|
Post by Onjel on Nov 28, 2009 10:22:15 GMT -5
I honestly cannot understand how this kind of action doesn't violate their nonprofit status with the IRS. Julia, it's obviously political advocacy per se I think it's time to revoke tax-free status for religious organizations, and in that I mean all of them. It's too hard to regulate them, and as we saw during the last administration, far too easy to play favorites. Oh yeah. I cannot stress how much I agree with you about this issue. Been saying this for decades. Let 'em all pay taxes. Failure to tax is a promotion of religion if you ask me and I think it could be argued that such preferential treatment violates the Constitution and we all know I'm all about following the Constitution. ;D
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 28, 2009 11:09:11 GMT -5
I think it's time to revoke tax-free status for religious organizations, and in that I mean all of them. It's too hard to regulate them, and as we saw during the last administration, far too easy to play favorites. Oh yeah. I cannot stress how much I agree with you about this issue. Been saying this for decades. Let 'em all pay taxes. Failure to tax is a promotion of religion if you ask me and I think it could be argued that such preferential treatment violates the Constitution and we all know I'm all about following the Constitution. ;D But wouldn't taxing religious groups violate the separation of church and state idea? I ask this with genuine interest in your take on this, I am talking from a total layman-who-hasn't really-studied-the constitution-since-HS-Civic-Class. You'd be forcing churches to contribute to things like executions and wars, no? Not that most of them haven't done that on their own from time to time, but I'm talking about the legalities here . . . I mean, I'm a Quaker, say. I should pay taxes -not just as a citizen of the United States, but as a Quaker (my contributions to my church will be taxed, no? Or . . . just the Church's . . . earned income?) - that go to support a war? And isn't the whole idea that the government not be able to regulate them, beyond the very basics (you're not free to do human sacrifices, e.g.)?
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 28, 2009 13:46:46 GMT -5
Oh yeah. I cannot stress how much I agree with you about this issue. Been saying this for decades. Let 'em all pay taxes. Failure to tax is a promotion of religion if you ask me and I think it could be argued that such preferential treatment violates the Constitution and we all know I'm all about following the Constitution. ;D But wouldn't taxing religious groups violate the separation of church and state idea? I ask this with genuine interest in your take on this, I am talking from a total layman-who-hasn't really-studied-the constitution-since-HS-Civic-Class. You'd be forcing churches to contribute to things like executions and wars, no? Not that most of them haven't done that on their own from time to time, but I'm talking about the legalities here . . . I mean, I'm a Quaker, say. I should pay taxes -not just as a citizen of the United States, but as a Quaker (my contributions to my church will be taxed, no? Or . . . just the Church's . . . earned income?) - that go to support a war? And isn't the whole idea that the government not be able to regulate them, beyond the very basics (you're not free to do human sacrifices, e.g.)? The thing is, "separation of church and state" is a reciprocal duty; for a religious institution to make direct, explicit, public attempts to influence government is already in violation of IRS code. Thing is, the churches which have been punished under that law have, until now, almost always been small, poor, and liberal- UCC and Friends and UU congregations punished for peace preaching in the 2004 election, for instance. Julia, taking direct political action can have direct political consequences, but peace and social justice advocates have always been more likely to be punished than anti-abortion and anti-gay (and, historically, anti-labor) ones.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Nov 29, 2009 8:42:18 GMT -5
I fully intend to jump back into this discussion, but it will have to wait until I get home from mom's later. Maintaining two homes can be a bitca. I look forward to yakking about the Establishment Clause some more.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Dec 1, 2009 11:27:54 GMT -5
The short version is - they're deliberately tapping into the conservative paranoia that abounds right now, and that's just not me. I'm not their audience.
And, on a non-political (IMO) note - they specifically targeted the flu vaccine this week, as in, "The media make us believe there's a big epidemic and then we all go out and get vaccinated."
Thing is, it's hard enough to get people to get the flu vaccine without this crap. People have always been afraid of vaccines, and yet vaccines are probably the greatest advance medicine has ever made. Can any of us born after the Salk virus imagine what it would be like to go through life in danger of polio? I can't. I can't imagine what that world was like. And yet some people talk about vaccines like they're a government conspiracy to poison us all and cripple our immune systems.
And this year, it's just ridiculous. H1N1 isn't a media-created panic, nor is the government trying to control our minds by vaccinating us against it. I want everyone who CAN get the vaccine to get it, to reduce the odds of me and mine contracting the flu. I'll get the vaccine if it ever becomes available in my area, but so far, no go.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Dec 1, 2009 12:29:15 GMT -5
The short version is - they're deliberately tapping into the conservative paranoia that abounds right now, and that's just not me. I'm not their audience. And, on a non-political (IMO) note - they specifically targeted the flu vaccine this week, as in, "The media make us believe there's a big epidemic and then we all go out and get vaccinated." Thing is, it's hard enough to get people to get the flu vaccine without this crap. People have always been afraid of vaccines, and yet vaccines are probably the greatest advance medicine has ever made. Can any of us born after the Salk virus imagine what it would be like to go through life in danger of polio? I can't. I can't imagine what that world was like. And yet some people talk about vaccines like they're a government conspiracy to poison us all and cripple our immune systems. And this year, it's just ridiculous. H1N1 isn't a media-created panic, nor is the government trying to control our minds by vaccinating us against it. I want everyone who CAN get the vaccine to get it, to reduce the odds of me and mine contracting the flu. I'll get the vaccine if it ever becomes available in my area, but so far, no go. I am of the mind that people are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what the media tells us. I never was one for flu vaccines, even though I know they are beneficial and I don't buy into the conspiracy theories. It's just my personal preference, plus, the fact that I never get the flu and the one time I did get the shot, I got a nasty 24 hour virus where I thought I was gonna die and so did both my kids. My ex who didn't get the shot, didn't get sick. So..that is how that goes for me. The way I look at V is that they are, of course, tapping into the paranoia - but more so because it is an irrational fear and makes for good drama. That being said, there is an inkling of truth to the whole being careful of what you allow your government to dictate to you...to being vigilant to keep them honest and NOT allow anything experimental into the vaccines and to keep them as 'clean' and free of toxins as they possibly can. Big pharma has been known at times to not have our best interests at heart in order to make big profit. It's just the human way. So, we humans who won't put up with that have to speak up and make them accountable. And that's what Vis showing us. Or maybe it's just the way I see it - because I like the show. But I can see your point that weaker minded people might use the show to make their point..which in my mind is ridiculous for them to do because, duh, it's entertainment, people.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Dec 1, 2009 14:38:19 GMT -5
