enter concourse of our own free will.

So, Adrian says tomahto, I say tomayto. I don't fault him for it, it's one of the differences in our core frame of reference.

Adrian, to your claim that the individual assails themselves of government services, this is only because the government mandates a monopoly in these areas. In many rural areas of the United States, people DO in fact maintain private or publicly held roads, water departments, etcetera that are not run by the local government.

But if the government declares a monpolistic right to build roads within a township, they cannot then claim that it's a freely chosen service they provide.

[Lemur]

[...] tax-exempt status, a recognition by the government that they hold no levee power over you, is rephrased as a subsidy to a group by the government. So, by receiving tax exempt status on the beach pavilion, according to this theory, the State of New Jersey is actually 'giving' the tax payment they should receive to the church.

And what you are failing to mention is that the holding company has a huge number of tax-exempt properties, including a church, a meeting house, a boardwalk, a pavilion, a road, and 1,000 feet of fishing rights on the coast. And the holding company has sought not just tax breaks but direct subsidies -- and they've gotten them.

Are you really suggesting that any property owned by a church's holding company ought to be tax-exempt? If that's the case, I see a future in which every company with an office park declares itself to be a religion ...

Also, again, please note that the holding company declared the boardwalk and pavilion to be open to the public without reservation when they were looking for tax breaks and grants. [edit -- note also that they got a substantial grant for the boardwalk and pavilion to repair storm damage.] They only decided the pavilion was not open to the public when the Jewish lesbians asked to get married there.

Has their church been taken from them? No. Has the tax-exempt status of their church been questioned? No. Has the tax-exempt status of their meeting hall been questioned? No. Have their grants and subsidies been called on the carpet? No. Is the state of New Jersey asking them to change their religious beliefs? No.

I really don't understand what you're holding onto with this case, but please, explicate and help me understand.

[Ronin]

What Rotorgun and Tuff are failing to grasp is the Orwelian approach to tax-exempt status the left uses. To the left, tax-exempt status, a recognition by the government that they hold no levee power over you, is rephrased as a subsidy to a group by the government. So, by receiving tax exempt status on the beach pavilion, according to this theory, the State of New Jersey is actually 'giving' the tax payment they should receive to the church.

It all stems from where you believe the root of all authority lies. If you believe it lies with the individual, taxation is a levee imposed by a necessary evil, the government. But if you view the government itself as the ultimate authority, and the individuals within it are inherently subordinate, then in fact, taxes are the natural state, and exemptions are gifts. And by the way, you didn't earn a salary last week, the government GAVE you the 55% they didn't take out in taxes.

Nice straw man argument you´re trying to build there Don.

The state is neither above the citizens "controlling" them or under them and "dominated" by them.....the citizens ARE the state.

The truth is that tax exemptions and over-taxation are used by the state to reflect a moralistic view of certain activities...churches are supposedly "good" so they get a break and things like alchool are over-taxed because they are supposedly "bad"......well I don´t have to necessarily agree with those considerations...so why should I have to pay for them?

The state should just treat everything the same...and then people donate money to their church (or to their local strip-club or whatever you want ) if they want to....

[Don Corleone]

And what you are failing to mention is that the holding company has a huge number of tax-exempt properties, including a church, a meeting house, a boardwalk, a pavilion, a road, and 1,000 feet of fishing rights on the coast. And the holding company has sought not just tax breaks but direct subsidies -- and they've gotten them.

Now that is a horse of another color. I failed to mention it because I failed to recognize it. If what you say is true, that the organization isn't just receiving tax-breaks (the subsidies I thought you meant), but they're actually taking grants from the state (not payments for services rendered), then you are 110% correct, and the Church organization doesn't have a leg to stand on. They would in fact place themselves under the jurisdiction and regulation of the government and all of its mandates by receiving grants.

Are you really suggesting that any property owned by a church's holding company ought to be tax-exempt? If that's the case, I see a future in which every company with an office park declares itself to be a religion ...

Don't you think people have been trying that for hundreds of years? There's a LOT of case work on this sort of thing and exactly what constitutes tax-exempt status requirements to be met by a seeker. It's not easy, but for starters, it's not enough to be not-for-profit, you can't show a profit, period.

Also, again, please note that the holding company declared the boardwalk and pavilion to be open to the public without reservation when they were looking for tax breaks and grants. [edit -- note also that they got a substantial grant for the boardwalk and pavilion to repair storm damage.] They only decided the pavilion was not open to the public when the Jewish lesbians asked to get married there.

If they publicly declared the pavilion to be open to the general public, without any qualifying statements, then again, you have the advantage, sir.

I really don't understand what you're holding onto with this case, but please, explicate and help me understand.

It's a foot in the door. It's the intrusion of the state into the religious practices of recognized religions, in an attempt to enforce their view. And I didn't come up with this crackpot theory, NPR did. I just happen to agree with them, the writing is on the wall. If as you say, the local Methodist church was too clever by half, and tried to claim themselves to be a public good open to all in an effort to get subsidies, then turned around and claimed special exemption, this may not be the most stellar example. But you and I both know that when you read all 8 of those cases in a row, you see a pattern evolving.

I mean, Adrian's point about the Catholic adoption group is ridiculous. They're not allowed to run an adoption group WITHOUT state recognition and licensing. Is it your point that the orphans of Massachusetts are better off not being placed at all then being placed into exclusively heterosexual homes? Because that was the point the State of Massachusetts made.

[Tribesman]

The U.S. doesn't pay money to build Mosques or Churches like our French and Canadian allies.

Yes it does

[Don Corleone]

Nice straw man argument you´re trying to build there Don.

Look, I'm the king of strawmen arguments, I freely admit it. This isn't one of them. I really and truly view it in these terms.

The state is neither above the citizens "controlling" them or under them and "dominated" by them.....the citizens ARE the state.

In your view. In mine, the individual is beholden to nobody. He only enters into compact with his fellow citizens by choice of his own free will, and may choose to remove himself from the relationship when he sees fit. I do not view citizens as properrty of the state.

The truth is that tax exemptions and over-taxation are used by the state to reflect a moralistic view of certain activities...churches are supposedly "good" so they get a break and things like alchool are over-taxed because they are supposedly "bad"......well I don´t have to necessarily agree with those considerations.

Here we agree more than you could imagine. I believe tax policy is a poor choice for means of control, as the law of unintended consequences is invariably at work, and you wind up with behaviors you never intended (just visit the U.S.A.'s so-called "War on Poverty" in the 60's to see what I mean", or rent-controlled housing in NYC in the 70's).

The state should just treat everything the same...and then people donate money to their church (or to their local strip-club or whatever you want ) if they want to....

Agreed. It is not the function of the state to ordain behavior as moral or desirable, only legal (i.e. tolerated) or illegal.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes it does

Where?

I agree with Don. I'm not defending the Methodists in question. They were skirting the line and attempting to write their own govt policy. Government spending through grants should be kept tightly under control. They have every right to say "which is it?"

The fact is that they did because the reality was their status was questionable. Where do you see subsidy of religion that isn't being reviewed and ended? The things you might mention are services rendered and tax breaks which are not subsidies.

The statement is kind of like saying the government subsidizes "murder" when a teacher is discovered to be a murderer. The murder wasn't the intent of the salary and the situation will be sorted out legally. Maybe a bad analogy, but I just came up with it.

[Tribesman]

Where?

All over the States churches are eligible for exactly the same building grants as are available in other countries . Though you do have certain church and non-church groups uniting in protest against those grants which they see as a violation of the constitution.
Would you like some links or are you able to do a simple search on building grants for churches in the US

[ICantSpellDawg]

All over the States churches are eligible for exactly the same building grants as are available in other countries . Though you do have certain church and non-church groups uniting in protest against those grants which they see as a violation of the constitution.
Would you like some links or are you able to do a simple search on building grants for churches in the US

You are right!

This link describes some reasons for and against such practices.
http://www.nacba.net/Article/federalgrant.htm

I'm not sure how I feel about that. The Hebrew day school example was pretty good, but obviously the acceptance of government money puts a church into a bizzarre limbo which it shouldn't be in for its own sake. This is a subsidy outright, though most churches don't take the government up on the offer. I don't support the government giving building grants in general.

[Don Corleone]

I'm 100% against it. The day you take money from the government, you are a slave to the government.

[Adrian II]

I'm 100% against it. The day you take money from the government, you are a slave to the government.

Like I said earlier, all American churches do.

The Supreme Court in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983) ruled that tax exemption and deduction are 'form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system'.

Exemption is even better than subsidy, because recipients of the first are not accountable to the government for they way they spend the money, whereas recipients of the second are.

[Don Corleone]

Exemption is even better than subsidy, because recipients of the first are not accountable to the government for they way they spend the money, whereas recipients of the second are.

You say that like I'm ceding the point that an exemption is a gift from the government. I'm not.

[Xiahou]

The Supreme Court in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983) ruled that tax exemption and deduction are 'form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system'.

I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty astonishing statement. They're saying that the government not taking your money by force is no different than the government giving you money.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty astonishing statement. They're saying that the government not taking your money by force is no different than the government giving you money.

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.

Having said that, it could be argued that goverments allow citizens to puruse activities profitable to the indivudual and society through the regulation of that society. Without such regulation, most citizens would not be able to function, much less make a living.

Thus, in a sense, all monies earned under the protection of a government are "given" - or more accurately, allowed to be kept by the earners. Government takes a greater or lesser share to implement the regulations necessary for such society to work.

If you think government takes your money by force, you ought to try anarchist warlords.

[Adrian II]

Xiahou and Don, the tax-exempt churches take a free ride on society like I demonstrated in earlier posts: they benefit from public services without paying for them like everyone else, which means that everyone else pays their share for them. That's state subsidy of religion, no matter how you twist it.

And before anyone goes 'nya nya' about my own country again (as if I own The Neds and make all the laws here), let me tell you I hate state subsidizing of religion in my own country just as well, with all the nasty side-effects, the infighting over money, the waste of public funds and the corruption of religion.

That's why I wrote earlier that I could feel that other pax-taxpayer's pain.

[Geoffrey S]

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.

Aenlic. There's a guy I miss.

[rotorgun]

I thought I might post a few words here about just what seperation of church and state is supposed to mean in the United States. I am no great scholar, so please don't mind that I got these from Wikipedia.

From Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 referencing the first amendment. It is known as the establishment clause.:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [8]

From President Madison's Virginia Statute on Religous Freedom

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. [12]

Once again, the establishment clause by itself:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

A fair summation:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

I think that the above serve as fair guidlines to continue this discussion. Furthermore, I state that in view of this, the "Methodists" we are discussing are categorically wrong to want it both ways. I also believe that for Gays to use secular law to try to change religous beliefs or practices in order to gain acceptance is unconstitutional in this case.

[rotorgun]

I had to add a bit here about the Tax exempt status for churches. Here is the exemtion code straight from the IRS:

Exemption Requirements

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Nothing in there about refusing to allow any person or group of persons to use its facilities for a marriage or civil union celebration. I think that it would be barking up the wrong tree. Probably it would be much better to persue a strategy of violation of one's civil rights, as was successfully carried out by Martin Luther King and company.

[Tribesman]

Rotor , with your post there doen't that mean that all the Bush faith based initiatives and programs are entirely unconstitutional .

[Kralizec]

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.

Having said that, it could be argued that goverments allow citizens to puruse activities profitable to the indivudual and society through the regulation of that society. Without such regulation, most citizens would not be able to function, much less make a living.

Thus, in a sense, all monies earned under the protection of a government are "given" - or more accurately, allowed to be kept by the earners. Government takes a greater or lesser share to implement the regulations necessary for such society to work.

If you think government takes your money by force, you ought to try anarchist warlords.

A sensible point. Montesquieu already argued that freedom is something to be conquered from nature, that it exists only within a body of laws. So-called negative freedoms (from interference; usually from the government) only have meaning and value when the conditions have been created to take advantage of them (wich is usually understood as "positive freedom", that wich is realised by government help or meddling). In this case, having the "property" of something depends on a government making and enforcing property laws.
I wouldn't say that raising taxes amounts to stealing, but I'd still say that just because the existence of governance is a prerequisite for any economic activity doesn't mean that any wealth thus created belongs in the first place to the government.

I'm more inclined to view government-citizen relations in the line of Locke than of Rousseau (unlike Adrian and presumably Ronin). Even when a government is doing a relatively good job, it's still a seperate organisation with its own internal parts wich have their own interests.
Taxes can't be justified by the simple statement that all wealth is theirs to begin with, nor by the simple statement that the government equals the people.

I agree though that tax exemptions are for all intents and purposes equal to subsidies.

[Adrian II]

I wouldn't say that raising taxes amounts to stealing, but I'd still say that just because the existence of governance is a prerequisite for any economic activity doesn't mean that any wealth thus created belongs in the first place to the government.

I don't believe anyone here said that.

I'm in the line of Montesquieu when I say the first task of government is to provide safety for a people. This comes at a price which the people will have to pay through taxation. If the people also control the government, taxation is not inherently theft or extortion or whatever you want to call it. Nor does it imply that the government has a title to all property in the land.