"Separation of Church and State"

[pinqy]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

I'm not asserting there is a special restriction on religion. Rather, I'm taking the position government privileges, such as tax breaks, should not be predicated upon the recipient not exercising some constitutional right. In this instance, tax exemption shouldn't be based on recipients not engaging in s specific kind of political speech.

The condition is that certain criteria for a charitable organization should be met. Campaigning for or against a specific candidate is outside the role of a charity.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but you seem to see it as "If you're a charity, you can't speak about candidates," but I see it as "If you speak about candidates, you're no longer a charity."

 

[NotreDame]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

The condition is that certain criteria for a charitable organization should be met. Campaigning for or against a specific candidate is outside the role of a charity.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but you seem to see it as "If you're a charity, you can't speak about candidates," but I see it as "If you speak about candidates, you're no longer a charity."

This ignores the substance of the condition. The substance of the condition is a specific kind of political speech. No such condition should exist. The government should not make people or entities choose between receiving a government privilege and exercising a constitutional right in a specific manner.

A similar example would be those state governments conditioning public assistance, welfare, on the recipients submitting to random drug testing, thereby waiving 4th Amendment rights in a specific manner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fishking]

Well, it was the case of the Baptists, as a minority religion, not receiving the same rights and considerations from a Legislature made up of the majority religion.

I've never understood how people think a "one-way separation" could work. The majority religion would have an effect on the government, which would favor the majority religion and necessarily disfavor minority religions to at least not give them equal voice.

If there is no religious test to hold office or w/e else, and you can't make laws respecting a religious establishment, what is there to worry about?

 

[pinqy]

If there is no religious test to hold office or w/e else, and you can't make laws respecting a religious establishment, what is there to worry about?

Tyranny of the majority and an unofficial religion. Protection of minority rights and equality is crucial.

 

[Fishking]

Tyranny of the majority and an unofficial religion. Protection of minority rights and equality is crucial.

You're scared of an unofficial religion? Weird. We've had that since the founding and beyond. Somehow we've been able to muddle through.

 

[pinqy]

You're scared of an unofficial religion? Weird. We've had that since the founding and beyond. Somehow we've been able to muddle through.

What do you see as the practical difference between an official and unofficial religion? For example, in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) the school district had students vote whether or not to have a prayer before football games and another vote for who would give that prayer for the season. Since the school district was majority Baptist, this system guaranteed that only a Baptist student, giving Christian prayers (acceptable to Baptists) would be selected and no minority religion would ever get its prayers said.

So how is that any different from just having an official school religion?

Oh, The school district had a history of harassment of and discrimination against Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish students. It was Catholic and Mormon families that brought the law suit.

 

[Fishking]

What do you see as the practical difference between an official and unofficial religion? For example, in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) the school district had students vote whether or not to have a prayer before football games and another vote for who would give that prayer for the season. Since the school district was majority Baptist, this system guaranteed that only a Baptist student, giving Christian prayers (acceptable to Baptists) would be selected and no minority religion would ever get its prayers said.

So how is that any different from just having an official school religion?

Oh, The school district had a history of harassment of and discrimination against Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish students. It was Catholic and Mormon families that brought the law suit.

How is that different than anything? We have laws that a certain number of people want, that another segment do not want. We have various policies that some people want that others do not. In any society or government there will be conflicts of interest. As long as no one is being forced to do whatever then I don't see what the problem is.

Discrimination is an entirely different subject that you're conflating with the issue. It's not mutually inclusive.

 

[pinqy]

How is that different than anything? We have laws that a certain number of people want, that another segment do not want. We have various policies that some people want that others do not. In any society or government there will be conflicts of interest. As long as no one is being forced to do whatever then I don't see what the problem is.

The problem is that free exercise of religion is supposed to be protected. In this case, only the majority religion is allowed to exercise its religion. The problem is that the government is not allowed to establish a religion, and in this case, the effect of what they did was the same.

As Jefferson said: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "

Discrimination is an entirely different subject that you're conflating with the issue. It's not mutually inclusive.

No, it's part and parcel. Preferring one religion over others is, by itself, discrimination, whether or not it's official or unofficial.

