URGENT: Please Sign White House Petition to "Protect Americans from Dangerous Cults: Modify USC Title 26 § 501 Tax Exemption Requirements"

by ABibleStudent 130 Replies latest members politics

• 

  JeffT

  It is very difficult for me to respond positively when I perceive a person as a naysayer

  It gets hard to respond positively when all of these threads take on the tone of getting my ass chewed in the back room for not putting in enough field service time. You have a lawyer (Band on the Run) and an accountant (me) pointing out the flaws in your petitions. Instead of adjusting your approach you double down on proving you're right, and denigrate anybody who disagrees with you.

  Refusing to climb on a band wagon to nowhere does not make people "naysayers" or do-nothings.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  JeffT - It gets hard to respond positively when all of these threads take on the tone of getting my ass chewed in the back room for not putting in enough field service time. You have a lawyer (Band on the Run) and an accountant (me) pointing out the flaws in your petitions. Instead of adjusting your approach you double down on proving you're right, and denigrate anybody who disagrees with you.

  Refusing to climb on a band wagon to nowhere does not make people "naysayers" or do-nothings.

  Hi JeffT, Have you read the petition on the White House website at http://wh.gov/Er4 or http://www.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/protect-americans-dangerous-cults-modify-usc-title-26-%C2%A7-501-tax-exemptions-requirements/ZHpbvHfx ? If you have, please explain your comments in the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/225198/1/Will-the-IRS-Investigate-the-Watchtower-Society (see comments in quote box). Please tell me what your intentions and/or expections were when you wrote the following.

  JeffT -

  Frankly, I don't know if it is the role of the US government to prevent people from joining dangerous cults. How do you define dangerous?

  +1

  This has been my argument from the get go on these petitions. At this point in my life I'm ambivelent about the tax exempt status of churches. I think (as Band noted) that probably removing it entirely is the only thing that would pass constitutional muster. It MIGHT be possible to to prorate the tax burden based on the amount of income that actually goes to charity, but you still have the problem of defining charity.

  I dislike anybody's attempt to use the power of the government to enforce their notion of proper religion.

  How does the White House petition force my notion of proper religion on anyone? The petition specifically states that "that all organizations must promote freedom of religion and freedom of speech to their members and employees." The petition does not state what religion or doctrines to promote. Currently the WTBTS and its leaders coerce and intimidate their notion of religion and doctrines on JWs, more than anything that I have ever written. Can you understand from your comments why someone might consider you a naysayer?

  Are your comments buiding bridges or building walls between us? Do you want to have a dialogue with me or do you want to discourage other people from signing this petition? I would feel a lot differently about your comments if you wrote something like the following:

  I disagree with the White House petition to add additional requirements on tax exempt organizations (for my personal reasons)? How would a law be enforced that would not infringe on an individual's personal religious beliefs and freedom of speech?

  BTW are you having any luck publishing your novel?

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  JeffT

  The petition specifically states that "that all organizations must promote freedom of religion and freedom of speech to their members and employees." The petition does not state what religion or doctrines to promote.

  This statement is self-contradictory. What if a religion is opposed to free speech inside their buildings? Can I promote Christianity at a meeting of Atheists? Can Klansman wear hoods to an AFME service?

  Are your comments buiding bridges or building walls between us? Do you want to have a dialogue with me or do you want to discourage other people from signing this petition? I would feel a lot differently about your comments if you wrote something like the following:

  I disagree with the White House petition to add additional requirements on tax exempt organizations (for my personal reasons)? How would a law be enforced that would not infringe on an individual's personal religious beliefs and freedom of speech?

  It's hard to build a bridge to somebody that isn't listening. The second statement is pretty much what I've been saying through all of this. To be honest, I don't care how you feel, you seem to be impervious to anybody else's thoughts on the subject while you pursue your own agenda. Good luck with that.

