Help Needed: Reviewing My Letter to the ACLU

by ABibleStudent 12 Replies latest members politics

• 

  ABibleStudent

  Thanks for your suggestions Band on the Run. I will do internet searches to locate contact information for the people that you suggested contacting. Before I wrote my letter to the ACLU I did do both an Internet search and a search of FindLaw for "religions tax exemptions" and "religions 501(c)(3)". I only found the 4 aforementioned cases that were even remotely related to challenging the Constitutionality of 501(c)(3), because Congress did not protect individuals' 1st Amendment rights when they passed laws granting organizations tax exemptions.

  Because of members suggesting contacting law schools and other prominent lawyers, I decided to also send Steve Hassan an email through his website (www.freedomofmind.com) today. I believe that Rebel8 suggested doing this in a post to one of my earlier threads. This is my email to Steve Hassan:

  Dear Steve Hassan:

  Have you or anyone who you know asked Federal Congressional Representatives, the IRS, ACLU, lawyers, and/or other legal professionals about challenging the Constitutionality of 501(c)(3) tax exemptions for Dangerous Cults? Did you have any sucess? What were the responses?

  I am writing letters to Representatives, Senators, the Secretary of the Treasury, the ACLU, and other organizations asking for them to either revise laws to exclude dangerous cults which promote shunning their members or to challenge the Constitutionality of 501(c)(3). When writing to the aforementioned individuals, I write about the practices of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.

  Thanks in advance for reading and hopefully responding to this email.

  Regards,
  Robert

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  Hassan is a great idea. I was present during discussions on which issues to pursue. You haven't tapped the prof'l legal resources. The history of the Establishment Clause is murky. Both the majority and minority opinions in Van Orden and McCreary quoted quite a bit of it. After much research, I decided that the Founders did not want an Established church, such as the Church of England. Beyond that, there was little consensus. When the Const'n was ratified, govt did not run social service orgs. It was the work of churches. No cases made it to the Supreme Court until around the Civil War. Many more Americans are willing to say religion needs to be constrained. James Madison Remonstrance in Virginia which defeated a proposal for Virginians to contribute taxes to a particular church seems apt. What is tax exempt status but an indirect tax. If the churches paid, others could pay less. The lost revenue must be made up.

  You are writing a lay letter, not an amicus brief. I can no longer access a legal library from home. Nevertheless, I must travel to one for other reasons. If I have time, I will do a law review search to see which professors see this as a worthy cause.

  Ther primary task for the ACLU is to see where the law is flexible. If the Supreme Court precedent against them is strong, they may find a kindly state supreme court and sue under a state const'n which can be more generous than the U.S. Const'n. A state const'n cannot be more restrictive than the U.S. Const'n. A loss is not just a loss. It sets the issue on a back burner for decades. They would rather have some ambiguity in the law. They are not the crusaders many people envision. ACLU people care passionately but they are lawyers first. Procedurals issues are also considered. What type of challenge, facial or substantive. Are there other parties. Only after a lot of legal jargon is discussed, do the merits get disscussed.

  Recently, I volunteered in intake. The state offices have decided to focus on a few hot topics. Cases with merit that do not fit their present agenda are referred to other groups. Only a small fraction of deserving cases are taken. The ACLU pays little. MOst of the work is done by global corporate law firms. It allows their associates to get litigation experience. and 2. it assuages their guilt.

  I believe you accomplish a lot- even if no one agrees. YOu are now well versed in the topic. Hot topics beome hot topics b/c people are discussisng them. have you considered some letters to the editors? The Economist had a mammoth thread on "Should all religions be taxed." Frankly, as a civil libertarian, I would be much more comfortable with "all religions should be taxed" than "dangerous cults should be taxed>" In Henry VIII and Mary Tudor's time Protestants were dangerous cults, Catholics were dangerous cults, translating the Bible into English was a cult." Selecting religions entangles govt. in religion - a big First Amendment no no. Promoting a reliigon is not a govtl. concern in any way. Abolish it completely.

  How to administer taxation presents problems. There must be a nominal scheme for taxation. Anything too intricate, govt. is involved with religion.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Hi Band on the Run, I look forward to any help that you can give to better understand the complexities of legal thought, processes, and language. I have always thought that philosophers and lawyers use too many words in their writing and that modern business writing is more concise and clear.

  Although I would support governments not granting religions tax exemptions solely because an organization states that it is a religion, I am more interested in prohibiting dangerous cults recieving tax exemptions using Steve Hassan's model or that 1st Amendment rights of freedom of belief and expression for individual's are not trampled on. Dangerous cults can be religious or secular. May be I should think of a new description to use that is short and does not have a religious connotation?

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert