Freedom is real

[_subgenius]

Granted the linked article is a bit over-editorialized to be considered "good", but the facts on point are relevant.

http://news.yahoo.com/christian-univers ... 12556.html

"Carson-Newman University, a private Southern Baptist college in Tennessee, is now legally allowed to ban students whose "lifestyles" are interpreted as an affront to their Christian philosophy: gay students and others included.
...
O'Brien's legal counsel encouraged him to file the waiver, which exempts the school from allowing students protections usually afforded to them under Title IX. The university's president claimed doing so only "strengthen[s] our First Amendment rights."

These "strengthened" rights include not only the ability to ban gay students, but also unwed mothers, women who've had abortions and even pregnant students, according to WVLT. And Carson-Newman is hardly the only college now able to do so: The university's legal counsel filed similar waivers for many other Christian schools, according to the same report, and 30 others are similarly exempt from Title IX. "

Aww...turns out the LGBT community isn't really like the authentic Civil rights movement of the 60s....too much disposable income distracts from their cause having any integrity....and the whole their lifestyle is a choice and/or genetic defect thing.

So, anyone here support the US Constitution?

[_The CCC]

Granted the linked article is a bit over-editorialized to be considered "good", but the facts on point are relevant.

http://news.yahoo.com/christian-univers ... 12556.html

"Carson-Newman University, a private Southern Baptist college in Tennessee, is now legally allowed to ban students whose "lifestyles" are interpreted as an affront to their Christian philosophy: gay students and others included.
...
O'Brien's legal counsel encouraged him to file the waiver, which exempts the school from allowing students protections usually afforded to them under Title IX. The university's president claimed doing so only "strengthen[s] our First Amendment rights."

These "strengthened" rights include not only the ability to ban gay students, but also unwed mothers, women who've had abortions and even pregnant students, according to WVLT. And Carson-Newman is hardly the only college now able to do so: The university's legal counsel filed similar waivers for many other Christian schools, according to the same report, and 30 others are similarly exempt from Title IX. "

Aww...turns out the LGBT community isn't really like the authentic Civil rights movement of the 60s....too much disposable income distracts from their cause having any integrity....and the whole their lifestyle is a choice and/or genetic defect thing.

So, anyone here support the US Constitution?

I support the US Constitution whether I like a person or institution or not. They are private and can make any rules for their own use as they want. However I see no reason to allow them to have the same tax breaks other private institutions that don't unfairly discriminate can claim.

[_subgenius]

I support the US Constitution whether I like a person or institution or not. They are private and can make any rules for their own use as they want. However I see no reason to allow them to have the same tax breaks other private institutions that don't unfairly discriminate can claim.

I like that you left space for the notion of "fair discrimination".

I am curious about this other notion of linking morality to tax breaks.

[_EAllusion]

I like that you left space for the notion of "fair discrimination".

Refusing to admit people with a GPA below 2.0 would be an example of fair discrimination.

I am curious about this other notion of linking morality to tax breaks.

The reason that religious institutions get tax breaks (i.e. the reason it isn't unconstitutional) is that they are supposed to provide a moral service to society. Since you seem to disapprove of tying tax breaks to morality, would you stand up with me in calling for a ban on tax breaks to any religious institutions?

Thanks in advance.

[_subgenius]

I like that you left space for the notion of "fair discrimination".

Refusing to admit people with a GPA below 2.0 would be an example of fair discrimination.

good, you get it too, discrimination can be acceptable - thank you for being part of my hype posse.

I am curious about this other notion of linking morality to tax breaks.

The reason that religious institutions get tax breaks (i.e. the reason it isn't unconstitutional) is that they are supposed to provide a moral service to society. Since you seem to disapprove of tying tax breaks to morality, would you stand up with me in calling for a ban on tax breaks to any religious institutions?

1. I did not propose/promote any position on any relationship for taxes and morality.
2. Do you have a reference/citation for the reason that religious institutions get tax breaks?
I always thought that churches didn't pay taxes because of Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York 1970

you know, where the Supreme Court said that tax exemption "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other. ... the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

Tax exemption helps to perpetuate the myth of a separation of church and state...the government has no business promoting morality, correct?

Thanks in advance.

you're welcome in the rear....wait

[_EAllusion]

The reason that religious institutions get tax breaks (i.e. the reason it isn't unconstitutional) is that they are supposed to provide a moral service to society. Since you seem to disapprove of tying tax breaks to morality, would you stand up with me in calling for a ban on tax breaks to any religious institutions?


1. I did not propose/promote any position on any relationship for taxes and morality.
2. Do you have a reference/citation for the reason that religious institutions get tax breaks?
I always thought that churches didn't pay taxes because of Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York 1970

you know, where the Supreme Court said that tax exemption "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other. ... the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

The historical basis for justifying tax exemption to Churches in the United States has been in that it provides moral uplift to the community. Burger in the very opinion you are citing argued that the religious tax exemption was not to single out churches for special breaks. The reasoning argued the exemption applied to a broad category of groups having many common features and all dedicated to improving the character of society (i.e. charities). Religious institutions only incidentally benefited from being included in this broad category, therefore the primary effect and purpose of the exemption is secular and therefore not in violation of the first amendment.

I call shenanigans on that reasoning. For example only Churches are singled out to be the only type of organization that automatically gets tax breaks without stringent standards for income reporting to the IRS. But if you accept that reasoning, that's awesome, because only a few years later the Supreme Court offered this decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones ... ted_States

This is where the Supreme Court argued that it can revoke tax exempt status from religious institutions for public policy aims such as discouraging unfair discrimination. See, if the intent and effect of these exemptions is promote the social interest, then it follows that the government can revoke those exemptions if it feels that is in the social interest.

If you think the this uses the subsidizing power of tax breaks to promote or crush religions it likes or dislikes, I'm right with you. Then you are back to arguing with me that the government shouldn't be in the business of providing such tax breaks at all. Revoking the tax exemption from religious universities that discriminate against gays is about as clear-cut of of an example of what Bob Jones green-lighted the government to do as is possible.

[_subgenius]

The reason that religious institutions get tax breaks (i.e. the reason it isn't unconstitutional) is that they are supposed to provide a moral service to society. Since you seem to disapprove of tying tax breaks to morality, would you stand up with me in calling for a ban on tax breaks to any religious institutions?


1. I did not propose/promote any position on any relationship for taxes and morality.
2. Do you have a reference/citation for the reason that religious institutions get tax breaks?
I always thought that churches didn't pay taxes because of Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York 1970

you know, where the Supreme Court said that tax exemption "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other. ... the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

The historical basis for justifying tax exemption to Churches in the United States has been in that it provide moral uplift to the community. Burger in the very opinion you are citing argued that the religious tax exemption was not to single out churches for special breaks. The reasoning argued the exemption applied to a broad category of groups having many common features and all dedicated to improving the character of society (i.e. charities). Religious institutions only incidentally benefited from being included in this broad category, therefore the primary effect and purpose of the exemption is secular and therefore not in violation of the first amendment.

I call shenanigans on that reasoning. For example only Churches are singled out to be the only type of organization that automatically gets tax breaks without stringent standards for income reporting to the IRS. But if you accept that reasoning, that's awesome, because only a few years later the Supreme Court offered this decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones ... ted_States

This is where the Supreme Court argued that it can revoke tax exempt status from religious institutions for public policy aims such as discouraging unfair discrimination. See, if the intent and effect of these exemptions is promote the social interest, then it follows that the government can revoke those exemptions if it feels that is in the social interest.

If you think the this uses the subsidizing power of breaks of the to promote or crush religions it likes or dislikes, I'm right with you. Then you are back to arguing with me that the government shouldn't be in the business of providing such tax breaks at all.

1. I missed the part where the government expects churches to "provide a moral service to society" in exchange for tax exemptions.
2. I did not say that tax breaks should or should not be given.
3. As i said before, it is a myth to consider church/state separation...i offered no endorsement of condemnation on said myth.

So, my question remains - should government be in the business of promoting morality?, or rather "a specific" morality?

[_EAllusion]

1. I missed the part where the government expects churches to "provide a moral service to society" in exchange for tax exemptions.

Yeah, I missed that part too. There are obviously many Churches who in no way morally benefit society. They are a net-negative on community well-being. That contributes to why I think that reasoning is dubious. Nonetheless, the reasoning that protects those Churches tax exemptions, including in the very Supreme Court decision you cite, is that Churches are allowed to have exemptions because the intent and effect of them is Churches providing community uplift.

So, my question remains - should government be in the business of promoting morality?, or rather "a specific" morality?

All the government does is promote morality. That's its only job. Everytime the government puts someone in jail for stealing or killing someone, it is promoting morality. Everytime it taxes money from one group of people to pay for a service to another group of people, it is promoting morality.

What you really are getting at is should the government be involved in certain kinds of moral views, such as whether it is proper for an organization to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation. Everything the government does involves promoting morality, but not every moral issue is an area the government ought to be involved in.

[_subgenius]

Everything the government does involves promoting morality, but not every moral issue is an area the government ought to be involved in.

And is "love" one of these issues that should or should not have government involvement?