Scott Lloyd Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 Your post does not cite to that story, but to a story that references the Houston event. The Houston subpoenas were apparently related to tax exemption status, which is not a First Amendment issue. Why on earth governments provide tax exemptions to religion in the first place is beyond my libertarian comprehension, as it appears to be an unconstitutional "establishment," but tax exemptions have been often repealed for religious groups. This presupposes that the government has a right to tax that is on par with our individual rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to worship as we wish. That supposition is wrong. Instead, taxation has been traditionally used as a way for governments to reward or punish as they see fit. Taxation is, in effect, a bludgeon to enforce submission to the government - and those in power in the government. I'm a bit surprised that a libertarian would put taxes in the context that you do (as an "establishment") since taxes are probably the most effective demonstration of overreaching government control available. According to miy understanding, this is something libertarians are generally opposed to. If you come from the perspective (and I think it is far more correct to do so) that government taxation is not a right on part with our individual rights as expressed above, then the taxation of religious organizations becomes something simply designed to enforce compliance with government demands. Hence, taxation is inherently at conflict with the principle of religious freedom.Excellent point. This is a very good reason for having churches remain tax exempt. It precludes government from using taxation as a weapon for abridging freedom of religion.
jwhitlock Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Your post does not cite to that story, but to a story that references the Houston event. The Houston subpoenas were apparently related to tax exemption status, which is not a First Amendment issue. Why on earth governments provide tax exemptions to religion in the first place is beyond my libertarian comprehension, as it appears to be an unconstitutional "establishment," but tax exemptions have been often repealed for religious groups. This presupposes that the government has a right to tax that is on par with our individual rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to worship as we wish. That supposition is wrong. Instead, taxation has been traditionally used as a way for governments to reward or punish as they see fit. Taxation is, in effect, a bludgeon to enforce submission to the government - and those in power in the government. I'm a bit surprised that a libertarian would put taxes in the context that you do (as an "establishment") since taxes are probably the most effective demonstration of overreaching government control available. According to miy understanding, this is something libertarians are generally opposed to. If you come from the perspective (and I think it is far more correct to do so) that government taxation is not a right on part with our individual rights as expressed above, then the taxation of religious organizations becomes something simply designed to enforce compliance with government demands. Hence, taxation is inherently at conflict with the principle of religious freedom. LIbertarians are pragmatic. There will be taxation. If so, there ought not be discriminatory taxation, but I also don't see charitable contributions as "revenue." That pragmatism must then recognize that in real life, all taxation by government is discriminatory in some way. This is because governments abuse the power of taxation to enforce compliance from some, and to reward others. That arbitrary exercise of power will inevitably conflict with freedom of religion as governments and those in power start to reject freedom of religion as something beneficial to the nation. That rejection is in full swing right now. The nature of the SSM ruling leaves a rather wide door for taxation to be used to force religious compliance with mandated "rights".
ttribe Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Not exactly. According to the mayor's quoted statement, she backed down because the issue had "become a distraction," not because she admitted or acknowledged that the action amounted to a violation of civil liberties. Which means she is prone to committing the same sort of abuse of power in the future if she thinks she can find a way to avoid adverse publicity while doing it. The citizens of Houston need to vote her out of office at the first opportunity. What elected official would actually admit to their own gross abuse of power?Probably not very many That's the point. If they do it and won't admit to it, they're not trustworthy. Isn't "politician" and "not trustworthy" redundant?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 If we're going to list examples of religious freedom being trampled or threatened, it seems to me we that we need to keep it clear what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is the right to have and exercise one's religious beliefs free of coercion, subject only to the limits that attend to any other right. You can't force an atheist to become a Mormon and an atheist cannot force you to stop being Mormon. Essentially, that's it. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to: insuranceaccreditationa joboperate a businesstax exemptions Freedom of religion would give you the right not to be discriminated against in considering whether these things are granted, but that is a different thing than having the right to those things in themselves. IOW, to show the denial of these things tramples on freedom of religion, you would have to show they were denied because of the religion of the one so denied. As long as the ground upon which these things are granted or denied are neutral when it comes to religion, there is no ground for complaint one's religious freedom is being trampled or threatened.By this reasoning government or others ought not be allowed to withhold any of the items on that list on the basis of a person's or an entity's religion.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 I'm not that cynical.Oh, well...guess I am.My being not that cynical means I don't give any politician a pass for wrongdoing. To put it another way, I don't hold with a politicians-will-be-politicians mentality.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 If we're going to list examples of religious freedom being trampled or threatened, it seems to me we that we need to keep it clear what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is the right to have and exercise one's religious beliefs free of coercion, subject only to the limits that attend to any other right. You can't force an atheist to become a Mormon and an atheist cannot force you to stop being Mormon. Essentially, that's it. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to: insuranceaccreditationa joboperate a businesstax exemptions Freedom of religion would give you the right not to be discriminated against in considering whether these things are granted, but that is a different thing than having the right to those things in themselves. IOW, to show the denial of these things tramples on freedom of religion, you would have to show they were denied because of the religion of the one so denied. As long as the ground upon which these things are granted or denied are neutral when it comes to religion, there is no ground for complaint one's religious freedom is being trampled or threatened.By this reasoning government or others ought not be allowed to withhold any of the items on that list on the basis of a person's or an entity's religion. If they do it amounts to an attack on freedom of religion.
jwhitlock Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 If we're going to list examples of religious freedom being trampled or threatened, it seems to me we that we need to keep it clear what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is the right to have and exercise one's religious beliefs free of coercion, subject only to the limits that attend to any other right. You can't force an atheist to become a Mormon and an atheist cannot force you to stop being Mormon. Essentially, that's it. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to: insuranceaccreditationa joboperate a businesstax exemptions Freedom of religion would give you the right not to be discriminated against in considering whether these things are granted, but that is a different thing than having the right to those things in themselves. IOW, to show the denial of these things tramples on freedom of religion, you would have to show they were denied because of the religion of the one so denied. As long as the ground upon which these things are granted or denied are neutral when it comes to religion, there is no ground for complaint one's religious freedom is being trampled or threatened. To address the specific quote of accreditation, the right to accreditation for an educational organization - religious or secular - should be grounded in meeting clear education-related criteria in the operation of that educational organization. The accreditation process becomes arbitrary (and discriminatory, in my mind) when criteria are introduced that have nothing to do with the educational mission of the organization. Religious educational organizations often require certain codes of conduct or adherence to other aspects of the religious group as part of being allowed to attend their school. Only when those codes of conduct can be clearly demonstrated to conflict with clear education-related principles should accreditation come into question. Being sponsored by a church that does not support SSM would not be a valid disqualification for accreditation. Running separate living facilities for males and females would not be a valid disqualification. Even disallowing interracial dating would not be a valid disqualification. None of those can be demonstrated to be in conflict with education-related criteria that accreditation should be concerned with, no matter how much we might disagree with those practices. What is happening is that accreditation is starting to be denied based in criteria that have nothing to do with the education of those attending the school. The accrediting organizations are using their power to demand compliance with practices that are contrary to the protected religious beliefs of certain segments of the population. Because accreditation is important to the success of educational organizations, this is an abuse of their power and hence an abridgment of religious freedom. The irony of all of this is that educational organizations that require and enforce a code of conduct, especially based on religious moral principles, often provide a better educational environment than those that don't. For instance, West Virginia University is "free" from all of those moral codes of conduct, and the result is a school that has a reputation for being little more than a party school with a high degree of failure in educating its students. Non-education related criteria for accreditation are ultimately self-defeating. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Over the lifetime of the church, how much $ has the LDS church contributed to feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked? vs. how much $ has it spent on prop 8? Then, let's compare this to how much $ the LGBT groups have spent on feeding the hungry, vs. how much they have spent campaigning for marriage. Put the #'s up, then we can discuss who is more concerned for starving children. Bill Gates donated 500k in support of gay marriage. Bill Gates donated more than 30 Billion Dollars to charity. How many MDDB topics about gay marriage? about 1,000,000How many MDDB topics about religion and poverty? about ten Last year, a high school salutatorian was forbidden by a school district in California to mention God or religion in his high school graduation speech. He defied the order and did so anyway. Good for him! What happens to an LDS BYU student if he or she join another church? That is what I thought. Where is the religious freedom? http://registrar.byu.edu/catalog/2014-2015ucat/GeneralInfo/HonorCode.php Some people believe in Religious use of Cannabis, but some states do not allow them. Some people need medical marijuana anyways. Some people believe in polygamy, but Utah persecutes them. Where is the religious freedom? What did Jesus teach? Edited July 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian 1
tonie Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) <p>heres a start for a brief history of United States public schools and "free speech"https://en.m.wikiped...First_Amendment)https://en.m.wikiped...First_AmendmenOn both links I get this:School speech (First Amendment Did you mean: School speech (First Amendment)?Look for School speech (First Amendment on one of Wikipedia's sister projects: Wiktionary (free dictionary) Wikibooks (free textbooks) Wikiquote (quotations) Wikisource (free library) Wikiversity (free learning resources) Commons (images and media) Wikivoyage (free travel guide) Wikinews (free news source)Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for School speech (First Amendment in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.Log in or create an account to start the School speech (First Amendment article, alternatively use the Article Wizard, or add a request for it.Search for "School speech (First Amendment" in existing articles.Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.Other reasons this message may be displayed:If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?.Not exactly responsive.If you're telling me to Google it and find Wikipedia entries on my own, that's not a reference.It's like calmoriah told someone a while back: "A whole book is not a reference."click on the blue link for Did you mean school speech (First Amendment); mormondialogue.org is messing with the direct links Edited July 10, 2015 by tonie
Scott Lloyd Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 If we're going to list examples of religious freedom being trampled or threatened, it seems to me we that we need to keep it clear what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is the right to have and exercise one's religious beliefs free of coercion, subject only to the limits that attend to any other right. You can't force an atheist to become a Mormon and an atheist cannot force you to stop being Mormon. Essentially, that's it. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to: insuranceaccreditationa joboperate a businesstax exemptions Freedom of religion would give you the right not to be discriminated against in considering whether these things are granted, but that is a different thing than having the right to those things in themselves. IOW, to show the denial of these things tramples on freedom of religion, you would have to show they were denied because of the religion of the one so denied. As long as the ground upon which these things are granted or denied are neutral when it comes to religion, there is no ground for complaint one's religious freedom is being trampled or threatened. To address the specific quote of accreditation, the right to accreditation for an educational organization - religious or secular - should be grounded in meeting clear education-related criteria in the operation of that educational organization. The accreditation process becomes arbitrary (and discriminatory, in my mind) when criteria are introduced that have nothing to do with the educational mission of the organization. Religious educational organizations often require certain codes of conduct or adherence to other aspects of the religious group as part of being allowed to attend their school. Only when those codes of conduct can be clearly demonstrated to conflict with clear education-related principles should accreditation come into question. Being sponsored by a church that does not support SSM would not be a valid disqualification for accreditation. Running separate living facilities for males and females would not be a valid disqualification. Even disallowing interracial dating would not be a valid disqualification. None of those can be demonstrated to be in conflict with education-related criteria that accreditation should be concerned with, no matter how much we might disagree with those practices. What is happening is that accreditation is starting to be denied based in criteria that have nothing to do with the education of those attending the school. The accrediting organizations are using their power to demand compliance with practices that are contrary to the protected religious beliefs of certain segments of the population. Because accreditation is important to the success of educational organizations, this is an abuse of their power and hence an abridgment of religious freedom. The irony of all of this is that educational organizations that require and enforce a code of conduct, especially based on religious moral principles, often provide a better educational environment than those that don't. For instance, West Virginia University is "free" from all of those moral codes of conduct, and the result is a school that has a reputation for being little more than a party school with a high degree of failure in educating its students. Non-education related criteria for accreditation are ultimately self-defeating. To those who are suggesting, stating or implying that a school ought to have its accreditation withheld for adhering to a moral code, I wonder how far they are willing to go with this notion. Are we to have a society wherein an educational institution must be altogether amoral without any regard for values or ethics in order to expect accreditiation? I've just returned from an extended trip to New York, where I visited the United States Military Academy at West Point. Emblazoned on a monument there on the grounds of the academy is the honor code expressed in these words: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do." Will West Point have to discard its honor code in order to expect accreditation? 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Your post does not cite to that story, but to a story that references the Houston event. The Houston subpoenas were apparently related to tax exemption status, which is not a First Amendment issue. Why on earth governments provide tax exemptions to religion in the first place is beyond my libertarian comprehension, as it appears to be an unconstitutional "establishment," but tax exemptions have been often repealed for religious groups. This presupposes that the government has a right to tax that is on par with our individual rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to worship as we wish. That supposition is wrong. Instead, taxation has been traditionally used as a way for governments to reward or punish as they see fit. Taxation is, in effect, a bludgeon to enforce submission to the government - and those in power in the government. I'm a bit surprised that a libertarian would put taxes in the context that you do (as an "establishment") since taxes are probably the most effective demonstration of overreaching government control available. According to miy understanding, this is something libertarians are generally opposed to. If you come from the perspective (and I think it is far more correct to do so) that government taxation is not a right on part with our individual rights as expressed above, then the taxation of religious organizations becomes something simply designed to enforce compliance with government demands. Hence, taxation is inherently at conflict with the principle of religious freedom.Excellent point.This is a very good reason for having churches remain tax exempt. It precludes government from using taxation as a weapon for abridging freedom of religion. I have not thought of that aspect. If churches loses its tax exempt status, what is to stop the government from taxing a church at 95% if they do things the government does not like. Government can interfere in the exercise of religion simply through the tax code. 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Why worry? Jesus said, "all these things will be added to you" Matthew 6:33All is well, your religious rights will never go away. You think God will allow governments to destroy religion? Just live and let live BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line on political correctness. Jesus commanded his followers to help the poor. He didn't say anything about university accreditation, fighting gay rights, or fighting for religious freedom to discriminate. Did Jesus fight the Roman empire for religious freedom to discriminate? threats to religious freedom. What do the top 10 most peaceful countries on Earth have in common? 1. Very peaceful 2. Low poverty rate 3. protect gay rights USA ranks 94 in the 2015 Global Peace Index You need to let this go Scott. No one is going to take away your freedom or the freedom of the church to treat people anyway they want, as long as it is within the law. However, people are becoming more accepting and inclusive, and organizations that remain exclusionary will be relegated to the dustbin of history. but to Scott gay marriage is the worst problem ever How naive and pollyannaish! Have you seen what''s going on in the Middle East?!? The problem with progressives is that they don't seem to believe there's a real devil. And if they do believe there's a real devil, they don't think he's nearly as cunning and evil as he actually is.You don't outsmart the devil by joining religion. That's what he wants. You outsmart and beat him by standing for humanity and dignity.
David13 Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 My religion never infringed anyone's rights. And I cannot equate homosexuality to humanity and dignity. dc
Damien the Leper Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) You need to let this go Scott. No one is going to take away your freedom or the freedom of the church to treat people anyway they want, as long as it is within the law. However, people are becoming more accepting and inclusive, and organizations that remain exclusionary will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Wasn't there a similar statement going around in Germany in the early 1930's?Wow. Gotta attack with a Nazi fascism reference. I can do the same. Religious right in America is the same as the Ottoman Turks during the Armenian Genocide. Edited July 11, 2015 by Valentinus
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2015 Author Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Responding to carbon dioxide: I've had something of an epiphany today as I've realized that preventing government oppression through taxation is probably the primary reason churches need to be tax exempt so as to safeguard religious liberty. Formerly, I believed the best reason was to encourage charitable giving among the populace, but I now believe the above reason is the more important one. Edited July 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Damien the Leper Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 My religion never infringed anyone's rights. And I cannot equate homosexuality to humanity and dignity. dcHow religiously inhumane of you.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2015 Author Posted July 11, 2015 My religion never infringed anyone's rights. And I cannot equate homosexuality to humanity and dignity. dcHow religiously inhumane of you. I read him as referring to behavior, not people.
Damien the Leper Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 My religion never infringed anyone's rights. And I cannot equate homosexuality to humanity and dignity. dcHow religiously inhumane of you.I read him as referring to behavior, not people.It would be very ridiculous to try to separate sexual orientation from intimate actions.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2015 Author Posted July 11, 2015 Couldn't the same be said about other forms of deviant sexuality?
SmileyMcGee Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Responding to carbon dioxide:I've had something of an epiphany today as I've realized that preventing government oppression through taxation is probably the primary reason churches need to be tax exempt so as to safeguard religious liberty.Formerly, I believed the best reason was to encourage charitable giving among the populace, but I now believe the above reason is the more important one.There's that conspiracy theory we've been waiting for.
jwhitlock Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Responding to carbon dioxide: I've had something of an epiphany today as I've realized that preventing government oppression through taxation is probably the primary reason churches need to be tax exempt so as to safeguard religious liberty. Formerly, I believed the best reason was to encourage charitable giving among the populace, but I now believe the above reason is the more important one. Bingo!
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2015 Author Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Responding to carbon dioxide:I've had something of an epiphany today as I've realized that preventing government oppression through taxation is probably the primary reason churches need to be tax exempt so as to safeguard religious liberty.Formerly, I believed the best reason was to encourage charitable giving among the populace, but I now believe the above reason is the more important one.There's that conspiracy theory we've been waiting for.You're talking gibberish. I've said nothing about a conspiracy. Edited July 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
ERayR Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Responding to carbon dioxide:I've had something of an epiphany today as I've realized that preventing government oppression through taxation is probably the primary reason churches need to be tax exempt so as to safeguard religious liberty.Formerly, I believed the best reason was to encourage charitable giving among the populace, but I now believe the above reason is the more important one.There's that conspiracy theory we've been waiting for. Conspiracies have been a part of history since there was history. Why should this generation be any different?
Recommended Posts