 

[Fishking]

The problem is that free exercise of religion is supposed to be protected. In this case, only the majority religion is allowed to exercise its religion. The problem is that the government is not allowed to establish a religion, and in this case, the effect of what they did was the same.

That's not what it says. It can't make a law "respecting an establishment of religion", which is totally different. That aside, it's not establishing anything and neither does it keep anyone else from practicing their religion. Someone else praying doesn't stop anyone else from doing what they do. While deployed to Iraq, the many mosques there blasted their prayers over the loudspeakers. It didn't effect or stop me one bit and neither did I feel put upon in the slightest.

As Jefferson said: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "

And as long as no law is being passed, then it's not an issue.

No, it's part and parcel. Preferring one religion over others is, by itself, discrimination, whether or not it's official or unofficial.

Not so. There is no preference. If Hillary wins the election are Republicans being discriminated against?

 

[MaryAnne]

I was clearly addressing another poster who most certainly made tax exempt status an issue. Or would you prefer to dictate to the rest of us what is or isn't the issue? As unfathomable as it my seem, other posters may have a different interest to be discussed from you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

I'm not asserting there is a special restriction on religion. Rather, I'm taking the position government privileges, such as tax breaks, should not be predicated upon the recipient not exercising some constitutional right. In this instance, tax exemption shouldn't be based on recipients not engaging in s specific kind of political speech.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In view of the spirit of the First Amendment--government neutrality on religious matters--I think the restriction regarding the exemption privilege is most reasonable. Speech is not restricted, but the privilege comes with rules.

 

[pinqy]

That's not what it says. It can't make a law "respecting an establishment of religion", which is totally different.

SCOTUS ruled in Everson v Board of Education (1947) that "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""

That aside, it's not establishing anything and neither does it keep anyone else from practicing their religion.

On equal standing? If a school or government sets up a prayer but discriminates as to who can pray, then yes, those not allowed to participate are prohibited from practicing their religion to the same extent as others.

Someone else praying doesn't stop anyone else from doing what they do.

Only allowing one religion to pray in public certainly does stop the non-favored groups from praying in public.

]While deployed to Iraq, the many mosques there blasted their prayers over the loudspeakers. It didn't effect or stop me one bit and neither did I feel put upon in the slightest.

Why would you? But if you were a child in school, and every day over the loudspeaker, prayers to Allah in the name of Mohammed (PBUH) were broadcast, including passages from the Qaran stating the Allah has no son, and no religious expression except Islam was allowed, are you telling me you would feel perfectly equal?



And as long as no law is being passed, then it's not an issue.



Not so. There is no preference. If Hillary wins the election are Republicans being discriminated against?[/QUOTE]

 

[Fishking]

SCOTUS ruled in Everson v Board of Education (1947) that "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this:

Yes, that's what they ruled but that is not what is says, or means.

On equal standing? If a school or government sets up a prayer but discriminates as to who can pray, then yes, those not allowed to participate are prohibited from practicing their religion to the same extent as others.

It's not discrimination. It's a majority going with their preference that does not inhibit anyone else.

Only allowing one religion to pray in public certainly does stop the non-favored groups from praying in public.

No one is stopping anyone else from praying in public.

Why would you? But if you were a child in school, and every day over the loudspeaker, prayers to Allah in the name of Mohammed (PBUH) were broadcast, including passages from the Qaran stating the Allah has no son, and no religious expression except Islam was allowed, are you telling me you would feel perfectly equal?

Exactly, why would I? What the majority religion does has no bearing on me. The only way it does is this weak victim mentality that has been fostered in our country.

I don't know what you intended with the bottom part as the quote was messed up.

 

[NotreDame]

"Separation of Church and State"

In view of the spirit of the First Amendment--government neutrality on religious matters--I think the restriction regarding the exemption privilege is most reasonable. Speech is not restricted, but the privilege comes with rules.

The principle of government neutrality is an issue.

The issue is a specific kind of free speech right. Specifically, the free speech right
to engage in a particular kind of political speech.

Your retort of "rules" is to once again miss the issue. The issue isn't about rules. The issue is specifically in regards to the substance of a specific rule. One of the rules is to forego exercising a specific free speech right to receive government money. Government privileges or benefits shouldn't be in any part based upon a recipient not exercising a right.

