Do you believe that a religious or other charitable organization is within its rights to resrict its membership to those that agree with its teachings?
Please sign the petition to remove tax free status from religious cults that shun!
JeffT - Do you believe that a religious or other charitable organization is within its rights to resrict its membership to those that agree with its teachings?
Hi JeffT, What is your point? Yes, I believe that charitable organizations can restrict its membership. Would it be in an organization's best interest? Probably not. Should an organization be allowed to use ooercion and intimidation, such as shunning, to trap their members to blindly follow what the leaders of an organization want? DEFINATELY NOT!!!
By the way thanks for finally asking a clarifying question.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Freedom of religion also means, according to the US Constitution that you have,
the RIGHT NOT TO PRACTICE A RELIGION, RIGHT NOT TO BE PERSECUTED FOR NOT PRACTCING CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
The US Constitution also gives people,
the RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE LAWS OR ACTS THAT ARE NOT FAIR. ('petition the government' is one of the right that guaranteed by the First Amendment).
It's about the time to further your limited knowledge and honor others Constitutional rights and thier efforts to reform social injustice. One thing to disagree another thing to bullying. Yes, I say it 'bullying'. Bullying: a blustering, guarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.
No one targeting particular religion but targeting particular inhumain doctrine of particular religion or orgarnization.
The US Supreme Court ruled out the practice of Polygamy of Mormon since it voilates civil marriage law.(Mormon itself was not the issue but its practice was). Mormons were forced to abandon the practice while allow to believe it. Only people had/have problem with this ruling are polygamists, for example, Warran Jeff, a leader of FLDS(a splinter Mormon group). He was one of FBI 10 most wanted for child sexual abuse and is in the prison cell for the rest of his life.
Let the Supreme Court do their job! All journey starts with a firt step.
I'm just going to take all that to mean that no, you don't believe that religious organizations are free to control their own membership. I disagree with that position. I've been studying history and politics for my whole life. My college degree is in English, but I minored in history. If you want me to take you seriously at least run your posts through spell check first. And following a personal attack about my supposed ignorance with a tirade about bullying is self-contradictory.
Don't bother responding to this, I'm making a promise to myself not to look at this again.
There are no questions to ask. I understand and share your sentiments about religion protected place in American culture. When it comes to tax exemption, I am open to saying it might be const'l if all religions were taxed. This will take many decades of concerted action. It repulses me to arbitrarily pick one aspect of what you define as "dangerous" as though you were a tyrant and impose on America.
Petitions are not part of the legislative or judicial process. They are a bad form of public relations.
Your petition is not constl. If I ask questions of someone, I usually expect that the person knows their subject matter and a dialogue is possible. My content has yet to be assailed by you. This my area of expertise, not yours. Your concerns about shunning and the overly cozy relationship the government has with religion seem valid. YOur strategy for dealing with this matter is extremely flawed.
I debate Federalist Society members. Indeed, I would love to question Scalia and Thomas on their Establishment clause jurisprudence. You do not understand the common civic body of knowledge relating to this clause. Of course, I identify with your concerns. The Const'n cannot be molded by one person aggrieved by his religion. YOu knew full well as a Witness entering that shunning was guaranteed if you did not comply. I assume you were baptized. I refuse to call it a contract. There were terms and rules, however. YOu were on notice. Walking away from the Witnesses was an option. I realize that psychologically you may not have had that option.
YOu are not a college professor. I am not your student. Dangerousness is too vague. Unlike you, I have read the pertinent cases over many years. I'm not saying your intentions are bad. Besides debating me is irrelevant. It is doomed to be a nonstarter.
Taxing all religions is the only const'l manner. Yet in Lemon/Agostini the court held that one prong of an Establishment Clause violation test was whether the govt. was excessively entangled in the religion. Unlike Establishment Clause law, taxation is not my strong point. If you propose a method of taxing all religion without government intrusion, I might change my mind. Also, if you propose a way to replace all the religoius charitable inst'ns without incurring extraordinary costs in this economy.
Look at Congress. It is a stalemate and very partisan. If you provide the name of Democratic leaders who feel they could pass through Congress without a Democratic majority, I might change my mind. My fear is a backlash among the GOP that will set your cause back one hundred years.
It will not happen - any attempt at a law which denies one religion tax exemptions, but leaves other religions with them - is never going to stand up to constitutional tests. It is in effect an effort by the government to select one religion apart from others for taxation.
Removal of tax exemption is only possible for religions who are blatantly doing commercial activity, or are investment frauds. Not for doctrine, so long as the doctrine is legal - no matter how offensive it might be to us.
It would be more constitutionally reasonable to remove all religious tax exemptions - but that will never happen in today's political environment.
Hooray! My broken English did it!
Most legal scholars believe the polygamy decision would not stand if a current case were brought. The obvious conclusion is tha the such cases are not being brought for various reasons. The polygamy case is regarded as a historical statement more than current law.
Laws of universal applicability with no legislative history proving intention to target one religion are const'l and enforced. A recent case that seemed unfair to me is that some Native Americans who used peyote in religious ceremonies for thousands of years were prosecuted under a federal law that placed peyote on a forbidden list. The Court said the federal law was valid even if its effect was to target Native American traditions for many centuries. Congress would not even give the tribe a narrow exemption.
No justice will agrew with you, let alone legislators.
You cannot define for the American people what is dangerous. Shunning is not a universal criminal law of general applicability. Your intention is clear - punish the Witness. The First Amendment protects freedom of association. I am a member of private clubs. Every group has rules. YOU have no right to infiltrate a group against their will. You can start your own JW religion without shunning.
Placing a bright light on the shunning process will dissuade new people from joining. You don't face reality on this subject.
constitution - what constitution ? it already looks more like the communist manifesto than anything else . The way they are attacking the bill of rights these days aint nobody exempt from anything .
"I have a Dream!" said Martin Luther King JR.
"NO, you don't!" said most people and killed him.