posted
The idea that Gay Marriage won't be harmful for those who disagree with the practice is becoming less defensible.Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that Gay Marriage won't be harmful for those who disagree with the practice is becoming less defensible.
The question "should gay people be given the same access to the entity called civil marriage?" is a different question than "should private organizations be denied a government benefit for exercising their religious freedoms?" The Constitution is not so anemic that it can't handle the answers "yes" and "no," respectively.
quote:And if they do, they can't be desciminatory, because taxes are paid by everyone, even the gays.
Should a Methodist church be required to host a Catholic mass? The effect of this ruling is to deny the Methodist entity a tax benefit unless its willing to conduct another religion's ceremony.
Without addressing the larger question of whether religious organizations should receive tax free status, it's clear that your standards don't work at all for governing that universal exemption.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ocean Grove is a public thoroughfare, even if the owners of the property are a church. The pavilion is a multi-use building which has been rented out to many groups for a variety of uses - most religious, but not all. Had it been an actual church, they would not be compelled to allow gays to marry in it.
The determination of what makes something merely church property rather than a church is an tricky issue, but the above is, as I understand it, the justification for this ruling.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Without addressing the larger question of whether religious organizations should receive tax free status, it's clear that your standards don't work at all for governing that universal exemption.
I prefer to address the larger question. It solves the largest amount of problems. Private religious organizations, like churches/parishes, should not receive tax free status. Period.
Then they can do what they like and not have to worry about performing ceremonies for homosexuals or Catholics, as per your hypothetical.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Would you support a constitutional amendment that granted same sex marriage, but at the same time guaranteed that no religious institution would be compelled, by legislation or litigation, to marry any couple that violated their faith?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a place is an institution used for the sack of entirely religious purposes, then they have every right to refuse people to do things there for religious reasons.
On the other hand though, if this institution is allowed to be used, or is used, for nonreligious functions. Or, that an institution is run by religious people but not used for religious purposes, then they have no right to refuse people for only religious reasons.
The examples given in the article are not about actual churches and synagogues, they are about schools and adoption agencies which have no right to qualify people based on what there own beliefs.
Yes, a Methodist church should not be forced to hold a Catholic mass. Yet, an adoption agency run by a church should not expect to be able to reject a couple because they are Jewish without some of their donors being upset. So too they should not expect to be able to get by for rejecting people for other religious reasons.
Gay-rights doesn't in any way, shape, or form destroy any part of the first amendment. The government is not preventing the exercise of any person's religious observance by allowing these people to try to live their lives. There is a fight in principle, but their in no fight or case for the idea that their religious freedom is being disrupted.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, while I'm an atheist, and have no particular love for (most) religious organizations, I do think that religious organizations should retain their tax-free status. While I don't care much about religion, there's a lot of people who do, and I'm frankly quite wary of giving the government much control over religious groups, and thus over people who follow that religion.
In particular, if the government was allowed to tax religious groups, I can imagine some pretty crappy scenarios where governments abuse their ability to tax churches in a carrot & stick manner. Like a town gov't running a small mosque out of the area by taxing it at crazy levels. Or one church getting lower tax loads because its parishioners are influential in the politics of the area.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I prefer to address the larger question. It solves the largest amount of problems. Private religious organizations, like churches/parishes, should not receive tax free status. Period.
Then they can do what they like and not have to worry about performing ceremonies for homosexuals or Catholics, as per your hypothetical.
What's the principle that conditions tax-free status on not being required to host ceremonies one doesn't believe in?
I'm aware of most of the arguments against tax-free status for religions. But this seems to go beyond that: that any tax free entity can't have limiting principles that deny access to certain people. That's seems untenable in practice, even beyond religious institutions.
quote:On the other hand though, if this institution is allowed to be used, or is used, for nonreligious functions. Or, that an institution is run by religious people but not used for religious purposes, then they have no right to refuse people for only religious reasons.
Why this attempt to confine religion to a defined space? Most "non-religious" functions of religious institutions are, in fact, religious to them.
Now, many religions choose to not restrict access to many of these institutions based on religious belief. But some don't. And this causal attitude that the government can force them to do so if they don't confine their activities to whatever the government decides is a "religious function" is frankly scary.
quote:Gay-rights doesn't in any way, shape, or form destroy any part of the first amendment. The government is not preventing the exercise of any person's religious observance by allowing these people to try to live their lives. There is a fight in principle, but their in no fight or case for the idea that their religious freedom is being disrupted.
Not in and of themselves, no. But some people do advocate government limits on the free exercise clause in the name of gay rights.
I don't think that's a reason to oppose gay rights. Nor do I think those efforts will ultimately be successful. However, ignoring the instances of it happening certainly won't convince others to support gay rights.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care too much whether or not religions should get tax-free perkdom. Well, maybe I care a little and think that it is a good thing because it prevents there from being that much of a profitability component necessary to having a place for your adherents to worship.
I feel that increases America's ability to be a place of free worship and all that. You know?
That said, this dire Gay Marriage v. Religious Freedom story is really an overblown attempt to turn a legal ruling into a false dilemma.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: While I don't care much about religion, there's a lot of people who do, and I'm frankly quite wary of giving the government much control over religious groups, and thus over people who follow that religion.
While I don't think that is necessarily true, I would much rather prefer the government having some control over religious groups than religious groups having control over the government.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert: I don't think the government should have control over religious groups and I don't think religious groups should have control over government. Both are a violation of other people's rights and prohibited in the first amendment.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Javert: I don't think the government should have control over religious groups and I don't think religious groups should have control over government. Both are a violation of other people's rights and prohibited in the first amendment.
I agree completely. I was merely stating that, if one is to have a limited bit of control over the other, I would much prefer the former to the latter.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then they can do what they like and not have to worry about performing ceremonies for homosexuals or Catholics, as per your hypothetical.
Or, you know, we could let them keep their tax-exempt status and not force them to marry homosexuals or Catholics, while also allowing equal access to that tax-exempt access to homosexuals and Catholics.
quote:While I don't think that is necessarily true, I would much rather prefer the government having some control over religious groups than religious groups having control over the government.
I don't like that idea at all. In fact, I find it completely antithetical to American values to be frank.
'Religious groups' is just another term-when discussing control over the government-for 'group of like-minded people'. If a bunch of people get together and think generally the same way, they're supposed to be able to exert some control over the government. That's what a democratic-based system is for.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I don't think that is necessarily true, I would much rather prefer the government having some control over religious groups than religious groups having control over the government.
I don't like that idea at all. In fact, I find it completely antithetical to American values to be frank.
'Religious groups' is just another term-when discussing control over the government-for 'group of like-minded people'. If a bunch of people get together and think generally the same way, they're supposed to be able to exert some control over the government. That's what a democratic-based system is for.
I think Javert meant something closer to the stereotypical power-hungry bigoted priests who offer the saving of souls in exchange for power, not people who share a faith.
That said, I think Rakeesh is a bit more realistic. I think that Javert's point about preferring government control to religious is far too hypothetical to be really practical in the immediate future.
If I humor Javert with the presumption that "religious groups" = traditional church hierarchy, I'd agree with him. I'd prefer democratically elected leaders to check and balance the system. But corrupt bishops are rarer than corrupt politicians, and many (if not most) religious sects are relatively democratic when choosing leadership anyway.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm deeply uncomfortable with the government having control even over the stereotypical power-hungry bigoted priest. I was pretty sure that was the sort of thing Javert meant (though I could be wrong), and that's the idea I was responding to.
Government control over religious institutions is not really such a hypothetical situation in the world, really.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can imagine some pretty crappy scenarios where governments abuse their ability to tax churches in a carrot & stick manner. Like a town gov't running a small mosque out of the area by taxing it at crazy levels. Or one church getting lower tax loads because its parishioners are influential in the politics of the area.
And if any town tried it, I'm positive it'd be taken to court by said religious institution, at the very least on grounds of the Establishment Clause. Government doesn't get to play favorites.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Religious organizations shouldn't be getting tax-free status anyway.
And if they do, they can't be desciminatory, because taxes are paid by everyone, even the gays.
If they are private organizations, they can be as descriminatory as they like.
So...you're basically saying that a very large portion of the money that many religions spend feeding homeless people, providing disaster relief, and organizing public service should go instead to the government which has proven itself highly inefficient in the best cases and absolutely useless in many cases to provide those same services to the community at large just so someone can get married where they want to. I'm sorry. But I don't see how telling someone "no" when they ask to be married on land you own is considered a breech of civil rights.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can imagine some pretty crappy scenarios where governments abuse their ability to tax churches in a carrot & stick manner. Like a town gov't running a small mosque out of the area by taxing it at crazy levels. Or one church getting lower tax loads because its parishioners are influential in the politics of the area.
And if any town tried it, I'm positive it'd be taken to court by said religious institution, at the very least on grounds of the Establishment Clause. Government doesn't get to play favorites.
Except that we've seen time and again where the government does play favorites, and uses its power to attack those it can, as you should know as a history major. Japanese interment camps? McCarthyism? And those are things done on a national level - I'm sure a lot more small-time crappy things happen in small towns & counties. Think of the racism that's still prevalent in some pockets in the South.
Or, not to pick on the state, but I've known one or two small towns in Indiana where the town leaders would be perfectly happy using whatever means they have to keep a mosque and those "Islamic terrorists" out of their town. Even if those wronged could eventually get reparations (like the Japanese who are still alive did), that doesn't erase the wrong done. And taxes code is pretty complicated - it'd be quite possible to overvalue the land the church owns by 10%, or come up with "reasonable" tax codes that would end up only hitting those groups that you didn't like.
Better to keep the issue off the table completely by marking out a hard line of separation between church & state, even if it gives the churches more than I think is right. In a perfect world I think they ought to be taxed, but as a second-best effort, tax-free status does the job needed.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have said "the government shouldn't expect to play favorites and not be called out on it."
I wasn't taking a position one way or the other on the tax exempt status of religious organizations. To be honest, I don't have an opinion on it at the moment.
I guess what I meant was, yes, the government will TRY to do things that it isn't supposed to be allowed to do, but they often get smacked down for it later on. Especially in the world we live in today, with the ACLU and religious groups having vast amounts of wealth and power, even the slightest offense of our PC sensibilities, to say nothing of a full blown discrimination case would explode onto the national media scene, or at least onto the blog scene, which would then make it to the national media.
Historically, yes, the government commits atrocities. It only took eight years to get a Congress and president to sign the Alien and Sedition Acts, which personally I think were clearly unconstitutional (well, the sedition acts anyway). And they were subsequently repealed as soon as Jefferson got into office. I think there's a pretty clear history in the US of pretty egregious actions taken by the government for whatever reason that were eventually fixed though often too slowly. We're a nation of slow, lumbering, inexorable progress.
Government makes mistakes often, sometimes willfully, sometimes maliciously, but I have faith in the fact that there will always be someone there to cry foul, regardless of the consequences. I guess I have a little bit more faith in both our legal system and in our ability to resist illegal actions by government officials, but hey, I'm still young and naive.
I'm positive that were such an event to happen, it'd be seized upon and fought. But I think I lean towards a point of view that seeks to remove the problem from ever occurring in the first place. But still, I don't know which side of the issue that puts me on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage, in the eyes of the Government, is a legal contract binding two parties together.
You can have the biggest god damn wedding at the biggest church and it won't mean a thing till you sigh that wedding certificate.
All weddings/marriages are civil unions in the eyes of the Law.
The problem with the majority of the population is that they refuse to acknowlege this and continue to think that marriage is solely the domain of religion... which is false.
Separation of Church and State people.
Let the churches keep their wedding rituals...I don't care about that. If certain religions don't want to marry gay folk that's fine by me... but don't stand in the way of our legal contracts.
Besides, when two folk are bound we don't need anyone's approval... certain folk might think they are preventing these unions, but we don't give a damn what others think... if I am in a permanent relationship with another guy I don't need anyone's permission or approval.
It would be nice to have just Civil Unions for all or even just for gay folk, but unfortunaly the population of the US doesn't understand the difference between religious marriage and legal contracts and thus the battle for gay unions under the banner of marriage continues.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Would you support a constitutional amendment that granted same sex marriage, but at the same time guaranteed that no religious institution would be compelled, by legislation or litigation, to marry any couple that violated their faith?
posted
I wouldn't support it as the first part I STRONGLY disagree with. In other words, I would support a constitutional amendment making marriage between a man and a woman. So, it is a moot question.
Edit: The only other constitutional amendment I would support is the complete disolvement of government involvement in marriage - period.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: So...you're basically saying that a very large portion of the money that many religions spend feeding homeless people, providing disaster relief, and organizing public service should go instead to the government
No.
I'm saying that a very large portion of the money that many religions spend building churches and temples, paying preachers, funding attempts to convert others and using to support the continued existence of golden palaces in Europe (for example) should go instead to the government.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: The only other constitutional amendment I would support is the complete disolvement of government involvement in marriage - period.
That I would possibly be in favor of, but even then I think it could be handled with regular laws and wouldn't need a constitutional amendment. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm saying that a very large portion of the money that many religions spend building churches and temples, paying preachers, funding attempts to convert others and using to support the continued existence of golden palaces in Europe (for example) should go instead to the government.
And I'm saying: I want to keep the government out of religion as much as if not more than you want to keep religion out of government.
For historically better reasons, in fact. The dangers of government involvement in religion like you're describing are rife throughout history. It's interesting that your approach to the problem of seperating church and state is to put a lot more state in the church.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For historically better reasons, in fact. The dangers of government involvement in religion like you're describing are rife throughout history.
Indeed, the freedom of religion and separation of church and state as originally intended by the Founders were put in place in response to government interference in religion in Europe, and was meant to keep religion free of government. As they were almost all deeply religous men, much less thought was given to keeping the Divine out of government.
In fact, in Massachusetts, easily the most progressive as far as civil rights goes, of the original colonies, twice rejected freedom of religion in their state Constitution, once at the original convention in the 1770's in the version written by John Adams, and again in the 1810's or 20's when they were called back to edit it.
It wasn't until much, much later that we became more concerned with keeping the government free of religion. Jefferson was assailed as Godless by many newspapers and the equivilant of attack ads at the time as a way to undermine his election chances. People very, very much expected their leaders to be religious men. And for that matter, it's still pretty hard to get elected to any high office if you aren't.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not clear on what basis churches are entitled to tax free status. There are lots of reasons why an organization may have tax free status. Certainly religious charitable organizations should have the same status as secular charitable organizations. If they are both tax free it doesn't bother me in the least. There are many private organizations that provide public services, and which deserve tax free status. The fact that the parent organization is religious shouldn't enter into it.
What does bother me is if a church owns property that remains off the tax roles (rolls?) strictly because it belongs to a church. Of if a clergyman doesn't pay personal income tax because his income has a religious basis. I'm not saying that I know either of these cases to be true, I'm just giving them as examples of cases that I don't think should be allowed.
As to the more common concept of a church: that is a building where people go to hear a sermon given by a preacher, where money is collected to pay for the upkeep of the building, as well as the salary of the preacher. On what basis is this arrangement exempt from taxes?
BTW, for what it's worth, I disagree that the government has any right to demand that a church allow its property to be used for purposes that it doesn't approve of.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, I can answer some of that. Religious organizations do not pay taxes on the same basis as other non-profit organizations. Not because they're religious but because they're non-profit. If the organization engages in any for-profit activities those are taxed, as is the property used for them. For example, if a downtown church rents out some of its parking spaces during the week then they must pay tax on that income and property tax on the % of the land that is used.
Clergy do pay income tax. There are a couple of weird quirks in the income tax code that apply to clergy and other religious workers, but they mostly have to do with how the value of housing in a parsonage or rectory is counted. And the fact that for Federal tax purposes clergy are considered self-employed -- so we pay both halves of Social Security and Medicare out of our salaries rather than the church (or denomination) paying half. And some of the housing related stuff is deductable for income tax but taxable for Social Security, which can make things a little messy. (When I was a part time student pastor the double hit of SS tax on the "fair rental value" of the parsonage was about three times the income tax I paid on my salary.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm deeply uncomfortable with the government having control even over the stereotypical power-hungry bigoted priest. I was pretty sure that was the sort of thing Javert meant (though I could be wrong), and that's the idea I was responding to.
Government control over religious institutions is not really such a hypothetical situation in the world, really.
Perhaps our definitions of "control" vary slightly. I was under the presumption that interference would be limited, but this is how I see it: I'd rather have democratically elected leaders have the greater influence, but if they get out of hand, religious groups still have enormous power to stir the masses as a force of change. The only way that can't happen is if the whole world became like western Europe, caring very little about religion for the most part except for militant atheists. Which I don't really think is going to happen; under the Copernican principle, I can say with 95% certainty that it will last another 2000 years.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's interesting that your approach to the problem of seperating church and state is to put a lot more state in the church.
That isn't my approach to the problem. I don't view taxing businesses, which is what the majority of these religious organizations are, means that the state controls them. It means that they aren't given benefits just because they are religions.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That isn't my approach to the problem. I don't view taxing businesses, which is what the majority of these religious organizations are, means that the state controls them. It means that they aren't given benefits just because they are religions.
*shrug* You have a point only if you buy into that controversial assumption.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's kinda what I figured, but you always hear it phrased as "Churches are tax exempt."
As long as the organization doesn't turn a profit, then there isn't anything to tax. However, I don't know how that works with respect to real estate. Does a church pay property taxes on the building? What about property that the church owns, say a church or school building that has been shut down, but is still owned by the church. Do they pay property taxes on that? What about capital gains when they sell the property at a profit?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Churches do not pay property taxes on buildings that are used only for non-profit activities. They do pay taxes on any portion of the building that is either rented to a for-profit company or individual or used in a for-profit business.
I don't know about vacant buildings -- in the UMC if a church closes ownership of the property is transfered to the regional denominational body. I do remember some farmland that was left to a church in a will -- I'm pretty sure that there were taxes involved when that was sold. I was a member of the church at that time but not on the finance committee, so I don't know/remember the details.
The "churches are tax exempt" phrasing is confusing for a lot of people. We often have people ask for our tax-exempt number so we don't have to pay sales tax and the secretary has to explain that churches do in fact have to pay sales tax.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As long as the organization doesn't turn a profit, then there isn't anything to tax.
That's not how it works, either. I work at a credit union. In order to be competitive, we still have to turn a profit. The difference is that our profit doesn't go to shareholders; it is reinvested in products and services designed to improve the lives of our members. We don't turn away people with money, but our raison d'etre is to help low-income families improve their financial situation.
I expect churches work in a similar way. The money they raise (if the congregation is providing proper oversight) goes into new buildings and services they consider to be essential. That might include Bibles in hotel rooms, missionaries, feeding the hungry, or any number of activities that don't personally benefit the administrators.
Now, if your real objection is that you don't like their stated purpose of telling other folks how cool Jesus is, that becomes a seperate question. I wouldn't know what to tell you there.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the article above and my first thoughts were, "Gee, the Govt and the Activists are stretching here."
Then I thought more. What if we changed "Homosexual" to "Interracial". Would I still say the activists are wrong? What if it was Jewish or Muslim or Atheist?
Fifty years ago there were a vast number of Christian churches that say inter-racial marriage as sinful.
In the first case listed in the article property belonging to the church which is routinely used by non-members for weddings is denied use by a gay couple. The church claimed that since it was also used for weddings and religious services by there church, using it for something they find sinful would be wrong.
If this church thought that interracial marriages were sinful, would we agree with their denying only interracial couples for using the facilities? Wouldn't that scream of racism?
Denying Jesus is also a sin, but they do not have a requirement that users be Christian. It is only this one sin that they punish with denying access to this space.
The photographer refused to service a client based on their sexual orientation. Now I think it would be stupid to hire a photographer that did not believe in the validity of your wedding. Still, if the cause of that denial was based on race, or on ethnicity, would any church back them up? If the photographer blithely told people who called, "I'm sorry, we don't do black weddings." or "We disagree with the way you folks treated Jesus so we don't do Jewish weddings" would we still consider this OK?
You have the right to refuse service to anyone. You do not have the right to be prejudice.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As long as the organization doesn't turn a profit, then there isn't anything to tax.
There's an additional wrinkle here: contributions to the type of non-profits that includes religious organizations are a deduction on the donor's federal return, assuming the donor is itemizing federal taxes. The ATM changes this somewhat, too. So it's not just the profit not being taxed.
But this benefit is available to a myriad of organizations - youth baseball leagues, community theaters, and much more.
Here's a list of different types of tax exempt organizations. Specific benefits vary by tax code section. Religious organizations are grouped with "Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations."
quote:If this church thought that interracial marriages were sinful, would we agree with their denying only interracial couples for using the facilities? Wouldn't that scream of racism?
It might scream of racism. But would it demand government coercion?
quote:You have the right to refuse service to anyone. You do not have the right to be prejudice.
This is actually not true. Everyone has the right to be prejudiced in this country. Certain forms of discrimination that stem from prejudice are illegal. There's a significant difference.
Moreover, the number of discriminatory acts that are banned by law are dwarfed by the number of discriminatory acts that are not banned by law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not how it works, either. I work at a credit union. In order to be competitive, we still have to turn a profit. The difference is that our profit doesn't go to shareholders; it is reinvested in products and services designed to improve the lives of our members.
This is a matter of definition. A not for profit is a business, and it's entitled to grow. I don't consider this a profit, and given the definition of "not for profit" I'm pretty sure this falls under that category.
quote:There's an additional wrinkle here: contributions to the type of non-profits that includes religious organizations are a deduction on the donor's federal return, assuming the donor is itemizing federal taxes. The ATM changes this somewhat, too. So it's not just the profit not being taxed.
This should go over on the libertarian thread, but doesn't this mean that you could form a not for profit co-op, such as a farm or commune, in which you could work, and receive food and lodging in return, while being isolated from the both the U.S. system of taxes as well as the federal reserve? This is my answer to the "love it or leave it" rebuttal. You don't have to leave it. You just have to isolate yourself from the parts of the system that you don't like.
edit: My last paragraph diverted substantially from my initial response to Dag's comment. So my comment really doesn't follow from Dag's at all.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This should go over on the libertarian thread, but doesn't this mean that you could form a not for profit co-op, such as a farm or commune, in which you could work, and receive food and lodging in return, while being isolated from the both the U.S. system of taxes as well as the federal reserve?
Couple of problems here. First, I'm not sure the communes fall into the same category as other nonprofits. Typically, the beneficiaries can't be individually identified.
Second, those who work for non-profits (mostly) pay the same income and payroll taxes as other employees. Food and lodging in exchange for work performed is taxable in most circumstances.
That means even a self-sufficient farm/commune with no outside transactions would likely have some money going out for taxes. This would actually be an interesting exercise in business organization law.
Also, local property taxes are not required to recognize federal tax exemptions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand though, if this institution is allowed to be used, or is used, for nonreligious functions. Or, that an institution is run by religious people but not used for religious purposes, then they have no right to refuse people for only religious reasons.
The examples given in the article are not about actual churches and synagogues, they are about schools and adoption agencies which have no right to qualify people based on what there own beliefs.
If the building was built with private funds, and if it is maintained on private land from non-tax dollars, the government should have no say in who gets married or whatever there.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
