Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[tonie]

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.

 

Would you be willing to articulate how taxes infringe upon religious freedom?  Or would you elaborate on how tax exempt status "safegaurds religious liberty".

 

What religious freedom of Bob Jones University was infringed when the Supreme Court upheld that its tax exempt status was revoked?

Edited July 11, 2015 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Would you be willing to articulate how taxes infringe upon religious freedom?

they don't at present because of the exemption. Without it, there is the potential for a government to oppress or punish a church by enacting onerous tax legislation.

[David13]

 

 

Quote from Tonie

Would you be willing to articulate how taxes infringe upon religious freedom?  Or would you elaborate on how tax exempt status "safegaurds religious liberty".

 

Tonie

Then why did they have the exemption?  Why was the exemption granted? 

For exactly that reason.

dc

[TheSkepticChristian]

You're talking gibberish.

 

I am still waiting for you to respond Mr. religious freedom. 

 

What about polygamy?  Polygamists are being persecuted in Utah. 

What about the BYU policy? If an LDS student joins another religion, he gets expelled from the University

What about the Religious use of Cannabis? an some need medical marijuana anyway

 

Conspiracies have been a part of history since there was history.  Why should this generation be any different?

 

There are real conspiracies and imaginary conspiracies. Probably imaginary: 9/11 truthers, NWO reptiles theory, fake Moon landing theory,  climate deniers, and the list goes on and on. A real conspiracy has real evidence. Imaginary conspiracies have pseudoscience and confirmation bias. 

Edited July 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[tonie]

David13, I do not understand your post.

 

 

Why were tax exemptions created? The ruling from Bob Jones University covers the history of tax exemption. 

 

As for Bob Jones University, according to wikipedia, it kepts its policy against interracial dating until 2000. So while it paid back taxes, it religious policy remained intact.

 

And consider the Christian Legal Society which sued for Official recognition from a University, SCOTUS sided with the University. However, the students who sued kept their religious beliefs, they are not prohibited from meeting (freedom of association has not been violated). The collective of students simply do not get official recognition from a University.

[ERayR]

 

Conspiracies have been a part of history since there was history.  Why should this generation be any different?

 

There are real conspiracies and imaginary conspiracies. 9/11 truthers, NWO reptiles theory, fake Moon landing theory,  Global Warming conspiracy theorists, and the list goes on and on. A real conspiracy has real evidence. Imaginary conspiracies have pseudoscience and confirmation bias. 

 

I agree.  The trick is to figure out which are real and which are not.  Some are easy, some not so much. 

[Scott Lloyd]

"I am still waiting for you to respond Mr. religious freedom.

 

"What about polygamy?  Polygamists are being persecuted in Utah."

 

That's not self-evident.

 

"What about the BYU policy? If an LDS student joins another religion, he gets expelled from the University"

 

Is this a serious question? BYU is a private institution and, as such, entitled to set its own conditions for enrollment, and enrollment there is a privilege, not an entitlement or a right.

 

 

"What about the Religious use of Cannabis? an some need medical marijuana anyway"

 

Doesn't bother me. Should it?

 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[David13]

Hey, you forgot to ask about snake handling.

dc

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's another one.

 

On college campuses, Christian groups are being kicked out because of their requirements that the leader of the group be a professing Christian. Anyone can join the group, but the president must be dialed into what the group stands for.

 

Apparently, that runs afoul of the political correctness tyrants on these campuses.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey, you forgot to ask about snake handling.

dc

[tonie]

Here's another one.

 

On college campuses, Christian groups are being kicked out because of their requirements that the leader of the group be a professing Christian. Anyone can join the group, but the president must be dialed into what the group stands for.

 

Apparently, that runs afoul of the political correctness tyrants on these campuses.

 

 

 

CFR that "Christian groups are being kicker out".   Groups are being denied official recognition by a university. 

 

 

As this thread is about religious freedom being trampled:

 

Does religious freedom garuntee Chrisitan Student groups official recognition at public universities?

Edited July 11, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

Important reference material related to Student Groups and Colleges/Universities in the United States.

 

 

Christian Legal Society v Martinez (wikipedia) Hasting College of Law denies official recognition to Christian Legal Society (CLS). CLS sues, case brought to United States Supreme Court. Supreme Court decision (85 page pdf) in favor of Hastings.

Edited July 11, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

Here's another one.

 

On college campuses, Christian groups are being kicked out because of their requirements that the leader of the group be a professing Christian. Anyone can join the group, but the president must be dialed into what the group stands for.

 

Apparently, that runs afoul of the political correctness tyrants on these campuses.

 

From the article you posted:

 

"The students can still meet informally on campus,..."

 

"At Vanderbilt, ...  About one-third of the 35 religious groups on campus have refused to sign and are no longer recognized by the school; they can still meet and recruit informally, and the campus Hillel has even opened its building for meetings of one of the Christian groups."

Edited July 11, 2015 by tonie

[tagriffy]

 

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:

 

insurance

accreditation

a job

operate a business

tax 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.

 

 

Yes and no. Government or others ought not be allowed to withhold those items on the basis of one's religious beliefs. But no one is required to offer those items in the first place. That's the distinction here. You can't be discriminated against because of religion, but religion does not give you the right to those things.

[tagriffy]

 

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.

 

 

I tend to agree with you here. OTOH, a religious educational institution is not required to seek accreditation, either. Alternatively, there wouldn't seem to be anything preventing religious educational institutions to form an accreditation body of their own.

[Damien the Leper]

Couldn't the same be said about other forms of deviant sexuality?

Like heterosexuality? Polygamy? Polygny? Polyandry? The latter three are the most damning.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

Is this a serious question? BYU is a private institution and, as such, entitled to set its own conditions for enrollment, and enrollment there is a privilege, not an entitlement or a right.

