alexey Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I really don't know what the separation of church and state is supposed to mean anymore. It's evolved so absurdly in the mind of secular Americans that it seems to mean religion should only be seen or heard inside a church. A church that is monitored to make sure it's not making any hateful statements, which should be outlawed, and filing detailed taxes to make sure they are using their money the way the government approves of. I'm sure that's how it was meant. "the way government approves of" sounds so sinister, but it's really a simple matter of not giving religious institutions any special privileges.Would somebody argue that "separation of church and state" means that laws should not apply to churches? Imho government is establishing religion by giving special tax breaks to churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 "the way government approves of" sounds so sinister, but it's really a simple matter of not giving religious institutions any special privileges. Would somebody argue that "separation of church and state" means that laws should not apply to churches? Imho government is establishing religion by giving special tax breaks to churches. and that would be true... if the tax breaks only applied to one type of church. But they don't. seperation of church and state goes both direction. Not taxing churches is SEPARATING from them, in just the same way that your municipal bonds are "tax free". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Imho government is establishing religion by giving special tax breaks to churches. Ya have been brainwashed into believing not taxing something is establishing/supporting something. tax breaks infers it shoulda been taxed. anyhoo, back to the thread topic http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/15/the-annals-of-bad-ideas-houston-responds The Alliance Defending Freedom is trying to quash the subpoenas. What strikes me about this foolishness of this decision is that it reinforces the fears of the religious that they will be targeted and victimized in a society that is more tolerant of gays and the transgender. The big argument the opponents of the ordinance have been using is actual fearmongering that sexual predators will dress up like women to get them in the bathrooms and we'll all be helpless to stop them because of the law. It is a silly, stupid argument that has no basis in anything real (though, having said that: Private businesses should be able to set whatever restroom policies they want). But now that the city and its mayor are actually, literally targeting them using the law as a weapon, they are getting all sorts of attention. It doesn't actually matter whether Feldman is right and these guys pushed beyond proselytizing to political activism that is inappropriate for religious nonprofits. It makes the city look like a bully that doesn't actually have any faith that the ordinance it passed is supported by its own electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Would somebody argue that "separation of church and state" means that laws should not apply to churches? Many of them don't. I suppose it's possible to argue about whether they should. but it's a fact that they often don't. In addition to the much-talked-about tax exemption, (which, I will point out, they would still get a lot of, if they were simply treated as non-profit or charitable, anyway), I believe that they're pretty much immune from things like anti-discrimination laws, zoning, (minimum wage and workplace safety?) And I don;t really have a problem with that. (And I'm gonna laugh out loud if somebody seriously accuses me of being part of the religious right.) Heck, I'm not 100% sure that I'd object if we still had the old notion that I've seen in old movies, of accused criminals running through the door of a church and yelling "sanctuary!". I want for religion to be as exempt from government as possible. (Granted, I want for everybody to be as exempt from government as possible. It's just that I think that it's possible, and necessary, for churches to be more exempt.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I'll see your "everybody should be as exempt from government as possible" and raise you this: religion/churches should be so freaking exempt, that government should not even get to decide what's a religion/church and what's not a religion/church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I'll see your "everybody should be as exempt from government as possible" and raise you this: religion/churches should be so freaking exempt, that government should not even get to decide what's a religion/church and what's not a religion/church. I can certainly agree that the definition should be intentionally broad. Or were you simply trying to say something so stupid that I should have ignored it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 "the way government approves of" sounds so sinister, but it's really a simple matter of not giving religious institutions any special privileges. Would somebody argue that "separation of church and state" means that laws should not apply to churches? Imho government is establishing religion by giving special tax breaks to churches. I would argue that separation of church and state means exactly that churches can't be treated like any other business. Seperation, as you describe it, would leave religious organizations in the worst position of any in the US. They'd be taxed and regulated like any other but held at arms length by a one way wall of separation. I can see why an Athiest, and outspoken opponent of religion, would like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I can certainly agree that the definition should be intentionally broad. Or were you simply trying to say something so stupid that I should have ignored it? I am serious. Would this intentionally broad definition cover a club of secular humanists?IMHO the government has no business defining what's a religion, or giving any special treatment to religious beliefs or institutions that are denied to secular beliefs or institutions. For example, if the government is giving out exemptions based on deeply held religious beliefs, same exemptions should apply to deeply held beliefs/convictions/principles of nonbelievers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I am serious. Would this intentionally broad definition cover a club of secular humanists? IMHO the government has no business defining what's a religion, or giving any special treatment to religious beliefs or institutions that are denied to secular beliefs or institutions. For example, if the government is giving out exemptions based on deeply held religious beliefs, same exemptions should apply to deeply held beliefs/convictions/principles of nonbelievers. You'd like secular humanism defined as a religion, by the government? I'd love for that to happen. Where do I sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 You'd like secular humanism defined as a religion, by the government? I'd love for that to happen. Where do I sign?That's plan B. I would prefer other ways to ensure that secular people and institutions have the same rights, but hey it would be a step in the right direction even if we get there by saying that every belief/conviction/principle/etc is a religion.I would