A similar practice is of state governments conditioning eligibility of social welfare programs on the basis of submitting to random drug testing, waiving specific 4th Amendment rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harshaw]

The meaning of "separation of church and state" has evolved over the years. In 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building and many government officials attended church there up until Lincoln's term. Congress also reviewed and approved a version of the Bible in the 1700s and public school teachers taught scripture to their students. Apparently it didn't mean what many think it means now.

Jefferson's concept of "wards" included a central public building within the ward that acted as the seat of government, as a meeting hall, as a school, and as a church.

 

[Master PO]

The meaning of "separation of church and state" has evolved over the years. In 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building and many government officials attended church there up until Lincoln's term. Congress also reviewed and approved a version of the Bible in the 1700s and public school teachers taught scripture to their students. Apparently it didn't mean what many think it means now.

well the constitution used to be very simple....congress shall make NO law.

now in todays time, something is not even a law and the 1st amendment is invoked

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

The principle of government neutrality is an issue.

The issue is a specific kind of free speech right. Specifically, the free speech right
to engage in a particular kind of political speech.

Your retort of "rules" is to once again miss the issue. The issue isn't about rules. The issue is specifically in regards to the substance of a specific rule. One of the rules is to forego exercising a specific free speech right to receive government money. Government privileges or benefits shouldn't be in any part based upon a recipient not exercising a right.

A similar practice is of state governments conditioning eligibility of social welfare programs on the basis of submitting to random drug testing, waiving specific 4th Amendment rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not persuasive, in the least.

You say it's not about rules, but you invoke the "rule" of free speech.

You can't have it both ways ND.

Have a good weekend. eace

 

[thinkagain]

That's not what it says. It can't make a law "respecting an establishment of religion", which is totally different. That aside, it's not establishing anything and neither does it keep anyone else from practicing their religion. Someone else praying doesn't stop anyone else from doing what they do. While deployed to Iraq, the many mosques there blasted their prayers over the loudspeakers. It didn't effect or stop me one bit and neither did I feel put upon in the slightest.



And as long as no law is being passed, then it's not an issue.



Not so. There is no preference. If Hillary wins the election are Republicans being discriminated against?

I believe you are on the right path here. The Constitution is to be interpreted on the basis of the principles on which this nation was founded as per the Declaration of Independence.


Individual rights and freedoms/liberty are put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The Gov't is not to make any law outside its legitimate purview and especially not law that messes with individual liberty, never mind one based on religious belief.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

The founders believed in and wanted to limit the power of Gov't ... "Limit it to what" ? "Only acts which are injurious to others" Direct harm, one person on another.

This comes directly out of classical liberalism (ideas such as the social contract).

If the Gov't wants to make law outside it's legitimate authority - it must appeal to "we the people". The bar of approval that the Gov't must get is not 50+1. Every Gov't has that and there would then be no point in putting individual liberty "Above" the power of Gov't. This was referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority"

The bar is "overwhelming majority/super majority" 2/3rds or 75%.

The assumption of classical liberalism is that no man wants another to rule over him.

However, for protection .. under the social contract "we the people" agree to give Gov't power to enforce laws relating to one person harming another directly. Murder, rape, theft and so on.

How many people believe that murder should be illegal (overwhelming majority). The bar is no different for any other law.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Not persuasive, in the least.

You say it's not about rules, but you invoke the "rule" of free speech.

You can't have it both ways ND.

Have a good weekend. eace

Do you comprehend what we are discussing? We are not discussing rules. We are discussing the substance of the rules. Got it? Hence, I can have it both ways because I'm invoking the substance of what is crudely a "rule" to address the substance of another "rule." It's the substance that matters and its mystifying, or maybe not mystifying, you can't grasp the fact the issue is in regards to substance of the rules.

In addition, your statement of "not persuasive in the least" is what is not persuasive as you've provided no reasoned, substantive rebuttal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Do you comprehend what we are discussing? We are not discussing rules. We are discussing the substance of the rules. Got it? Hence, I can have it both ways because I'm invoking the substance of what is crudely a "rule" to address the substance of another "rule." It's the substance that matters and its mystifying, or maybe not mystifying, you can't grasp the fact the issue is in regards to substance of the rules.

