New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions

by mind blown 58 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Band on the Run

  You don't care about the case law or the Const'n. Hein involved a taxpayer standing case to challenge appropriations made by Bush and now Obama's funding of religious social welfare programs. The term is faith-based. With zero proof that they are more effective than secular programs, the rage is to favor funding of religious programs. There are strict standards for the funding. I know the Court (both sides) mentioned the long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence. I've read the case about thirty times. Both the plurality, concurrences, and dissents say what I reported. Taxpayers generally cannot challenge govt. action if the only basis is their status as taxpayers. An exception was carved out for Establishment Clause cases in the famous case of Flast v. Cohen. A much more conservative Court came very close to overruling Flast to hold that taxpayer status was too intangible an injury for Article III jurisdiction. A silly distinction emerged. Flast is now limited to legislative appropriations. Congressional funding is needed. The challenged faith-based programs are funded from discretionary executive branch monies. Since the Flast taxpayer does not exist b/c of lack of Congressional appropriation, the faith based programs are permissible. Every opinion discussed at great lengths the underlying rules for funding. No entanglement by the government, the biggest obstacle to revoking a particular religion's tax exempt status, no endorsement of religion, the extent of government enforcement ( must be minimal but present). Accountability that funds were not diverted to religious purposes. Computers and other items for Roman Catholic schools are iffy b/c a secular use computer can easily become a religious teaching computer.

  The basic three-prong test for E C purposes, which came close to be overruled in Hein, remains the basic law for EC violations. It is set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Agostini. These are landmark cases. Findlaw has them. Cornell Law will have them. The Supreme Court may have time.

  Mitchell v,. Helms, Bowen v. Kendrick, McCreary County, and Van Orden, while not directly on point, all raise important EC boundaries. The ADL, Freedom from Religion, and ACLU will have them at their websites.

  Let us see three years at the 4th ranked law school, graduated with honors, full scholarship, and 25 years of practice. Curious that you think I am a baboon and that you can analyze Supreme Court cases better. One of the problem is beginning law students is that they search for justice/ a greater good and misinterpret cases in this quest. It takes discipline to understand cases. You must know all the points in your opponents' favor.

  All the opinions in Hein back my position. I suggest you reread Hein. All of these cases are on FindLaw or Cornell. The basic test is Lemon/Agostini.
• 

  apostatethunder

  I think there is a fundamental difference between a religion, that helps improve people's lives and a cult, that is damaging to people's lives at many levels, mostly because it lies to people for the benefit of the cult and makes them supporters of something that they would not support if they had all the facts. Jws may claim that they improve people's lives, but everything they do is done for the service of the cult not of the person, and the real objective of the cult is to benefit themselves. There are other religions that help improve people's lives without the control, lies, blackmail etc of the jws and therefore they shouldn't be put in the same basket. The catholic church, that jws so openly have always critizied, helps everybody without asking their religion, and it is mostly a force for good, for example it played a major role in the fall of communism. Also I want to add that the millions of supporters of the catholic church do so out of their own volition, they are not coerced, lied to, blackmailed etc as is the case with the jws, that whether they are aware of it or not they are being manipulated by the organization. What I say about the catholic church can be said of many other churches. The fact that jws have a religion status in many countries is a distortion of reality. They are a cult, and people that come in contact with them end up losing out not winning out. Therefore they shouldn't be tax exempt as if they were a religion because they are not.
• 

  Band on the Run

  How do you determine what is a religion and a cult? Roman Catholicism was prob. a cult to Jewish Christians. Lutherans were a cult to the RC church. The Roman Catholic Church has heavily cloistered religious. Similar to the Moonies. NO contact with outside. The RC we see as a monastic tradition while the Unification Church is a cult. Wikipedia had a discussion of cults. Clicking on links, I found a new term applied to Jehovah's Witnesses and others. It was New Religious Movements. They lack social status.

  The WT holds no one against their will. Guns and swords, burning at the stake is not applied. The Founders were very conscious of the problem of deciding what is a cult. The First Amendment precludes from determining certain religions are cults. It does not say freedom of status religions.

  All the dangers feared can be better addressed with public awareness of overreaching and high control groups. Frankly, the Witnesses never struck me as a cross section of Americans. The Roman Church has very crazy things in its past and present. I don't think it is the religion per se as much as absolute power corrupting absolutely. It has a richer and more colorful history. Worshipping saints can be seen as a cult. Protestants think they worship. Catholics believe they venerate. Any religion can be called a cult. The Witnesses are in plenty of good company. Personal responsibility for not being brain washed must reside with the individual. Look at all the Witnesses here who left withut being executed.

