Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
* in whisper* blowfish- definitely! 😉
etson- People have a right to believe as they wish. That’s freedom of religion. But they don’t have to right to impose it on others (separation of church and state). That seems to be the sticking point- and if I am not mistaken, part of the rules for a religious tax exemption is that they do not engage in politics. Dave is right about the Constitution being clear- but it seems the interpretation of the Constitution is not so cut and dry, and its intent is being twisted out of recognition.
Etson- I am really torn regarding tax exemptions for religious organizations because they do so much valuable community work and taxes would effectively kill that. But what I do object to is the idea they can or should influence the political process in any way that imposes their particular beliefs on everyone else. Too many places of worship made concerted efforts to make their constituents vote for people who they felt they could pressure on issues like gay rights and abortion rights. (Yes- even some orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jewish groups are guilty of this.)
So is the solution to be more stringent in how the exemptions are given or maintained? I think any religious group that wants to be a political player should have to pay taxes. And as far as public life goes- they cannot use their religion to keep others from having equal rights. Government must be secular.
“etson, the “church and state” separations outlined in the Constitution are pretty clear.”
What does that have to do with tax exemption?
If it is a civil matter as you say, then any citizen or group of citizens has the right to a have view on it, for or against.
(I am actually fine with gay marriage personally, but I don’t agree with the position that those who oppose it have no right to do so because it’s a private matter in their opinion.)
“okay i love this hypocrisy… so if this person did NOT look like they could “take care of themself” it’s excusable for other project dwellers to mess with him?”
No, it’s not OK for “them” to mess with him or anyone else for that matter. I never said anything like that. I’m just telling you what I’ve observed.
You made a blanket statement about something you couldn’t possibly know to be true. I just wanted to let you (and anyone else who reads the OT) that you are dead wrong, Rob (big surprise!).
“LOL and another thing. it’s “tough” to live in the projects? uhhhh. okaaaay. i think it’s WEAK and feeble to live in the projects.”
It CAN be tough to live in a public housing project, but more importantly many public housing projects contain a population of legitimately tough guys who don’t have favorable attitudes toward alternative lifestyles (or society in general) and aren’t shy about showing it. Thus is stands to reason that any openly gay male who lives in a public housing project and retains the respect of even these residents can (and likely has) successfully confront any incidental or overt denigration of his lifestyle. But then again I wouldn’t expect someone like you to understand that.
I just disagree with ANYone using their religion as a way to modify how anyone not in that group should live/behave/or have access to anything! It’s outrageous.
In the case of the Hasids: Sorry gang, you chose to live in Brooklyn with 4 million other people, get over yourself. Shield your eyes! Think of it the same way as not eating certain foods. Look away!
In the case of the Catholics or any other church. It’s just not your call. There are other people involved. Trying to wield undue influence is just wrong. If you don’t want a gay marriage or an abortion. Don’t get one!!
* in whisper* blowfish- definitely! 😉
etson- People have a right to believe as they wish. That’s freedom of religion. But they don’t have to right to impose it on others (separation of church and state). That seems to be the sticking point- and if I am not mistaken, part of the rules for a religious tax exemption is that they do not engage in politics. Dave is right about the Constitution being clear- but it seems the interpretation of the Constitution is not so cut and dry, and its intent is being twisted out of recognition.
“I think any religious group that wants to be a political player should have to pay taxes.”
Posted by: bxgrl at December 9, 2009 12:41 PM
They do have to– just doesn’t seem to be enforced, which is weird, because IRS is normally aggressive
etson- read my above post– non-profits, including chruches- can’t be partisan and tax-exempt.
I suspect ENY is right and rob is wrong about the “tough guy” gay issue.
For once ENY is right and rob is wrong. 🙂
Etson- I am really torn regarding tax exemptions for religious organizations because they do so much valuable community work and taxes would effectively kill that. But what I do object to is the idea they can or should influence the political process in any way that imposes their particular beliefs on everyone else. Too many places of worship made concerted efforts to make their constituents vote for people who they felt they could pressure on issues like gay rights and abortion rights. (Yes- even some orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jewish groups are guilty of this.)
So is the solution to be more stringent in how the exemptions are given or maintained? I think any religious group that wants to be a political player should have to pay taxes. And as far as public life goes- they cannot use their religion to keep others from having equal rights. Government must be secular.
“etson, the “church and state” separations outlined in the Constitution are pretty clear.”
What does that have to do with tax exemption?
If it is a civil matter as you say, then any citizen or group of citizens has the right to a have view on it, for or against.
(I am actually fine with gay marriage personally, but I don’t agree with the position that those who oppose it have no right to do so because it’s a private matter in their opinion.)
[nudges bxgirl: psst, is the yesterday’s smack down with cmu worth finding & reading?]
“okay i love this hypocrisy… so if this person did NOT look like they could “take care of themself” it’s excusable for other project dwellers to mess with him?”
No, it’s not OK for “them” to mess with him or anyone else for that matter. I never said anything like that. I’m just telling you what I’ve observed.
You made a blanket statement about something you couldn’t possibly know to be true. I just wanted to let you (and anyone else who reads the OT) that you are dead wrong, Rob (big surprise!).
“LOL and another thing. it’s “tough” to live in the projects? uhhhh. okaaaay. i think it’s WEAK and feeble to live in the projects.”
It CAN be tough to live in a public housing project, but more importantly many public housing projects contain a population of legitimately tough guys who don’t have favorable attitudes toward alternative lifestyles (or society in general) and aren’t shy about showing it. Thus is stands to reason that any openly gay male who lives in a public housing project and retains the respect of even these residents can (and likely has) successfully confront any incidental or overt denigration of his lifestyle. But then again I wouldn’t expect someone like you to understand that.
I just disagree with ANYone using their religion as a way to modify how anyone not in that group should live/behave/or have access to anything! It’s outrageous.
In the case of the Hasids: Sorry gang, you chose to live in Brooklyn with 4 million other people, get over yourself. Shield your eyes! Think of it the same way as not eating certain foods. Look away!
In the case of the Catholics or any other church. It’s just not your call. There are other people involved. Trying to wield undue influence is just wrong. If you don’t want a gay marriage or an abortion. Don’t get one!!