argue that separation of church and state means exactly that churches can't be treated like any other business.I would disagree with you there. Treating churches just like any other organization = no law respecting an establishment of religion Special tax treatment for churches = a law respecting the establishment of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Seperation, as you describe it, would leave religious organizations in the worst position of any in the US. They'd be taxed and regulated like any other but held at arms length by a one way wall of separation.I do not understand this argument. Let's say we take away special tax treatment for religious organizations and treat them like regular non-profits. Which activities, open to other non-profits, would they be disallowed from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I'll see your "everybody should be as exempt from government as possible" and raise you this: religion/churches should be so freaking exempt, that government should not even get to decide what's a religion/church and what's not a religion/church. Everyone would immediately redefine their businesses and political organizations as churches in order to avoid taxes and campaign laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I am serious. Would this intentionally broad definition cover a club of secular humanists? IMHO the government has no business defining what's a religion, or giving any special treatment to religious beliefs or institutions that are denied to secular beliefs or institutions. For example, if the government is giving out exemptions based on deeply held religious beliefs, same exemptions should apply to deeply held beliefs/convictions/principles of nonbelievers. By that reasoning, the government should give no special freedom for speech, either. Since giving exemption to anything by necessity requires defining said thing. Everyone would immediately redefine their businesses and political organizations as churches in order to avoid taxes and campaign laws. As opposed to Hobby Lobby and the Religious Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 As opposed to Hobby Lobby and the Religious Right. Well, Hobby Lobby is an actual business. They may follow religious precepts, but they also pay their taxes, unlike a church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 By that reasoning, the government should give no special freedom for speech, either. Since giving exemption to anything by necessity requires defining said thing.Good point. Clearly we cannot avoid defining what is religion/speech/press/etc if we have a Constitution that talks about those things.I had something else in mind when I wrote that post. I was thinking about the government defining a special kind of organization, an organization that enjoys special tax treatments because it is a "religious" organization. That looks like an establishment of religion to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 So, we're not going to discuss this particular case at all then, right? Just checking...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 So, we're not going to discuss this particular case at all then, right? Just checking...... Particular cases don't matter. They are just sounding boards for us to express our inner truthiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 So, we're not going to discuss this particular case at all then, right? Just checking...... I thought we were waiting on more information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 What if you're that pastor that simply makes it up when you get to the pulpit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 What if you're that pastor that simply makes it up when you get to the pulpit? as opposed to reading stuff other people made up before you got there ... Someone said the atheist point of view was needed... ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 and that would be true... if the tax breaks only applied to one type of church. But they don't. The separation argument has changed, all religions are now "religion" and freedom of religion is no longer about stopping establishment of a specific state religion. You see since all religions are one big generic religion, the government doing anything for religions is establishing a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 That's plan B. I would prefer other ways to ensure that secular people and institutions have the same rights, but hey it would be a step in the right direction even if we get there by saying that every belief/conviction/principle/etc is a religion. I would disagree with you there. Treating churches just like any other organization = no law respecting an establishment of religion Special tax treatment for churches = a law respecting the establishment of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" I do not understand this argument. Let's say we take away special tax treatment for religious organizations and treat them like regular non-profits. Which activities, open to other non-profits, would they be disallowed from? Would it be a fair statement to say the government is a secular organization already? Therefore if you confer rights reserved for religious organizations unto secular organizations such as secular humanists, aren't you therefore violating the Amendment with the gov't itself since its then now a body promoting religious views? I probably explained that terribly, but hopefully my point understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 Mayor issued the "oh, we didn't know the subpeona's were issued." and admitted they were too broad. Still, if these churches weren't part of the lawsuit, why single them out? Also, these are megachurches, so I'm sure they publish the sermons on the web in audio. Just listen to them. Maybe they'll get converted. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/houston-pastor-sermon_n_5992044.html The ignorant comments at the bottom are always priceless because people say what they really feel instead of hiding behind polite facade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocet Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 While the quote "government of the people, by the people, for the people." didn't issue from a founding document but was in a speech given in Pennsylvania it has found a bit of resonance with how the constituency views things. The vexing problem is that these "people" have a strong history of religious affiliation that, even though diminished still runs deep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States.%C2'> People is government <--------------> People is religious Separating seems hard. Maybe Solomon's answer key vis-a-vis the women fighting over the live child could help. velocet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 We can talk about the actual law that is being challenged - the one that says transsexuals are free to take a piss in the bathroom of their choosing. Or, we can go into some endless, ill-informed debate about the separation of church and state (or whatever freaking direction Alexey inevitably takes any thread about religion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 or we can talk about the Mayor's attempted Inquisition of the opposition.....let me guess which ya prefer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.