The short version is - they're deliberately tapping into the conservative paranoia that abounds right now, and that's just not me. I'm not their audience. And, on a non-political (IMO) note - they specifically targeted the flu vaccine this week, as in, "The media make us believe there's a big epidemic and then we all go out and get vaccinated." Thing is, it's hard enough to get people to get the flu vaccine without this crap. People have always been afraid of vaccines, and yet vaccines are probably the greatest advance medicine has ever made. Can any of us born after the Salk virus imagine what it would be like to go through life in danger of polio? I can't. I can't imagine what that world was like. And yet some people talk about vaccines like they're a government conspiracy to poison us all and cripple our immune systems. And this year, it's just ridiculous. H1N1 isn't a media-created panic, nor is the government trying to control our minds by vaccinating us against it. I want everyone who CAN get the vaccine to get it, to reduce the odds of me and mine contracting the flu. I'll get the vaccine if it ever becomes available in my area, but so far, no go. Emily's been trying to get the vaccine at school, but they just don't have any, and Kaiser's run out as well. She's keeping her fingers crossed and using hand sanitizer. As to V, I wonder if the writers are Glenn Beck fans, because a lot of the paranoia about evil vaccines and socialist universal health care plots is right off his show (from what I read on HuffPo and Salon). Or they could just be cashing in on GB's popularity, which is not helpful, to say the least. I'm not a doctor, but I believe in science, thank you very much, and this sort of irrational nitwittery and fearmongering is not helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Dec 12, 2009 13:30:58 GMT -5
Interesting interview Colbert did with the Conservopedia guy. I just love seeing Colbert rip into the Christian Right with his biblical knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 12, 2009 15:33:28 GMT -5
Interesting interview Colbert did with the Conservopedia guy. I just love seeing Colbert rip into the Christian Right with his biblical knowledge. Haven't seen it but may go find it online. I'd love to see my BIL go on Colbert. I think Colbert might really respect him and they could have an actual intellectual discussion and exchange of real ideas and beliefs. What is sad to me is that so many Christians are so vulnerable to being ripped apart either because of lack of understanding of their own beliefs; prejudices and opinions that go far afield of Jesus' and biblical teaching; and/or hypocrisy (where one's personal actions in no way mirror what they claim as their beliefs). And then, of course, the fact that they are not perfect (in many cases far far far from perfect) generalizes to anyone else who uses the label. On the other hand, I also tire of the very liberal ripping into those with conservative beliefs (either religious or political or cultural: not just abortion or homosexuality; stuff as simple as wearing a headscarf) simply because the beliefs differ from their own. There are actually some things that we don't KNOW (proof for or against an afterlife or a soul come to mind, which may speak to when life begins, or ends) and so to state (or imply) that one's beliefs are ridiculous or stupid or reactionary simply because they don't happen to jive with the current social climate annoys me. None of which is aimed at you Liz or even at Colbert, I just got off on a mini-rant. Read a newspaper article today about how atheists feel "discriminated against" this time of year. Seems to me like we could all use a whole lot more tolerance toward those who are different. I shouldn't mind if non-believers chose not to decorate, or say Merry Christmas etc. On the other hand I don't believe that they should view it as "discrimination" simply because I choose to celebrate according to my views. [And I'm not saying that they don't suffer actual discrimination in some/many cases. I'm just saying to complain that the great majority of Christmas celebrations are centered around churches and not enough are "non-religious" in nature: HUH? ] One might say that it's a "thin line" but I think if we were just generally more tolerant and less quick to jump to offense on our own behalf maybe the line wouldn't be so thin. "You" could say "Happy Winter Solstice" to me and I could say not just "Merry Christmas" but even "God Bless You" and we would each come away enriched by the good will of the other rather than nursing offense. So, mini-rant expanded into mega-rant. Merry Christmas God Bless You Happy New Year "_____________________" Fill in the blank (Again, not directed at Liz or her post, just happened to be expanded thoughts in my quote of her.)
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Dec 12, 2009 18:52:17 GMT -5
Interesting interview Colbert did with the Conservopedia guy. I just love seeing Colbert rip into the Christian Right with his biblical knowledge. Haven't seen it but may go find it online. I'd love to see my BIL go on Colbert. I think Colbert might really respect him and they could have an actual intellectual discussion and exchange of real ideas and beliefs. What is sad to me is that so many Christians are so vulnerable to being ripped apart either because of lack of understanding of their own beliefs; prejudices and opinions that go far afield of Jesus' and biblical teaching; and/or hypocrisy (where one's personal actions in no way mirror what they claim as their beliefs). And then, of course, the fact that they are not perfect (in many cases far far far from perfect) generalizes to anyone else who uses the label. On the other hand, I also tire of the very liberal ripping into those with conservative beliefs (either religious or political or cultural: not just abortion or homosexuality; stuff as simple as wearing a headscarf) simply because the beliefs differ from their own. There are actually some things that we don't KNOW (proof for or against an afterlife or a soul come to mind, which may speak to when life begins, or ends) and so to state (or imply) that one's beliefs are ridiculous or stupid or reactionary simply because they don't happen to jive with the current social climate annoys me. None of which is aimed at you Liz or even at Colbert, I just got off on a mini-rant. Read a newspaper article today about how atheists feel "discriminated against" this time of year. Seems to me like we could all use a whole lot more tolerance toward those who are different. I shouldn't mind if non-believers chose not to decorate, or say Merry Christmas etc. On the other hand I don't believe that they should view it as "discrimination" simply because I choose to celebrate according to my views. [And I'm not saying that they don't suffer actual discrimination in some/many cases. I'm just saying to complain that the great majority of Christmas celebrations are centered around churches and not enough are "non-religious" in nature: HUH? ] One might say that it's a "thin line" but I think if we were just generally more tolerant and less quick to jump to offense on our own behalf maybe the line wouldn't be so thin. "You" could say "Happy Winter Solstice" to me and I could say not just "Merry Christmas" but even "God Bless You" and we would each come away enriched by the good will of the other rather than nursing offense. So, mini-rant expanded into mega-rant. Merry Christmas God Bless You Happy New Year "_____________________" Fill in the blank (Again, not directed at Liz or her post, just happened to be expanded thoughts in my quote of her.) I think there's too much hate in the world already, there's no reason to be adding anymore. I celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday, but for the past couple of years I've had to repeatedly explain that to James. I dunno, I figure it's a time to celebrate, getting upset because other people are or are not celebrating the way you want them to kind of detracts from the spirit of the season.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 12, 2009 20:57:24 GMT -5
I think there's too much hate in the world already, there's no reason to be adding anymore. I celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday, but for the past couple of years I've had to repeatedly explain that to James. I dunno, I figure it's a time to celebrate, getting upset because other people are or are not celebrating the way you want them too kind of detracts from the spirit of the season. Yeah, that.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Dec 22, 2009 1:28:38 GMT -5
I think there's too much hate in the world already, there's no reason to be adding anymore. I celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday, but for the past couple of years I've had to repeatedly explain that to James. I dunno, I figure it's a time to celebrate, getting upset because other people are or are not celebrating the way you want them too kind of detracts from the spirit of the season. Yeah, that. If I might add a slight rant of a similar nature...particularly to the earlier discussion about tax-free status, etc. I've been, as you know, looking for teaching jobs, and I'm getting more and more willing to apply for anything, even in places I have ZERO desire to live. But... I was looking at a job listing in my field, and came across one for a Baptist university. Willing to be open-minded, I read the job description, which sounded good until I came to the line: "Faculty members are expected to embrace the Christian mission and purpose of the university." I found that extremely off-putting for a variety of reasons, some silly, some serious. First, the silly...being an angry, agnostic lapsed Catholic does not keep me from (mostly jokingly) having that moment of thinking of Prostestant religions as "upstarts." On the serious side, why should faculty have to embrace a "Christian" mission? Is that not discriminatory and does that not make a less diverse faculty and education for its students? Further (and here I go getting snootily Catholic again), my alma mater (a Jesuit uni) has no such line in its job description, demanding faculty embrace a Catholic worldview in order to be hired. Am I being oversensitive?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 22, 2009 17:59:10 GMT -5
If I might add a slight rant of a similar nature...particularly to the earlier discussion about tax-free status, etc. I've been, as you know, looking for teaching jobs, and I'm getting more and more willing to apply for anything, even in places I have ZERO desire to live. But... I was looking at a job listing in my field, and came across one for a Baptist university. Willing to be open-minded, I read the job description, which sounded good until I came to the line: "Faculty members are expected to embrace the Christian mission and purpose of the university." I found that extremely off-putting for a variety of reasons, some silly, some serious. First, the silly...being an angry, agnostic lapsed Catholic does not keep me from (mostly jokingly) having that moment of thinking of Prostestant religions as "upstarts." On the serious side, why should faculty have to embrace a "Christian" mission? Is that not discriminatory and does that not make a less diverse faculty and education for its students? Further (and here I go getting snootily Catholic again), my alma mater (a Jesuit uni) has no such line in its job description, demanding faculty embrace a Catholic worldview in order to be hired. Am I being oversensitive? Actually, yeah I think so. Private schools should, within the law, be able to dictate certain matters. [No matter how much I might disagree with or even possibly abhor.] I"m not entirely sure where the line gets to be drawn and who gets to draw it is the problem. I mean, can a private school still teach that blacks and whites shouldn't marry? Possibly. And it's up to social pressure and simple economics (students refusing to apply) to change that kind of thing. I sort of sympathize with people who have a sincere belief in some more that might be socially outdated but should they have to hire (for example) gay faculty if they believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a flagrant sin? Or, perhaps more (or less?) PC -- a woman prof who is pregnant out of wedlock. Well, then, should they be required to hire someone who does not believe (and would say so to students) that sex outside of marriage is wrong or that Jesus is not the only way to heaven or that ..... Societal changes have brought about a lot of changes -- like single sex schools being opened up, more diversity in both student bodies and faculty. But if a private "Christian" university wants to require that its faculty espouse (their definition of) Christian belief --- if they are not taking public funds why not? What is the point of founding a BAPTIST university if they aren't allowed to focus on Baptist teachings? Should you be allowed to FORCE someone who chooses to attend such a place to be taught by someone who is going to teach values with which they do not agree? Discriminatory? Sort of yes, but then think of the all "liberal" institutions that would "discriminate" against someone who has great credentials but holds conservative religious beliefs. Less diverse: Absolutely! But that's exactly why those folks founded that institution and those students are choosing to attend it. They don't want to be exposed to every other viewpoint in the universe -- they want to be surrounded by others "like" them. Bad idea? Maybe, but not illegal, methinks. Maybe the Jesuits are so totally assured of their own superiority that they are not threatened by alternate viewpoints? My thought: if they don't need/want/like you/your belief system why would you WANT to be in that environment 24/7? [Outside of desperately needing a job, of course. ]
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Dec 22, 2009 19:18:11 GMT -5
Sue:
No, you're right; it is a private university.
I'll have to have a think about the rest of what you said. It was a gut-level "ish" response to the idea of having to endorse a slate of beliefs to get a job...
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 22, 2009 21:36:36 GMT -5
Sue: No, you're right; it is a private university. I'll have to have a think about the rest of what you said. It was a gut-level "ish" response to the idea of having to endorse a slate of beliefs to get a job... I don't think that, as a general rule, you should be forced to endorse a slate of beliefs to get a job. However, there are specific situations where to allow the opposite is the farce. The most obvious is a that a church should be allowed to set specific "confession of faith" to become a member. Or maybe a better example is that a church requires that its leaders subscribe to a specific set of beliefs. To allow just anyone to apply for that job, regardless of their beliefs, would be ludicrous. So, it would seem to me that a private university that was founded by a specific church for the specific intent (at least originally) of educating the members of their specific denomination in both general education AND the tenets of their faith should be allowed to require that teachers at said institution subscribe to the same confession of faith as members of said church. No-one is forced to attend---those that choose to do so know going in what the faith-tenets are. Likewise it seems farcical to me (to be required) to allow people to teach who explicitly state that they do not agree with the tenets of faith on which the institution was founded. [Would the Jesuits really hire someone who was an outspoken supporter of abortion?] [Much press is given to denominations who discriminate in their hiring practices against women or gay people. But I know of reverse situations where someone whose specific beliefs regarding the Bible are "too" conservative (and I'm not talking creationism or anti-science these are more matters of concience) has been turned down for ordination by mainline churches that are highly inclusive of any and all liberal beliefs but that reject for ordination (i.e. refuse to hire for a job) anyone with more conservative social beliefs. In other words, he/she is not allowed to apply for a job without affirming that they support the liberal beliefs of that institution. So it does cut both ways.]
|
|