  Also, from a legal viewpoint, the Witnesses and the Society have First Amendment association rights. The Witnesses do not hide their rules. They have a right to decide whether they want to associate with someone who breaks their rules. I belong to private clubs. Why should I meet membership criteria to have others just walk in. My purpose is to meet others similarly vetted.

  Legal solutions rarely are just or fair. Americans have this knee jerk reaction to thinks in terms of legal getting even. There are so many more fruitful avenues.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - You don't care about the case law or the Const'n. . . . Taxpayers generally cannot challenge govt. action if the only basis is their status as taxpayers. An exception was carved out for Establishment Clause cases in the famous case of Flast v. Cohen. . . . Every opinion discussed at great lengths the underlying rules for funding. No entanglement by the government, the biggest obstacle to revoking a particular religion's tax exempt status, no endorsement of religion, the extent of government enforcement ( must be minimal but present). Accountability that funds were not diverted to religious purposes. Computers and other items for Roman Catholic schools are iffy b/c a secular use computer can easily become a religious teaching computer. . .

  . . . . The basic three-prong test for E C purposes, which came close to be overruled in Hein, remains the basic law for EC violations. It is set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Agostini. These are landmark cases. Findlaw has them. Cornell Law will have them. The Supreme Court may have time.

  Hi Band on the Run, Just because I disagree with your opinion and conclusions, does not mean that I don't care about case or Constitutional law. I do care about both.

  I'm confused about your comment that I bolded in the preceeding quote box. Do you feel that the White House petition requests the President to challenge existing laws in court, or to use his influence to support revising USC Title 26 § 501 throught the process of enacting new law(s)? The petition was created for the latter reason, and not the former.

  When you write about the basic three-prong test for Establishment Clause purposes, are you referring to what Justice Scalia wrote in Hein Vs Christian Freedom Foundation, Inc.? Since the White House petition is trying to revise the US Tax code and not to challange it in court, what is the relavance of the 3-prong test?

  In Hein vs Christian Freedom Foundation, Inc., Justice Scalia wrote - There is a simple reason why our taxpayer-standing cases involving Establishment Clause challenges to government expenditures are notoriously inconsistent: We have inconsistently described the first element of the "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing," which minimum consists of (1) a "concrete and particularized" " 'injury in fact' " that is (2) fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged unlawful conduct and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560-561 (1992). We have alternately relied on two entirely distinct conceptions of injury in fact, which for convenience I will call "Wallet Injury" and "Psychic Injury." . . .

  As the following review of our cases demonstrates, we initially denied taxpayer standing based on Wallet Injury, but then found standing in some later cases based on the limited version of Psychic Injury described above. The basic logical flaw in our cases is thus twofold: We have never explained why Psychic Injury was insufficient in the cases in which standing was denied, and we have never explained why Psychic Injury, however limited, is cognizable under Article III.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  ABibleStudent

  apostatethunder - I think there is a fundamental difference between a religion, that helps improve people's lives and a cult, that is damaging to people's lives at many levels, mostly because it lies to people for the benefit of the cult and makes them supporters of something that they would not support if they had all the facts. . . . The fact that jws have a religion status in many countries is a distortion of reality. They are a cult, and people that come in contact with them end up losing out not winning out. Therefore they shouldn't be tax exempt as if they were a religion because they are not.

  Hi apostatethunder, Although I am empathetic with your sentiments, I believe it would be an uphill battle legally defining what is or is not a religion and still withstand Constitutional challenges. The Congress did not even attempt to define a religion when it created laws that created USC Title 26 § 501 nor did the IRS when it created regulations and publications. The only thing that government has done is that the IRS maintains basic guidelines to determine whether an organization meets the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3) “that the practices and rituals associated with the organization’s religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy”.

  The White House petition is not intended to define what a religion is, but what a tax exempt organization (including religions) can do that is not contrary to clearly defined public policy.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  Robert,

  You are thick. And I don't believe you are. Call me when you are admitted to a bar in the United States. A state law bar. Otherwise, gaining admittance is a cake walk. You continue to ignore the core of American freedoms. Laws must be const'l. Also, you have never defined what the public policy is. The Supreme Court will not endorse Robert's smell test. See what becomes of your petition. As tho Obama would touch it with a 1,000 ft. pole. Obama favors government funding of faith-based social welfare organizations.

  Vagueness itself can be grounds for overturning a law b/c it does give people notice as to what is permissible or not. Someday you will realize that religion plays a role in the United States. I prefer separatism but I cannot argue with the legislative history of the First Amendment that accomodation was probably their goal.

  Again, govt. does not solve every ill in the world. I would rather people walk away with their strong hearts and minds rejecting a bizarre religion that overreaches than involve the govt. Hamilton and Madison would agree with me.

  After the Witnesses,, who will you punish with legal sanctions? Robert's gut cannot be sufficient.
• 

  Band on the Run

  The bold section about taxpayer standing is correct. Generally, taxpayers as taxpayers cannot challenge govt. programs. It stems from the Article III requirement of an actual case or controversy. Standing became a "hot" topic when federal jurisdiction was greatly expanded with the New Deal programs. One has to have a concrete injury and the ct must be able to grant a remedy. B/c Establlishment Clause cases are hard to bring, the Court carved out an exception to general standing rules. This Court has narrowed that exception greatly. As we speak, our tax dollars (where does executive funding receive its monies? US taxpayers, are support all sorts of religious social welfare programs. The clear trend is to be kinder to religion.

  Standing is not an easy concept to learn.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - Robert,

  You are thick. And I don't believe you are. Call me when you are admitted to a bar in the United States. A state law bar. Otherwise, gaining admittance is a cake walk. You continue to ignore the core of American freedoms. Laws must be const'l. Also, you have never defined what the public policy is. The Supreme Court will not endorse Robert's smell test. See what becomes of your petition. As tho Obama would touch it with a 1,000 ft. pole. Obama favors government funding of faith-based social welfare organizations.

  Hi Band on the Run, Are you feeling ok? Your writing seems to me to be getting more antagonistic.

  If asking you to clarify statements that you make is being thick, then I would rather you think that I am thick, than I assume that I know what you are writing and be wrong.

  I have not defined what the IRS considers as guidelines to meet the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3) “that the practices and rituals associated with the organization’s religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy”, because I have not received a response from the IRS or the Treasury Department to my letter to Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Timothy Franz Geithner that was dated April 10, 2012. Did you read my first post in the Thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/politics/225023/1/URGENT-Please-Sign-White-House-Petition-to-Protect-Americans-from-Dangerous-Cults-Modify-USC-Title-26-c2a7-501-Tax-Exemption-Requirements ? I thought that you would know what the IRS meant in IRS publications 557 and 1828 .

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  An establishment is not defined. Sometimes things are left vague b/c there is no political consensus. You don't know law. There is no reason why you should. Many people are taught civics, however. I admire that you want to make an impact. You are very mistaken as to the political process and the law. Dangerousness will never pass const'l muster. If you could define dangerous, I doubt any court would apply it to the Witnesses. No White House administration will apply it to the Witnesses.

  Dangerousness is adequately covered by criminal laws. We don't need government scouring religious mission and doctrine to stop criminal conduct.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - An establishment is not defined. Sometimes things are left vague b/c there is no political consensus. You don't know law. There is no reason why you should. Many people are taught civics, however. I admire that you want to make an impact. You are very mistaken as to the political process and the law. Dangerousness will never pass const'l muster. If you could define dangerous, I doubt any court would apply it to the Witnesses. No White House administration will apply it to the Witnesses.

  Dangerousness is adequately covered by criminal laws. We don't need government scouring religious mission and doctrine to stop criminal conduct.

  Hi Band on the Run, I'm not trying to define dangerous. I use the words "dangerous cult" in my posts, because Steve Hassan used those words in his book "Combatting Cult Mind Control" and then described basic characteristics of all dangerous cults. If I knew of a different label than "dangerous cult" that does not have any religious overtones, I would use it. Does dangerous group or dangerous organization sound less religious?

  You are right that I am not a lawyer. I am an American citizen. One of my 1st Amendment rights is to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I feel that since the American government cannot (or will not) protect Americans from tax exempt organizations that coerce or intimidate their members to blindly follow its leaders than the American government should be required to clearly define public policy that tax exempt organizations must adhere to.

  The White House petition only asks the President to support revising USC Title 26 § 501 to require that tax exempt organizations promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and employees. Although, I feel that the chances for a law to be enacted to revise USC Title 26 § 501 is very small, I do feel that a congressional hearing would raise the awareness of a lot of politicians, government officials, and Americans, especially during an election year with a Mormon running for the Presidency.

  If a law was enacted that was inspired by this petition, that law would allow members, employees, former members, and former employees to file complaints with the IRS that they felt afraid to follow their religious convictions or to voice their concerns to their organization's leaders because of their organization's doctrines and/or their leaders comments made to them. The IRS would be required to investigate those complaints. If a sufficient number of valid complaints were filed against an organization, the IRS would suspend an organization's tax exempt status for not less than 3 years.

  I do not have all the answers. I was hoping Congressional hearings would help fill in necessary legal protections for victims and tax exempt organizations as well as the correct legal wording.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert