A Pettion for US Residents to Suspend Tax Exemption From Religious Cults deadline July 1st

by discreetslave 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - All you have to do is go to the Supreme Court website or FindLaw and put in the case name. These are major decisions. Some of the cases cited are older. Reading Hein should link you to all the cases. I'm not your secretary. Also, I am switching from Windows to a Mac and I am uncertain how to do links. Not having a link is no excuse.

  You are misreading Bob Jones. It helps to know basic concepts. My hunch is that you do not distant yourself from the cases when you read them. You find what you want to find. This is not scriptural interpretation. It is hard for me to remember what cases were like before law school. The basic point that the government cannot exclude religions based on "dangerousness" or based on animus towards any religion is clear. It should be to you if you read ing these cases. . . .

  If I write to the Pope or President about this matter, do those letters that I wrote trump your letters. Why would NOW care, anyway?

  Hi Band on the Run, Since you wrote that you are having technical challenges, do the following links show Supreme Court Cases that you previously referenced in cryptic short-hand? If they are, please explain how they refute that Congress has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to establish public policies for organizations to qualify for tax exempt status in USC Title 26 §501 and §170 as shown in BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983)?

  · HEIN, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, et al. v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., et al (2007)

  · RACHEL AGOSTINI, et al., PETITIONERS 96-552 v. BETTY LOUISE FELTON et al. CHANCELLOR, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.

  · LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

  · BOWEN v. KENDRICK, 487 U.S. 589 (1988)

  The four cases that you referenced were challenges to laws primarily based on the Establishment Clause. Since the White House petition is part of a multi-prong approach to enact a law that would clearly define public policy for the IRS to enforce, I do not see why you bring up legal challenges to laws based on the Establishment Clause. First Amendment Exercise rights were raised in BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983) and the Supreme Court still held that the IRS was able to revoke the tax exemption of organizations that were contrary to public policies.

  Contrary to what you wrote, I believe that the White House petition upholds Constitutional principles and I do not believe that you have refuted my position by citing the cases that you did.

  Besides no matter what the White House petition states, Congress would write a bill in legalize and verify that it will meet Constitutional challenges.

  The White House petition and writing to the President, Congress, and organizations like NOW are intended to raise politicians' awareness and Americans' awareness of dangerous orgs, whether those organizations are religions or not. I wrote to NOW and child protection organizations (as stated in the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/226465/1/Its-Back-Round-2) to raise their awareness of dangerous orgs. If those organizations become involved, they may want to define additional public policies for tax exempt organizations.

  I believe that freedom of religious belief and speech are the foundations for implementing other public policies, such as protecting children from molestation and abuse and promoting anti-discrimination policies based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and physical disabilities. Wouldn't it be better to win a multi-million dollar lawsuit against an organization and your family and friends would not shun you as if you are dead?

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  I don't know whether you have ego problems with or you just don't understand. No, Congress has zero power to enact unconst'l laws. To cite a current example, Congress passed the health reform act known as ObamaCare. If the Supreme Court finds that it is uncosnt'l, the entire law or the selected portions are null and void. It will have zero effect. The Court will decide whether the legislation can be remedied or whehter it must fail in its entirety. Congress is always incompetent to perform unconst'l acts. The Court decides what is proper, not Congress.

  We are not discussing Bob Jones here. Bob Jones does not remotely apply. The facts you present involved targeting certain religions as "dangerous." Again, for the final time, "dangerousness" is too vague for any legislation. It gives no notice to the public as to what acts are illegal or trigger removal of tax exemption and what acitivities do not. Legislation can never be so vague. Void for vagueness is an important const'l principle. Secondly, the First Amendment protects religions from precisely the government discimination that caused the majority of American colonies to be formed. My references are not cryptic. All you have to do is go to the web sites and enter one party's name. It will always bring up a result. The only area where it becomes problematic is when the government is the party. Searching for the United States or any states brings up too many results.