  Publishing a novel is a long experience. I started writing the first one (still unpublished) in 1994, If something happens with the current project I'll let everybody know.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Your language is too vague. It opens all the horrors that tax exemption sidestepped. Grand, soaring language is nice. The problem is that federal courts must enforce this provision. There is infinite wiggle room in your formulation. It is NEVER the business of the U S government to decide what any religion may or may not teach. Under this formulation, a Baptism could be held to enforce Catholic doctrine and vice versa. It is not your large idea, the grand scheme, but the implementation that bothers me.

  We are not just dealing with any issue but freedom of religion in America. Pilgrims, the settling of Maryland by Catholics, Puritans, Quakers in Philadelphia.... one can hear patriotic music playing. It strikes to the very core of our collective beliefs about religion and government. Besides a court need only look to the language and this website to prove intent to discriminate against only Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Before I did my research several years ago, I thought separation of church and state was absolute. It never has been. Americans love religion more than present day Europeans do. European "establishment clauses" tend to be absolute. France has the concept of laicete. France not only protects religious belief but believes government has an affirmative duty to protect the common person from overreaching religions. Sadly, this is not the America view today or the foreseeable future.

  Again, all this personal nastiness is sad. Not one person on this thread has asserted that tax exemption is a great idea or that the Witnesses deserve no scrutiny. I tried to explain nuances. Nuances I had no idea existed until I wrote my writing sample on this topic. Civics is not taught well in America. So we agree in principle but see different ways of approaching it. What is so bad about that? An accountant must know far more than I do about the extent to which the IRS will comb the books and investigate religious mission. An American has a right/duty to pause at such an outcome.
• 

  JeffT

  An accountant must know far more than I do about the extent to which the IRS will comb the books and investigate religious mission.

  I've been through an audit of a for profit business. Put simply the IRS can look at EVERYTHING. It would be worse for a non-profit. If they wanted to go full bore there is nothing to stop them from scrutinizing the personal finances of members and contributors. There was a reason that Nixon used (or attempted to use) the IRS to beat up his enemies. It is a powerful weapon that should not be used casually.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  JeffT - This statement is self-contradictory. What if a religion is opposed to free speech inside their buildings? Can I promote Christianity at a meeting of Atheists? Can Klansman wear hoods to an AFME service? . . .

  It's hard to build a bridge to somebody that isn't listening. The second statement is pretty much what I've been saying through all of this. To be honest, I don't care how you feel, you seem to be impervious to anybody else's thoughts on the subject while you pursue your own agenda. Good luck with that.

  Hi JeffT, I will attempt to answer your first three questions to me, even though you seem to be avoiding answering questions that I asked you in my last post, except the last question about your novel.

  Please remember that the White House Petition is not a law nor a regulation and I was limited to writing the petition in 800 characters (not words), or less. I'm trying to have a dialogue with you, so please refrain from accusatory statements like you have made in the past and ask clarifying questions about what I write.

  Assuming that a law was enacted and regulations were created based on this petition, all the following questions would need to be answered in the affirmative:

  • Was the complaint against an organization holding a Title 26 § 501 tax exemption?
  • Was the complaint from a member, employee, former member, or former employee of that organization?
  • Did the organization or leader of the organization use intimidation, coercion, or mind control techniques to influence the complainant in a public forum? A leader would be defined as a person in a leadership role in the organization, such as a GB member, CO, PO, elder, ministerial servant in the WTBTS A public forum would be defined as distributed literature from the organizattion or leader, a speech from a public platform when more than 15 people could hear the speaker, or in meetings that were sanctioned by the organization such as judicial committees or bible studies. A person would not be limited from expressing their opinions in private social settings to less than 15 people as long as the person did not use his leadership position in the organization to intimidate other people.
  • Did the complainant feel that the Organization or leader(s) were using coercion and/or intimidation to control the complainant's thinking or emotions about the complainant's personal religious beliefs or was the complainant afraid to freely express their disagreement to the organization's leader(s) in a civil manner without significant adverse repercussions? Shunning and marking a complainant by family and close friends would be considered significant adverse repercussions if promoted by the organization.
  • Did the complaint represent an isolated case or was the complaint representative of an established pattern of behavior by the Organization and leaders and proved that the Organization and its leaders were not promoting freedom of religion and speech to their members and employees?

  Using the aforementioned questions to answer JeffT's questions, no organziation would lose their tax exempt status according to the limited information that JeffT asked about in his preceding post in this thread and to his earlier post in http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/225068/1/New-US-Government-Petition-re-Cults-and-Tax-Exemptions. Please see JeffT's earlier scenerio in the following quote box. The White House petition would not prevent an organization's leaders from asking non-members to leave or from calling the police when people do not behave in a civil manner in JeffT's examples.

  JeffT - Example: about twenty years ago I was working for a major University here in Washington. A bunch of gay students decided to be outraged that the Christian student group wouldn't let them be members, so they got the student senate to declare that all campus clubs had to admit any student to their membership. Sounds all nice and tolerant, right? The next meeting of the Gay Alliance was promptly taken over by a bunch of Christian zealots who pointed out that the Gays couldn't keep them out of their meeting. The new policy was recinded at the next meeting of the Student senate.

  JeffT, do you have any clarifying questions?

  Band on the Run, do you have any clarifying questions?

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  mP

  This petition is dumb for the simple reason it fails to realise that religion and politics are friends in good times and bad. Whenever theres a war, the gov can always count on ministers to telle veryone that God wants their sons and daughters to go fight for him or their homeland. THe gov doesnt care if theres one bad religion or two. They dont care if some religions are just wacko. In the end the greater purpose is the power that religion has in communicating the will of the government to the people. It was not that long ago, that the only social gathering or way of communicating ot he masses was via the sunday church. There was no tv, the masses couldnt read any signs but many did come to church, where the priest or minister would tell them stuff. Back to today, sure the gov loses money on religion but thats a small price for the social control it presents to them. As an observation i wonder what percentage of volunteers to the us military after 9/11 were religious types. My guess is a lot of fundy xians joined in much greater porportions than other segments of the community, simply because all those ministers told them it was the will of god.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  mP - This petition is dumb for the simple reason it fails to realise that religion and politics are friends in good times and bad. Whenever theres a war, the gov can always count on ministers to telle veryone that God wants their sons and daughters to go fight for him or their homeland. . . .

  Hi mP, Does the current situation with religion and government upset you? If it does, how would you propose making the current situation better?

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  blindnomore

  The constitution says:

  "We the People of the United States, .....the people set up the government. The government works for the people and protects the rights of people....the power to govern comes from the people, who are the highest power.This is called "popular sovereignty." The people elect representatives to make laws."(bold mine)

  What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment?

  speech, religion, assembly, press, petition the government,............'The First Amendment of the Bill of rights protects a person's right to freedom of expression...(it) protcts freedom of religion and free speech.........The First Amendment also gives people the right to petition the goverment to change laws or acts that are not fair'.(bold mine)

  What is freedom of religion?

  You can practice any religion, or not practice a religion.(bold mine).......'The first Amendment states,....and protects citizens' rights to hold any religious belief, or none at all'.

  The above statements are directly quoated from 'Civics Test' that were prepared by the U.S. government for the naturalization to U.S. citizenship.

  According to the government explaination on 'The First Amendment', the very idea of including the freedom of religion as part of the Bill of Rights was to protect people from religious persecution in both way that is right to practice any religion or right not to practice a religion. And No one in US should persecuted for standing either way. Does this mean we should not be persecuted such as being shunned and being black mailed by the religiuous practicers' for not practicing particular religious doctrines? In this case, has my Constitutional rights been violated(by the WTS and its members)?

  ABibleStudent, you,people, are excising your Constitutional right as a US citizen by petitioning the government to change laws or acts that are not fair. Wether its possibility or not is not the issue. Good for you! (you have a PM)
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Hi blindnomore, Thanks for your support. Please check your PM. I replied to your PM.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert