Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?

[thesometimesaint]

You don't have a religious right to a tax exemption.

[Mystery Meat]

You don't have a religious right to a tax exemption.

 

Indeed. Without getting into politics, I don't think any body should get tax exemptions, even the Church. It is just a weapon that can be used against you. Instead I'm in favor of lower tax rates and a simpler tax code.

[thesometimesaint]

Indeed. Without getting into politics, I don't think any body should get tax exemptions, even the Church. It is just a weapon that can be used against you. Instead I'm in favor of lower tax rates and a simpler tax code.

 

Without getting too far into politics I prefer keeping the government out of religion altogether.  The US already has some of the lowest effective tax rates in the world. Sure we all say we want a simpler tax code, but where the rubber meet the road we all want our own pet projects to have a tax write off. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/how-low-are-us-taxes-compared-to-other-countries/267148/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You don't have a religious right to a tax exemption.

Might be strictly true, but under the first amendment, once one church gets a tax exemption, then all get tax exemptions. Courts have held that this does not apply to entities not directly related to religion - like catholic charities, or church sponsored universities.

[rockpond]

Don't. I don't care. I am just providing a concise explanation for my views on the origins of homosexual attraction and behavior.

Well, out of curiosity, I read the Lauritsen article (basically a literature review and opinion piece) but now I'm even more confused by your position.

Lauritsen concludes with these two paragraphs:

    "To sum up: male love in all its forms (sex, love, friendship) is a hereditary component of male sexuality, which does not need to be explained. What does need to be explained is its condemnation, which is primarily the product of superstition, the taboo contained in the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

    Although some males, both gay and straight, are more feminine or masculine than others, this does not explain their attraction to other males. In fact, the only significant difference, either psychological or physical, which Kinsey and his associates found between gay and straight men, is that gay men have a more powerful sexual substrate (or sex drive), as indicated by such factors as earliness of puberty and frequency of having sex. According to C.V. Tripp, in a talk he gave in the 1980s to the New York Scholarship Committee, a powerful sexual substrate (a high sex drive) is desirable, since this correlates positively with good health, longevity and intelligence. Male love per se, including its sexual manifestations, is a desirable and fully virile activity."

Is that consistent with your views on homosexuality?

[gordontrue]

The threat to tax exempt status seems like weak ground to stand on in terms of taking an active stance against same sex marriage, to me.

 

LDS people believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin. 

 

They also believe that smoking, having pre-marital sex, and valuing a football game above God are all sins, to name a few.

 

 

It is easier to loudly, actively denounce a sin when it is not one you struggle with and not one that is prevalent in your world.

 

 

Legal implications aside, I think the bottom line is that Christians could do a much better job of loving their homosexual neighbors. Are we not all sinners?

[thesometimesaint]

Might be strictly true, but under the first amendment, once one church gets a tax exemption, then all get tax exemptions. Courts have held that this does not apply to entities not directly related to religion - like catholic charities, or church sponsored universities.

 

A few years back it was all the rage for someone to get the bright idea that simply calling themselves a minister of religion allowed them to not pay taxes. One was even a prostitute, that didn't work out all that well for her.

[wenglund]

You don't have a religious right to a tax exemption.

 

There is no small irony to see people (not necessarily you) ardently advocating for separation of church and state, while decrying tax exemption of religion. Is there any more intimate connection to the government than taxation? In other words, these double-mined separatists don't want religions to have a say in government, but yet they demand that religions help pay for the government.

 

Be that as it may, and contrary to your dogmatic refrain, there is actually a constitutional basis, or right, exempting religion from certain forms of taxation. See for example HERE and HERE.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 21, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The threat to tax exempt status seems like weak ground to stand on in terms of taking an active stance against same sex marriage, to me.

 

LDS people believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin. 

 

They also believe that smoking, having pre-marital sex, and valuing a football game above God are all sins, to name a few.

 

 

It is easier to loudly, actively denounce a sin when it is not one you struggle with and not one that is prevalent in your world.

 

 

Legal implications aside, I think the bottom line is that Christians could do a much better job of loving their homosexual neighbors. Are we not all sinners?

 

This is a seemingly lovely platitude, but the issue of radically altering the legal definition of marriage has essentially nothing to do with loving and respecting homosexual neighbors, and most everything to do with preventing the state from further degrading the fundamental institution of society and promoting sexual deviancy.

 

If you want to draw comparisons between homosexuality and smoking, then legalizing SSM would be analogous to putting a Surgeon General endorsement on each pack of cigarrettes rather than a warning.

 

Either way, this is somewhat beside the point of the thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

There is no small irony to see people (not necessarily you) ardently advocating for separation of church and state, while decrying tax exemption of religion. Is there any more intimate connection to the government than taxation? In other words, these double-mined separatists don't want religions to have a say in government, but yet they demand that religions help pay for the government.

 

Be that as it may, there is actually a constitutional basis, or right, exempting religion from certain forms of taxation. See for example HERE and HERE.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm a near absolutist when it come to the separation of Church and State. That being said It sometimes can get very sticky when we claim a religious exemption from following the law, or the restricting the rights of someone else.

[gordontrue]

This is a seemingly lovely platitude, but the issue of radically altering the legal definition of marriage has essentially nothing to do with loving and respecting homosexual neighbors, and most everything to do with preventing the state from further degrading the fundamental institution of society and promoting sexual deviancy.

 

If you want to draw comparisons between homosexuality and smoking, then legalizing SSM would be analogous to putting a Surgeon General endorsement on each pack of cigarrettes rather than a warning.

 

Either way, this is somewhat beside the point of the thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I certainly agree that my statement that Christians could do better at loving their neighbors has absolutely nothing to do with opposing SSM laws. Of course is possible to do both completely, I did not mean to imply otherwise.

 

And you're right, it has little to do with this thread, so I'll refrain from continuing that conversation here.

[Buzzard]

There is a constitutional right to not being discriminated against.  There is not a constitutional right for anyone, even churches, to receive tax exemptions.  Tax exemptions are at the whim of the government.  The government has outlined on what conditions it will allow tax exemptions.  Organizations can choose to conform to those conditions or can choose not to.  No one's constitutional rights to practice their religion or their rights of free speech are in jeopardy.  Bob Jones had a choice to live by the demands the government set out as conditions to the tax exemptions or to not accept the tax exemption.  At no time was Bob Jones not allowed to continue it's practices of discrimination.  

 

This is no different than the tax exemptions that the government allows individual citizens.  For example, businesses are allowed to write off their car expenses.  But businesses have to keep documentation to be able to take advantage of this tax exemption.  It does not come without conforming to certain criteria.

Thank you, Mr. CB, for reinforcing my point. If I ever had any doubt that the right to practice free exercise of sexuality will be pushed over the right of free exercise of religion, you have just eliminated it. 

What I expect is use of the tax code and the legal system by both methods public and private to destroy the church and other institutions that don't "conform" (your choice of word).

Do I sound extreme? Paranoid? Think it could never happen? It already has. See U.S vs. Reynolds, where the church so offended the government over our practice of plural marriage, that they, via the Edmunds-Tucker Act, declared all church property, including temples and chapels, forfeit to the federal government.

Ironic that the first assault was in the name of traditional marriage and sexuality, the second one will be because of our defense of it.  

[wenglund]

I'm a near absolutist when it come to the separation of Church and State. That being said It sometimes can get very sticky when we claim a religious exemption from following the law, or the restricting the rights of someone else.

 

Seems you've created a paradoxical and ironical morass for yourself. Absolutism has a way of doing that. Best of luck to you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Thank you, Mr. CB, for reinforcing my point. If I ever had any doubt that the right to practice free exercise of sexuality will be pushed over the right of free exercise of religion, you have just eliminated it. 

What I expect is use of the tax code and the legal system by both methods public and private to destroy the church and other institutions that don't "conform" (your choice of word).

Do I sound extreme? Paranoid? Think it could never happen? It already has. See U.S vs. Reynolds, where the church so offended the government over our practice of plural marriage, that they, via the Edmunds-Tucker Act, declared all church property, including temples and chapels, forfeit to the federal government.

Ironic that the first assault was in the name of traditional marriage and sexuality, the second one will be because of our defense of it.  

 

Interestingly, though if U.S. v. Reynolds were to reach the Court today, it would have a fair chance of being overruled, and the brief to the SCOTUS which was joined by the Church in Prop 8 made some of the very same cultural arguments made against it in U.S. v. Reynolds.  There is of course always the risk if we try to impose our religious beliefs on others, that the others will retaliate in kind.  An eye for an eye...is still very much with us, so if we try to impose our marriage beliefs on them, we cannot complain to much when they attempt to return the favor.  Having said that, its still pretty much a stretch to leap from an educational institution to a place of worship.

[thesometimesaint]

Seems you've created a paradoxical and ironical morass for yourself. Absolutism has a way of doing that. Best of luck to you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I did say near absolutist. It is for me a constant battle between the two. How do I allow for the maximum of religious freedom, still respect the rights of those not of my faith while maintaining some form of representative democracy, and paying my taxes?

[rockpond]

Ironic that the first assault was in the name of traditional marriage and sexuality, the second one will be because of our defense of it.  

 

I'm curious about your thoughts on this... was it wrong for the U.S. government to enforce the prevailing view of traditional marriage on the early Saints and take away their ability to practice plural marriage as they felt God wanted?

[cdowis]

My personal viewpoint, *if* the government were able to prove an overriding interest for society, the decision was justified.  But I question whether that condition was met.

[wenglund]

Interestingly, though if U.S. v. Reynolds were to reach the Court today, it would have a fair chance of being overruled, and the brief to the SCOTUS which was joined by the Church in Prop 8 made some of the very same cultural arguments made against it in U.S. v. Reynolds.  There is of course always the risk if we try to impose our religious beliefs on others, that the others will retaliate in kind.  An eye for an eye...is still very much with us, so if we try to impose our marriage beliefs on them, we cannot complain to much when they attempt to return the favor.  Having said that, its still pretty much a stretch to leap from an educational institution to a place of worship.

 

You, of course, got things exactly backwards and have repeated the common mistake in confusing laws that restrict liberties, with laws that promote government interest. If same-sex couples were legally disallowed to enter into formal relationships and/or cohabitate, then there may be valid comparison between U.S. v Reynolds and radically altering the legal definition of marriage. But, there isn't. Same-sex couples have long been at liberty to couple and co-habitate without being thrown in jail or denied vote or self-governance or property or capriciously denied constitutional tax exemptions--religious beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Homosexual liberties aren't being denied. They just aren't being irrationally promoted in certain states.

 

Whereas, on the contrary, the liberty of religious business owners in reserving the right to serve who and what they wish, is being infringed. The irreligious are imposing their beliefs on the religious.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'm curious about your thoughts on this... was it wrong for the U.S. government to enforce the prevailing view of traditional marriage on the early Saints and take away their ability to practice plural marriage as they felt God wanted?

 

See my post above. Back then, polygamous relationships were expressly forbidden by the government. Today, homosexual relationships are not expressly forbidden by the government. See the critical difference?

 

I doubt that the Church would have had much problem if the government back then permitted polygamous relationships and even sanctioned them through civil unions or domestic partnerships, though reserving the legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

You, of course, got things exactly backwards and have repeated the common mistake in confusing laws that restrict liberties, with laws that promote government interest. If same-sex couples were legally disallowed to enter into formal relationships and/or cohabitate, then there may be valid comparison between U.S. v Reynolds and radically altering the legal definition of marriage. But, there isn't. Same-sex couples have long been at liberty to couple and co-habitate without being thrown in jail or denied vote or self-governance or property or capriciously denied constitutional tax exemptions--religious beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Homosexual liberties aren't being denied. They just aren't being irrationally promoted in certain states.

 

Whereas, on the contrary, the liberty of religious business owners in reserving the right to serve who and what they wish, is being infringed. The irreligious are imposing their beliefs on the religious.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Last I heard nobody was trying to tell me I couldn't get married to a woman because it offended their religious belief that marriage should only be between people of the same sex, but I guess someone might make that assertion.

[rockpond]

See my post above. Back then, polygamous relationships were expressly forbidden by the government. Today, homosexual relationships are not expressly forbidden by the government. See the critical difference?

 

I doubt that the Church would have had much problem if the government back then permitted polygamous relationships and even sanctioned them through civil unions or domestic partnerships, though reserving the legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yes, I see the difference.

 

I also see a government that violated the religious freedoms of the early Saints.

 

And I see many of the current saints voting/protesting/etc to violate the religious freedoms of those whose faith is being denied the same legal recognition that we enjoy (currently).  And then they are claiming that it is being done in the spirit of protecting religious freedom.

 

As Buzzard put it, it is ironic.

[thesometimesaint]

You, of course, got things exactly backwards and have repeated the common mistake in confusing laws that restrict liberties, with laws that promote government interest. If same-sex couples were legally disallowed to enter into formal relationships and/or cohabitate, then there may be valid comparison between U.S. v Reynolds and radically altering the legal definition of marriage. But, there isn't. Same-sex couples have long been at liberty to couple and co-habitate without being thrown in jail or denied vote or self-governance or property or capriciously denied constitutional tax exemptions--religious beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Homosexual liberties aren't being denied. They just aren't being irrationally promoted in certain states.

 

Whereas, on the contrary, the liberty of religious business owners in reserving the right to serve who and what they wish, is being infringed. The irreligious are imposing their beliefs on the religious.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

No; there has to be an overriding public interest(stake) in restricting religious expression. You can't use your religious freedom to shout FIRE in a crowed theater unless there is a actual fire. You can't use freedom of religion to pack 100 people into a room designed for 50.

 

Yes SS couples are routinely denied their right to marriage and cohabit by law. I just find no overriding public interest(stake) in restricting it by law. It is long past time to get marriage, a religious ceremony, out of government entirely out of religion. Make them all legally enforceable contracts.

 

Operating any business is a function of the state. You have to apply to the state for a business license and agree to follow all the laws and regulations governing that business. You can be fined and/or sent to jail for not following them.

 

PS; Discrimination of the bases of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, and sex, is illegal in all states and the US government. Sexual orientation is being added to more and more states as we speak.

Edited January 21, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Last I heard nobody was trying to tell me I couldn't get married to a woman because it offended their religious belief that marriage should only be between people of the same sex, but I guess someone might make that assertion.

 

Perhaps you didn't hear that gays were marrying in certain religions prior to it being legally sanctioned in a few states. So much for imposing religious beliefs. Sorry, but you will have to find a much better and less obvious canard upon which to ply your inanity.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Buzzard]

I'm curious about your thoughts on this... was it wrong for the U.S. government to enforce the prevailing view of traditional marriage on the early Saints and take away their ability to practice plural marriage as they felt God wanted?

Right or wrong doesn't enter into it. It does show that the government has and will use it's coercive power to try to force institutions to give up their moral views when the government has decided those views go against public policy. The case cited in the OP of Bob Jones is much more recent and much more likely to be cited than Reynolds, but even though Reynolds would possibly turn out differently today, until or unless overturned, remains a valid precedent for courts to use. 

[wenglund]

And I see many of the current saints voting/protesting/etc to violate the religious freedoms of those whose faith is being denied the same legal recognition that we enjoy (currently).

 

You say you grasp the critical difference, but demonstrate otherwise with this last convoluted claim. Religious freedom doesn't entail legal recognition/promotion of religious beliefs and practices. Rather, it entails limiting legal restrictions on religious beliefs and practices. Do you now grasp the critical difference?

 

If not, let's use an example to illustrate the difference. There are some religions that use marijuana as part of their religious worship. Since marijuana is illegal in most states, such laws are an infringement of the religious liberty to smoke marijuana as a part of religious worship. Whereas, in those states where marijuana usage is permitted, the states tend not actively promote marijuana smoking through tax exemptions and government benefits. The lack of state promotion of marijuana is NOT a violation of religious freedom. Rather, it is the exercise of state right to promote its own interests (i.e. its people's interest).

 

Do you comprehend?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-