  If you recall from reading Hein, a three prong test set forthi in Lemon v. Kiurtzman, and modified by Agostini v. Felton, is applicable to all Establishment Clause violations. (there are cases describing the details of the elements in detail):

  1. Whether the statute has a secular legislative purpose. (here, you intent, as evidenced by your posts on this forum is to target Jehovah's Witnesses).

  2. Whehter its principal or primary effect impermissibly advances or inhibits religion, (clearly inhibits) and

  3. Does the law result in indoctrination, define its recipients by reference to religion, or create an excessive entanglement? (Your proposal would result in uber excessive entangelement of government in religion.)

  I am not a Supreme Court justice in private life, therefore, I am merely reporting the result, not creating it.

  Excluding all religions from tax exemption would not present a const'l problem. It poses politcal problems. There is growing support. Exemption favors religion and is onerous to nonreligious tax payers who end up paying more taxes b/c religious groups are exempted. Society has changed greatly since these exemptions were granted. I do not understand your insistence on a legislative solution that can never exist when several avenues of redress that are possible do exist.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - I don't know whether you have ego problems with or you just don't understand. No, Congress has zero power to enact unconst'l laws. To cite a current example, Congress passed the health reform act known as ObamaCare. If the Supreme Court finds that it is uncosnt'l, the entire law or the selected portions are null and void. It will have zero effect. The Court will decide whether the legislation can be remedied or whehter it must fail in its entirety. Congress is always incompetent to perform unconst'l acts. The Court decides what is proper, not Congress.

  We are not discussing Bob Jones here. Bob Jones does not remotely apply. The facts you present involved targeting certain religions as "dangerous." Again, for the final time, "dangerousness" is too vague for any legislation. It gives no notice to the public as to what acts are illegal or trigger removal of tax exemption and what acitivities do not. Legislation can never be so vague. Void for vagueness is an important const'l principle. Secondly, the First Amendment protects religions from precisely the government discimination that caused the majority of American colonies to be formed. My references are not cryptic. All you have to do is go to the web sites and enter one party's name. It will always bring up a result. The only area where it becomes problematic is when the government is the party. Searching for the United States or any states brings up too many results.

  If you recall from reading Hein, a three prong test set forthi in Lemon v. Kiurtzman, and modified by Agostini v. Felton, is applicable to all Establishment Clause violations. (there are cases describing the details of the elements in detail):

  1. Whether the statute has a secular legislative purpose. (here, you intent, as evidenced by your posts on this forum is to target Jehovah's Witnesses).

  2. Whehter its principal or primary effect impermissibly advances or inhibits religion, (clearly inhibits) and

  3. Does the law result in indoctrination, define its recipients by reference to religion, or create an excessive entanglement? (Your proposal would result in uber excessive entangelement of government in religion.)

  I am not a Supreme Court justice in private life, therefore, I am merely reporting the result, not creating it.

  Excluding all religions from tax exemption would not present a const'l problem. It poses politcal problems. There is growing support. Exemption favors religion and is onerous to nonreligious tax payers who end up paying more taxes b/c religious groups are exempted. Society has changed greatly since these exemptions were granted. I do not understand your insistence on a legislative solution that can never exist when several avenues of redress that are possible do exist.

  Hi Band on the Run, Because of your personal attacks towards me and misinterpretations of the White House petition, it is becoming very obvious to me that you have some hidden agenda that I do not believe is based on legal expertise.

  Based on your written comments, if you interpret Supreme Court decisions the same as you misinterpret the White House petition that I am promoting, then I question your self-professed legal expertise. The White House petition asks the Obama Administration to “Actively encourage Congress to revise USC Title 26 § 501 (and possibly § 170) so that all tax exempt organizations must promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and employees. . . . ” The White House petition does not specifically target religions. Also, White House petitions are non-binding, non-legal documents that the Obama Administration created to solicit comments from constituents that are limited to 850 characters. If you would like to learn about the White House process, please visit https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/how-why/introduction .

  Although White House petitions are non-binding, I am trying to utiltize the process to generate popular support for revising USC Title 26 § 501 (and possibly § 170) to encourage Congress to clearly define public policy to place more limitations on all tax exempt organizations.

  Since 850 characters are insufficient to write a law about such a complex and emotional topic and I do not have that constitutional authority, Congress would be responsible for clearly defining public policy that tax exempt organizations must promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and employees and authorize the IRS to promulgate regulations, investigate complaints, and enforce legislation. If you read previous threads that I have written such as http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/226465/1/Its-Back-Round-2 and in threads that are referenced in the first post, you might realize that I have described a hypothetical way for the IRS to enforce a law that is inspired by this petition that would not be declared unconstitutional by using an Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause argument.

  BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983) is so much more applicable to a law inspired by the White House petition than the four cases that you cited. In Bob Jones, the government successfully argued that public policy outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on Free Exercise rights (see quote box below). Establishment Clause arguments are usually used to challenge providing tax exemptions or support to religious organizations.

  Excerpt from Chief Justice Burger's Opinion of the Court in BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983)

  "This Court has long held the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to be an absolute prohibition against governmental regulation of religious beliefs, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 , 219 (1972); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 , 402 (1963); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 303 (1940). As interpreted by this Court, moreover, the Free Exercise Clause provides substantial protection for lawful conduct grounded in religious belief, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 220; Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981); Sherbert v. Verner, supra, at 402-403. However,

  [n]ot all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. . . . The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest."

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  Robert,

  It boils down to the fact that I read English and you are on another planet. Personally, I think you do a good job for someone with zero training and no background knowledge. I will not apologize for almost a decade of advanced education and practice reading and analying cases. My pay check proves the point.

  Submit your petition. I did not misrepresent anything. You stated it will be reviewed. I ask again by whom? What level of authority do they have? President Obama would NEVER commit to a policy based on signatures. It is a pr gimmick.

  My point in these threads has been educational. No matter how much I explain or others explain, you will persist in your course. My purpose is to make other posters and members aware that Americans can never target a specific religion based on "dangerousness." It violates every principle that America stands for that is positive. It is why our const'n has been a model for so many other countries. Watch out. Beware! A German theologian wrote about Nazi Germany, saying,(paraphrasing), they came for the Jews, it did involve me so I ignored it, they came for the gypsies, but I was not a gypsy. I ignored it. They came for mental patients. I was not one so I ignored it. Finally, they came for me, and no else was around to help.

  "Dangerousness" is more dangerous than "dangerous." Your pet cause or religion couild be next on your hit list. Public sentiment is fickle. We are a nation of laws. I know this material b/c it is my interest and profession. It is a casual matter to you. People see lawyers for their legal expertise. Why would you expect to best me in const'l law? Indeed, in its broadest contours, this is third or fourth grade civics. Can't you understand that your intentions were good and if the const'n allowed it, maybe your idea might be valid. The const'n makes it impossible.

  If you want a private tete a tete, I will explain, in detail, why Bob Jones is not remotely applicable. I am not telling you how to run your business. (Having problems with my MAC b/c I am not used to yet). Most people here are not interested.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  I did not realise that the amount of a pay cheque could definitively prove a point one way or another. After all, van Gogh sold his artwork for bowls of soup. Plug in that logic, and an example of Thomas Kinkade's work would trump De sterrennacht.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - Robert,

  It boils down to the fact that I read English and you are on another planet. Personally, I think you do a good job for someone with zero training and no background knowledge. I will not apologize for almost a decade of advanced education and practice reading and analying cases. My pay check proves the point.

  Submit your petition. I did not misrepresent anything. You stated it will be reviewed. I ask again by whom? What level of authority do they have? President Obama would NEVER commit to a policy based on signatures. It is a pr gimmick.

  My point in these threads has been educational. No matter how much I explain or others explain, you will persist in your course. My purpose is to make other posters and members aware that Americans can never target a specific religion based on "dangerousness." It violates every principle that America stands for that is positive. It is why our const'n has been a model for so many other countries. Watch out. Beware! A German theologian wrote about Nazi Germany, saying,(paraphrasing), they came for the Jews, it did involve me so I ignored it, they came for the gypsies, but I was not a gypsy. I ignored it. They came for mental patients. I was not one so I ignored it. Finally, they came for me, and no else was around to help.

  "Dangerousness" is more dangerous than "dangerous." Your pet cause or religion couild be next on your hit list. Public sentiment is fickle. We are a nation of laws. I know this material b/c it is my interest and profession. It is a casual matter to you. People see lawyers for their legal expertise. Why would you expect to best me in const'l law? Indeed, in its broadest contours, this is third or fourth grade civics. Can't you understand that your intentions were good and if the const'n allowed it, maybe your idea might be valid. The const'n makes it impossible.

  If you want a private tete a tete, I will explain, in detail, why Bob Jones is not remotely applicable. I am not telling you how to run your business. (Having problems with my MAC b/c I am not used to yet). Most people here are not interested.

  Hi Band on the Run, You can personally attack me and write condescending comments to me all you want to conceal your hidden agenda.

  If you still believe that the White House petition that I am promoting is targeting a specific religion (or any religion for that matter), then you really do need to go back to school to learn how to read English. About the only thing that I agree with you on in your last ranting is that most people on JWN are not interested. If few JWN members care and you have provided very little educational information, why do you bother even posting to this thread?

  Nothing that you have written has refuted my position that BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983) is applicable to substantiating that a law inspired by the White House petition would be held constitutional.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  Band on the Run

  You know the point I was making. See how much a review it gets at the White House. Why not write President Obama and insist on it? 60 Minutes will invite you to film a segment. Prepare legislation for Congress. I assume it would get routed to a few committees. Write briefs for the Supreme Court justices.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Band on the Run - You know the point I was making. See how much a review it gets at the White House. Why not write President Obama and insist on it? 60 Minutes will invite you to film a segment. Prepare legislation for Congress. I assume it would get routed to a few committees. Write briefs for the Supreme Court justices.

  Hi Band on the Run, The only point I feel that you are making is that you disagree with the White House petition that I am promoting, which is ok to do. I just disagree with your tactics and not substantiating your claims with valid and applicable references. If you write that a law would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, you should be prepared to provide valid and applicable references in my opinion to substantiate your claims.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  blindnomore

  "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully do when they do it from religious conviction."

  -Blaise Pascal-

  Shunning is by far the most inhumane evil single policy that is being done cheerfully by the WTBTS religious conviction!

  Men was before religion and constitution.

  It is about integrity of humanity.

  Nothing like standing up for the right thing as did Candace Conti and many others!

  -
• 

  NewChapter

  *sigh* Is this still going on? Is the constitution so cheap that we seek to violate it to ease our own discomfort? A Bible Student would like to have govt. choose favored religions, I suppose. And obviously sees absolutely no problem with that. The entire constitution must be stomped on to achieve this end, but the goal is worthy, so lowering all of our principals and protections is soooo worth it. Until they come after you. Oh, but that won't happen---right? There is no way that such an attempt could backfire. LOL

  But it is moot. It is so absolutely unconstitutional that it will never see the light of day. It stomps on all of our history and turns it into nothing but compost, and therefore it is unacceptable.

  The thing that is grievous is to watch others insist this is the best way. By allowing goverment---and IRS agents at that!---to choose which religions to favor with tax exemptions. Well, that's something I would not want to see. If they are up to criminal activity, we have laws to cover that. You can't stomp your feet and say "they won't talk to me----take away their tax exemption!" because THEY have a right to free association. Our constitution means a little something---inconvenient as that may be at times---and the end does not always justify the means.

  I would support taking tax exemption away from all religions---or at least from the amounts that aren't used directly for charity like soup kitchens---But not for schools. The last thing I care to do is subsidize religious education, so I don't think it should qualify as charity as long as we have public schools. But food banks, utility programs, medical programs---sure--exempt those amounts.

  But when we have lunatics like Bachmann, Perry, Santorum in office---letting them pursue their religious agenda is dangerous, and that is what this would do.

  The Constitution---a real pain sometimes (at least for some)

  EDIT: Had a name wrong.

  NC