 

 

I understand BYU has the right to do what ever it wants, but isn't BYU suppose to be an example for religious freedom? 

BYU students do not know their future, the students that changed their religion didn't know it was going to happen. 

http://www.freebyu.org/

 

 

Doesn't bother me. Should it?

 

So you are only concerned about conservative Christian religious freedom, not about the religious freedom of others. 

The poor polygamists in Utah get arrested for practicing their religious beliefs, but you don't care about that. 

 

The only war on religious comes from conservative Christians (most Utah lawmakers are conservative Christians) 

Edited July 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[tonie]

I believe Scotts "Doesn't bother me. Should it." was directly addressing religious marijuana usage and not polygamy.

[tonie]

I think Scott brought up a good subtopic, entitlements and privilege.

Accredidation = privilege

Official recognition of student group = privilege

Tax Exempt status = privilege

[jwhitlock]

I think Scott brought up a good subtopic, entitlements and privilege.

Accredidation = privilege

Official recognition of student group = privilege

Tax Exempt status = privilege

 

Wrong on all three.

 

The first and the last have been addressed in detail in this thread. I haven't seen any response from you to the specifics in those posts.

[jwhitlock]

 

Couldn't the same be said about other forms of deviant sexuality?

Like heterosexuality? Polygamy? Polygny? Polyandry? The latter three are the most damning.

 

 

Polygamy, polygyny and polyandry are relational structures and not sexual practices.

 

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual practices.

 

Hence, your comment is inaccurate.

[tonie]

I think Scott brought up a good subtopic, entitlements and privilege.

Accredidation = privilege

Official recognition of student group = privilege

Tax Exempt status = privilege

Wrong on all three.

The first and the last have been addressed in detail in this thread. I haven't seen any response from you to the specifics in those posts.

CFR that accredidation IS A RIGHT; And I presume you mean religious right.

CFR, that tax exempt status is a RIGHT

CFR that tax exempt status is a religious right

(Bob Jones v United Stated is the law of the land concerning tax exempt status)

CFR that official recognition of religious student groups is a RIGHT

CFR that official recognition of religious students groups is a religious right.

(Christian Legal Society v Martinez is the law of land)

Please inform yourself of the law, to include juris prudence, before you claim someone is wrong.

Edited July 11, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

jwhitlock please also inform yourself that in bob jone v united states, SCOTUS was UNANIMOUS that Congress has has authority over tax exempt status.

You refusal to accept the law of the land, and thus claiming "wrong", does nothing to provide any credibilty to claims.

Edited July 11, 2015 by tonie

[jwhitlock]

 

CFR that accredidation IS A RIGHT; And I presume you mean religious right.

CFR, that tax exempt status is a RIGHT

CFR that tax exempt status is a religious right

(Bob Jones v United Stated is the law of the land concerning tax exempt status)

CFR that official recognition of religious student groups is a RIGHT

CFR that official recognition of religious students groups is a religious right.

(Christian Legal Society v Martinez is the law of land)

Please inform yourself of the law, to include juris prudence, before you claim someone is wrong.

 

 

 

I am informed as to the law. You are still refusing to address the specific points made in my previous posts, so your CFRs are invalid.

 

You don't seem to understand conceptually that freedom of religion is a fundamental right. The discussion here is about court rulings that have abridged that right. In your eyes, as long as the court makes a decision, no one has the "right" to complain about it anymore.

 

Of course, that would mean that you would uncritically support Jim Crow laws that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the past, along with gems like the Dred Scott decision.

 

Because the courts are always correct, aren't they.

 

I've provided backing to my claims. You're ignoring them, as you have done in the past.  Until you're willing to address the specifics of what I've said, rather than ignoring them, there's not much use in trying to address your rather narrow and uninformed viewpoints.

Edited July 11, 2015 by jwhitlock

[tonie]

CFR that accredidation IS A RIGHT; And I presume you mean religious right.

CFR, that tax exempt status is a RIGHT

CFR that tax exempt status is a religious right

(Bob Jones v United Stated is the law of the land concerning tax exempt status)

CFR that official recognition of religious student groups is a RIGHT

CFR that official recognition of religious students groups is a religious right.

(Christian Legal Society v Martinez is the law of land)

Please inform yourself of the law, to include juris prudence, before you claim someone is wrong.

I am informed as to the law. You are still refusing to address the specific points made in my previous posts, so your CFRs are invalid.

You don't seem to understand conceptually that freedom of religion is a fundamental right. The discussion here is about court rulings that have abridged that right. In your eyes, as long as the court makes a decision, no one has the "right" to complain about it anymore.

Of course, that would mean that you would

uncritically support Jim Crow laws that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the past, along with gems like the Dred Scott decision.

Because the courts are always correct, aren't they.

I've provided backing to my claims. You're ignoring them, as you have done in the past. Until you're willing to address the specifics of what I've said, rather than ignoring them, there's not much use in trying to address your rather narrow and uninformed viewpoints.

You ignore the law. You artogantly claim superiority.

As i understand Cfr, you ablige, or you retract your statent, or you leave the discussion.

Fullfil the CFR, or retract you false statement or leave the discussion.

YOU CAN NOT factually demonstrate that I am wrong. YOU CAN NOT do so because I have citing the law.

The very least you could to maintain some minute degree of credibility is say "Yes that is the law, I disagree and here is why". Yet you cant even do that you just arrogantly promouce "you are wrong, my opinions are the standard of truth."

Fulfill the CFRs, or retract your claim, which is demonstrabely shown to be false.

Edited July 11, 2015 by tonie