In addition, your statement of "not persuasive in the least" is what is not persuasive as you've provided no reasoned, substantive rebuttal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you sir, have failed to provide any reasoned or substantive explanation of how and why the privilege of not paying taxes conflicts with the rights protected by the First Amendment.

You have offered a false and poor explanation, and it certainly does not persuade me. Privilege and right are 2 different words and concepts and practices.

Perhaps you think any religious group should be exempted from paying taxes? The Divine Right Of The Religious perhaps? :lol:

Anybody who claims he can have it both ways is being a bit presumptive, and more than slightly dishonest. You might kid yourself, but others may not be so gullible.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

And you sir, have failed to provide any reasoned or substantive explanation of how and why the privilege of not paying taxes conflicts with the rights protected by the First Amendment.

You have offered a false and poor explanation, and it certainly does not persuade me. Privilege and right are 2 different words and concepts and practices.

Anybody who claims he can have it both ways is being a bit presumptive, and more than slightly dishonest. You might kid yourself, but others may not be so gullible.

And you sir, have failed to provide any reasoned or substantive explanation of how and why the privilege of not paying taxes conflicts with the rights protected by the First Amendment.

To the contrary, I have articulated an argument as to why the condition of not exercising a specific free speech right to receive tax exempt status infringes upon the free speech right of political speech. I have made this argument repeatedly in numerous posts. Time, apparently, for you to begin the exercise of re-reading what I posted, assuming you read them at all.

You have offered a false and poor explanation

Another unsubstantiated remark. Given your proclivity to make unsubstantiated remarks, it is not surprising you have yet to make any substantive rebuttal.

Privilege and right are 2 different words and concepts and practices.

Irrelevant. Once again, invoking phrases which have absolutely nothing to do with what is presently being discussed. The issue is whether privileges and rights are different. Get a freaking CLUE!

Anybody who claims he can have it both ways is being a bit presumptive, and more than slightly dishonest. You might kid yourself, but others may not be so gullible

More unadulterated non-sense. Do you ever first ponder the non-sense you are going to type or do you just impulsively type non-sense? My remark this isn't about "rules" while referring to the Free Speech Clause is contradictory, as you so erroneously suggested, because the issue isn't about "rules" but the substance of the rules and how they interact with each other.

The only gullible individual, between you and I, and others, is you. You've deluded yourself into thinking you have made an intelligible remark on the issue. You have not, ever!

Perhaps you think any religious group should be exempted from paying taxes? The Divine Right Of The Religious perhaps? :lol:

I concur with the "lol." Your query is laughable as I have said nothing to remotely suggest I have the view religious groups should be tax exempt. Neither have I said anything to imply I am making such a point. This solidifies the fact you really do not understand the issue being discussed.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

To the contrary, I have articulated an argument as to why the condition of not exercising a specific free speech right to receive tax exempt status infringes upon the free speech right of political speech. I have made this argument repeatedly in numerous posts. Time, apparently, for you to begin the exercise of re-reading what I posted, assuming you read them at all.



Another unsubstantiated remark. Given your proclivity to make unsubstantiated remarks, it is not surprising you have yet to make any substantive rebuttal.



Irrelevant. Once again, invoking phrases which have absolutely nothing to do with what is presently being discussed. The issue is whether privileges and rights are different. Get a freaking CLUE!



More unadulterated non-sense. Do you ever first ponder the non-sense you are going to type or do you just impulsively type non-sense? My remark this isn't about "rules" while referring to the Free Speech Clause is contradictory, as you so erroneously suggested, because the issue isn't about "rules" but the substance of the rules and how they interact with each other.

The only gullible individual, between you and I, and others, is you. You've deluded yourself into thinking you have made an intelligible remark on the issue. You have not, ever!



I concur with the "lol." Your query is laughable as I have said nothing to remotely suggest I have the view religious groups should be tax exempt. Neither have I said anything to imply I am making such a point. This solidifies the fact you really do not understand the issue being discussed.

Well it does seem that at the moment at least, my nonsense is superior to your nonsense, as that is how the Agency interprets it, and if the issue ever makes it to court, my bet is that your nonsense will be deemed nonsensical and wrong. Shall we bet?

Or just agree to disagree? :mrgreen:

 

[NotreDame]

"Separation of Church and State"

Well it does seem that at the moment at least, my nonsense is superior to your nonsense, as that is how the Agency interprets it, and if the issue ever makes it to court, my bet is that your nonsense will be deemed nonsensical and wrong. Shall we bet?

Or just agree to disagree? :mrgreen:

There ya go augment your delusion with more delusion.

The fact the Agency interprets "it" isn't persuasive. The Agency has an opinion, like the rest of us, and the fact they have an opinion regarding "it" does not establish who is right, wrong, or has the better argument. Instead, the substance of the Agency's view would be most relevant, which you conspicuously did not reference. This is not surprising from you, given your predisposition, or aversion, to rely upon substance.

I'm willing to bet, between your non-existent argument and my argument focusing upon substance, that your argument is weak precisely because it lacks substance.

I'll also add, just because a court "says so," doe not and never has rendered what the court said to be right or correct. Courts can, have, and undoubtedly will make mistakes and issue opinions that are weak, likely wrong, wrong, and/or erroneous. Your obsession with what a court may rule is misplaced. It's the substance of their argument that matters.

I bet you will continue to resort to fallacious reasoning. I win that bet, every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

There ya go augment your delusion with more delusion.

The fact the Agency interprets "it" isn't persuasive. The Agency has an opinion, like the rest of us, and the fact they have an opinion regarding "it" does not establish who is right, wrong, or has the better argument. Instead, the substance of the Agency's view would be most relevant, which you conspicuously did not reference. This is not surprising from you, given your predisposition, or aversion, to rely upon substance.

I'm willing to bet, between your non-existent argument and my argument focusing upon substance, that your argument is weak precisely because it lacks substance.

I'll also add, just because a court "says so," doe not and never has rendered what the court said to be right or correct. Courts can, have, and undoubtedly will make mistakes and issue opinions that are weak, likely wrong, wrong, and/or erroneous. Your obsession with what a court may rule is misplaced. It's the substance of their argument that matters.

I bet you will continue to resort to fallacious reasoning. I win that bet, every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The trouble for you is that the Agency doing the interpreting is also the agency writing the rules. :mrgreen:

Speech is not being suppressed by these rules, specific tax exemptions are being enforced IAW federal procedures.

If the offended churches had any principles at all regarding their free speech, they would exercise that free speech, and like men, take the consequences of losing the tax exemption. But, like you, they want things both ways--free speech AND a tax exemption. Bloody hypocrites and cowards IMO. Cry babies. "I want my tax exemption and I want my free speech. I want to write the rules".

Pretty sad.

 

[NotreDame]

"Separation of Church and State"

The trouble for you is that the Agency doing the interpreting is also the agency writing the rules. :mrgreen:

Speech is not being suppressed by these rules, specific tax exemptions are being enforced IAW federal procedures.

If the offended churches had any principles at all regarding their free speech, they would exercise that free speech, and like men, take the consequences of losing the tax exemption. But, like you, they want things both ways--free speech AND a tax exemption. Bloody hypocrites and cowards IMO. Cry babies. "I want my tax exemption and I want my free speech. I want to write the rules".

Pretty sad.

Once again, quoting someone else's mere opinion isn't evidence, which is all you've done by citing to the agency's interpretation. And we do know agency interpretations can be erroneous. Furthermore, the courts have in the past ruled agency interpretations to be incorrect. Finally, citing the agency interpretation in this instance is circular reasoning as the substance of their interpretation is what is being debated.

So, you aren't articulating a strong rebuttal by citing to agency interpretation.


Again, my argument is government privileges shouldn't be conditioned on its recipients agreeing to forego a specific and narrow free speech right.

Your argument proceeds from the false premise people pay taxes to exercise free speech. You have set up a false relationship between taxation and free speech, one of taxation to speak. Relying upon a false premise isn't a strong or logical argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk