Reply With Quote
Preach all you want from the pulpit, but religious ins utions have no place legislating their morality. If this is your slippery slope, I would think most sane people would welcome it.
as predicted - the s -- via hate speech groups - out to silence religious organizations -- next step - label churches that say sexuality is a sin as hate speech from the pulpit -- and removal of tax exempt status... darn slippery slope.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457086,00.html
Preach all you want from the pulpit, but religious ins utions have no place legislating their morality. If this is your slippery slope, I would think most sane people would welcome it.
It's going to be awesome watching the enforced political correctness rip apart this country.
Sort of like those who have been trying to force their religiuous beliefs down my throat has ripped this country apart...
Preach all you want from the pulpit, but religious ins utions have no place legislating their morality. If this is your slippery slope, I would think most sane people would welcome it.+1Sort of like those who have been trying to force their religiuous beliefs down my throat has ripped this country apart...
It's not as if this challenge is about the content of what was said -- there are definite reporting requirements for churches and religious groups who convey value associated with a political campaign and wish to nevertheless retain the benefits of tax-exempt status.
Is implacable suggesting that the reporting requirements should be ignored? Or that the state should look the other way when someone makes a credible claim that the reporting requirements haven't been satisfied?
By defining something as hate speech...isn't that also legislating morality?
Preach all you want from the pulpit, but religious ins utions have no place legislating their morality. If this is your slippery slope, I would think most sane people would welcome it.
who's defining hate speech? and who's trying to legislate speech?
Yeah, it was much better when slavery was legal, and women weren't allowed to vote, and other such wonderful democratic values flourished.
Say what you want, but do you believe in our cons ution:
Preach all you want from the pulpit, but religious ins utions have no place legislating their morality. If this is your slippery slope, I would think most sane people would welcome it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do you even understand what you copy and paste?
No, I understand. I think you don't understand why I posted it.
Congress shall make no law regarding established religeon. That's one proper way to read that. They cannot make a church stop preaching that sexuality is bad. They cannot make a church not spead the word. Some people wish to silence churches with legislation. There is nothing saying the church cannot influence legislation. There is no true separation of church and state.
Uncons utional. Period. Very simple to interpret a do ent meant to be understood by mankind of the period.
Of course they can't. The church simply gives up its tax exempt status if it chooses to become that politically active.They cannot make a church not spead the word.
I don't know if they can really do that. That is an interesting argument, but it then takes a tax law and uses it as a method to legislate over the church. I think if it was contested in court, the government would lose. Now such a thing could be done with the likes of The Church of Scientology, because they are not "Established religeon," but not the likes of a Christian faith, Jewish, etc. They might be able to do it to the Mormons because it was not an establish religion at the time!
You don't know a lot of things.I don't know if they can really do that.
Nice how you don't know how to answer the rest of my comments.
You're real good at cherry picking. You should try the crops in Hood River and The Dalles when they are in season.
There isn't anything else to say. You are talking straight out of your ass with zero understanding of how the legal system works in this country. You pretend that your personal interpretation of the Cons ution is law. It's stupid and so are you for doing so.
You're really good at pulling stuff out of your ass. You should try out for the Jim Rose Circus Side Show next time they go on tour.You're real good at cherry picking. You should try the crops in Hood River and The Dalles when they are in season.
I don't understand how churches are still allowed tax exempt status in many cases.
honestly, your argument is garbage.
feel free to show the cons utional amendment that says "churches must have tax exempt status"
There's so much wrong with this, but the best part is the notion of established religion.
I'm curious who gets to decide what is or isn't an established religion. Is there a great big register somewhere that defines what are and are not established religions?
Do the Lukumi Babalu Aye, with their practice of Santaria, cons ute an established religion? What about the Native American Church?
There is no such thing. It has to do with how taxation is used. The government uses taxation to influence the en ies taxed, by raising or lowering them for set conditions. It can be in a tax break, credit, or how expenses are deducted. In any case, that violates the first amendment unless such a tax rate could be set and never played with. Never used by some politician to influence the churches.
The simple fact that people talk about taxing churches for engaging in political speech creates an inhibition of their first amendment in the form of fear. If it were to actually be employed, you are now telling the churches that what they say comes at a cost. That then, is a clear violation of the first amendment.
I'm not positive myself what this actually was intended to be. The key word has two meanings. What I don't know is if the founding fathers meant 'establishment' as in the religion itself as a whole, or as in what already exists. They may have meant both. I never researched that one.
If they mean by religions already in existence, I would assume that would be limited to those already around when the first amendment was ratified. That would then include most or all forms of Christianity, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslin, etc. It could then exclude Scientology and what most of us consider cults. It might be able to exclude the Mormon faith. I wouldn't really try to say yes on that for sure, because it is solidly based in Christianity. They just have added beliefs.
I had to look the first one up. It appears they won a case, that the courts counted them as an established religion. It could be one the courts ruled wrong on, it could be correct. I am far from qualified to answer that. For them possible not be able to be counted as an ‘established’ religion, it would have to apply that they changed their belief, ways, or something critical when they started up here. If they stay true to their beliefs prior to the first amendment, they would clearly fall under cons utional protection.
You take my response as an absolute, but I posted it as a possibility.
As for the Native American Church, the religion itself is established, long before we set foot on this continent.
Now as for both to be practiced on our soil, they can do so freely as long as it doesn’t violate other’s cons utional rights.
One thing that is clearly wrong, and why I believe the word ‘establishment’ also means established religions, is to keep someone from creating their own religion to cir vent laws. Think about it. If any religion is protected, and you want to break certain laws, create a religion and do so in the name of your faith.
What laws are one currently allowed to break due to membership in a religious group?One thing that is clearly wrong, and why I believe the word ‘establishment’ also means established religions, is to keep someone from creating their own religion to cir vent laws. Think about it. If any religion is protected, and you want to break certain laws, create a religion and do so in the name of your faith.
Does the Native American Church still get an exemption to use peyote as sacrament?
I believe that use is allowed by an actual act of Congress -- the American Indian Religious Freedom Act -- not inherently guaranteed by the Cons ution. The only Supreme Court cases I know about don't have much to do with the use of peyote itself, just some of the other consequences thereof (e.g., the denial of unemployment benefits after being fired for peyote use.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
