Federal Marriage Amendment Debate and Discussion Thread (v. 2.0)

Cyprus,

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they gave churches tax exempt status. They knew,if the churches lost this, they would eventually be controlled by the state. The state would dictate what could and couldn't be said inside the building, under durress of prosecution or taxation. Now follow me here: What happens when someone in a state position, with a particular religious bend, begins using this system to dictate policy to everyone? The no taxation law was to protect everyone from the church/state situation and the state/church situation. They are interchangeable and equally problematic.

 

Do you have any hard info on the rationale behind tax-exempt status for churches, Undomiel, or are you guessing? I don't know a thing, but I'd always assumed it was because one of the significant functions of a church was to act charitably and for the improvement of the area. I don't really see your argument about how it protects speech.

Incidentally, if that's so, why is it more important to protect what's said inside a church from state control than it is what's said inside any other organization's building who might want tax-exempt status?

-Paul

 

not sure i follow your question, dp.

 

Okay, so you're saying the function of a church's tax-exempt status is so the government can't attempt to influence what's said inn the church through taxation. I don't really buy that, but assuming that it's true, why is it more important to protect the church in that way than it is my litle private club? Why should a church get tax-exempt status to protect what's said inside, but not my organization?

-Paul

 

dp,

this situation would be equally bad for homosexual churches and churches of other religions as well, if the wrong person were at the helm and the churches were under state authority. you could be taxed for disagreeing with other religions that disagree with you and it could all fall under hate speech. think about it.

 

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they gave churches tax exempt status. They knew,if the churches lost this, they would eventually be controlled by the state.

PPOR

I think that's a pretty ridiculous suggestion personally. How in the world can making a church pay taxes be an act of controlling the church? Is every business being controlled by the state?

The state would dictate what could and couldn't be said inside the building, under durress of prosecution or taxation.

How in the world are you even coming to that conclusion? How is what being said going to affect the taxes that a church would have to pay? But besides that, you do realize freedom of speech is the ---> 1ST <--- amendment right? I don't see that going away anytime soon.

Now follow me here: What happens when someone in a state position, with a particular religious bend, begins using this system to dictate policy to everyone?

Wow, talk about a slippery slope. Also considering 76% of americans are christian and almost every single politician at a state level is also christian, I think it's fair to say that that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The no taxation law was to protect everyone from the church/state situation and the state/church situation. They are interchangeable and equally problematic.

While that's not entirely accurate you still haven't made the case as to why churches should be allowed to have political speech but still be tax exempt. It'd be like saying because I was on medicaid because I was injured I should be able to stay on medicaid for the rest of my life despite not fitting into that criteria anymore.

 

There have been segments of society that have gone bananas in trying to prevent or undo the perceived harm Christianity has done to the government in general and individuals in particular. However, I'm not convinced that discrimination against Christians has reached the level that we generally associate with egregious civil rights violations. Much of the problem seems to be centered around schools, which do not actually edit out religious content because teachers, administrators, and school board members particularly want to, or even because they think the government is somehow "watching." They do it because they're scared parents will pitch a fit if they don't.

Some parents get very upset if they think that Christianity is being foisted on their children, particularly if their family practices a non-Christian faith. In a lot of schools, if even one parent freaks out and starts talking "rights" and "lawsuits," schools will scurry to comply with their demands, so long as said demands are cheaper than a lawsuit. It's the political flip side of religiously conservative parents who freak out if Harry Potter is on the shelves of the library, because they think it will teach kids to practice witchcraft. Very often, Harry Potter gets pulled from the shelves without further debate in those circumstances, no matter what the educational value of the parent's wishes versus the value of the book's availability is. Honestly, I suspect that for every school in the urban Northeast that's trampling on students' rights to individual religious expression, there's a Bible Belt school that's trampling on the non-establishment clause. That's because in schools, parents *are* the law.

This is often a good thing--parents know their kids best, and presumably know what will be good for them. However, if there's a community with questionable beliefs about the Constitution, or even just one really loud parent with a really sharp lawyer, schools will usually bite the bullet and bow to local pressures rather than Constitutional law. A parent that sues can financially ruin a school district--even if they don't win. Lawsuits are expensive, and schools don't have a lot of extra money lying around.

The 9th/10th grade division of the special ed school I'm subbing in has no English teacher, for example. They can't afford one. So the 9th/10th-grade teachers of all the other subjects just kind of tuck English lessons into part of their 45-minute class hours. I have no idea what the kids do with the extra hour a day the other students spend in English. This situation is especially annoying since I'll be certified to teach special ed high school English in July--I'm "highly qualified" under NCLB, even by general ed standards, I've been in the school since August and know the routines and the kids, and I'm a cheap entry-level teacher. I got excellent reviews as a student teacher in the English room of the 11th/12th grade division. You'd think that I'd be the right person at the right time, but they can't even afford *me.* I'm one of the few special ed teachers without a Master's Degree who will still be eligible to teach during the 2006/2007 school year. (I get a five-year grace period to get an MA, after which I become expensive.) This school could *never* afford a lawsuit, not even one they won. So when a parent starts shrieking, the school starts capitulating. Unsurprisingly, our pre-Christmas celebrations have included a lot of "Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer" and no "Joy To The World" at all--not even an instrumental version.

Anyway . . . before this thread wanders too far from its topic, let me assure you: given a choice between two scary alternatives--unconstitutionality of school rules and another ugly run-in with Betsy Smith's mother, most schools will pick unconstitutionality.

 

Ophelia,

You said:

most schools will pick unconstitutionality.

My response:

Now see, this is what I was trying to say and what has me concerned. If that trend doesn't stop, it WILL come back to bite everyone in the rumpski, because the flipside of that, is the stronger side winning every argument from thereon out to keep from being legislated out of existence to protect everyone else. Extremism begets more extremism.

This applies equally to the constitutionality of gay marriage. It's turned into a tit-for-tat match and clearly many people are in denial of their own participation.

 

Undomiel:

this situation would be equally bad for homosexual churches and churches of other religions as well, if the wrong person were at the helm and the churches were under state authority. you could be taxed for disagreeing with other religions that disagree with you and it could all fall under hate speech. think about it.

But what makes churches of particular importance? Why does anyone's church deserve more protectionn than my Literature Club?

-Paul

 

dp,

because, when the state starts dictating what can and can't be said within the walls of a church, they can take over that church and any other church under their jurisdiction. when that happens, the state becomes the church and at any time after that, the church can suddenly become the state. it's not good practice.

there's currently 2 issues on the rack. the one regarding taxation if political conversation takes place, and one regarding lawsuits and fines when speaking against homosexuality, which could feasibly be deemed hate speech.

in either case, if the church is some mom and pop operation, they will go under. soon, that leaves only the big contenders, like the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Church, the Mormon Church and a small handful of others, as they would be the only ones that were rich enough to withstand the taxation, while still practicing their free speech. The ones that capitulated and no longer used the venue for political discussion, would be under the protection and control of the state, but the ones practicing their free speech, would not. If the richer churches continued on in using the church as a political forum, they would eventually be taxed with greater and greater burdens to stop the practice, which is what the taxation law is all about -- to stop the practice. At this point, it would behoove you to read the Declaration of Independence.

 

Can you imagine all those ticked off religious people from countless denominations whose church went belly up because the pastor didn't sacrifice his free speech, and he ended up having to pay taxes he couldn't afford? It's a disaster in the making. The political fallout would be enormous.

 

Can you imagine all those ticked off religious people from countless denominations whose church went belly up because the pastor didn't sacrifice his free speech, and he ended up having to pay taxes he couldn't afford? It's a disaster in the making. The political fallout would be enormous.

Uhhh...you do realize it hasn't been a disaster on ANY level right? I'm not sure what the statistics are but the amount of churches that have lost their IRS church status has got to be a handfull. Also considering over 80% of church official disapprove of political speech in church, I think it's fair to see since there has been no damage there won't be in the future.

Quit being so darned paranoid.

 

Cyprus,

Fine.

 

Errr...I wasn't expecting that answer....

It wasn't an order, just a suggestion.

EDIT: Oh and also that IRS code has been in effect for over 50 years. So...I don't see why it would be a problem all of a sudden when it hasn't been.

 

Undomiel wrote: Now see, this is what I was trying to say and what has me concerned. If that trend doesn't stop, it WILL come back to bite everyone in the rumpski,

Yes, but I don't really know what we can do about keeping schools from being the battlefront of the culture wars without either removing federal/state-level control or local control. There are various arguments for keeping some contralized control of schools, from civil rights protections to quality-control assurance, but the most pragmatic reason is that the federal and state governments provide a large share of the money to keep schools running--over half even in wealthy schools, and practically all in poorer schools. Kicking the feds out isn't a realistic proposition, since he who pays the piper calls the tune. Eliminating or greatly reducing local control (which is the direction we're moving in) has its own problems--most notably: don't taxpaying parents get a say in how their kids are educated? I wouldn't want to work in a school where the parents had no control. No control = no investment = no participation. As it is, I feel like strangling somebody (usually the parent) every time I hear something like, "What do you mean, you want me to try and read with him at home?! He's with *you* people six hours a day--that's *your* job!!" You can't run an education program without the active help of parents, which is why schools in areas where parents got poor educations themselves and don't value education have a terrible time.

Still, the feds and the locals will never see eye to eye on every issue. Washington (and/or the state capitol) will always be too liberal, too conservative, too secular, too chauvinistically focused on the Judeo-Christian tradition, too PC, too WASP-centric, etc., etc., etc.

Mediation processes (and instant school capitulation) exist, but they don't always work. Unfortunately, I see this as an area where the courts will have to work to straighten out problems after they happen, since preventing problems is impossible with schools the way they are now. You'd need to return to the days before compulsory public education, in which villages that could afford it scraped enough money together to pay a local schoolmarm, and boarded her free at someone's house to keep the costs down. I don't see 100% local control as an option that's capable of giving kids what they need to succeeed in the modern world.

because the flipside of that, is the stronger side winning every argument from thereon out to keep from being legislated out of existence to protect everyone else. Extremism begets more extremism.

Okay, I was a little unclear on this part. If you're saying that you'd like to see an end to lawsuits from people who feel discriminated against, I don't see that happening. For one thing, Americans just plain like lawsuits, and many will choose them even if mediation options are available. For another, centralized versus local control in a large and diverse country is a major issue, and I don't see it going away. I see us as needing to remain on guard against abuses, using civil arbitration methods to solve problems when necessary, but turning to the courts when all else fails.

Civil rights are not a zero-sum game; allowing one group to assume rights it had previously been denied does not take those rights away from everyone else. The only "right" that will be categorically denied is one that isn't actually a right at all--the perceived right to relegate some group to second-class citizen status because they're unpopular. Conservative Christians who feel their freedom to express their religion is being trampled on have the same recourse as everyone else. If there is somewhat less sympathy for them than there is for homosexuals, it's because "Christian-bashing" means trolling a message baord and trashing the Christian religion in every way possible. "Gay-bashing" means finding a homosexual person and beating the ever-living crap out of him. When conservative Christians are denied the rig

 

Ophelia,

Is it possible my point went entirely over your head?

First of all, I was not implying that 2 wrongs make a right! And you should know me well enough, from my other postings here, to know that I am not stupid enough to believe such things. You're making the same mistake I've been trying to explain forever and a day to Cyprus and Co.

INTOLERANCE BREEDS INTOLERANCE.
EXTREMISM BREEDS EXTREMISM.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. Christians already know this, and in fact, it's the one thing that's been used to convince them repeatedly that they should be more considerate of the wants and desires of those in our society they may not be in full agreement with at all times. How do you think our laws got to the place they are now if seventy six percent of all americans are christians (think about it! who's voting in favor of liberal and democratic issues if most of us are freakin' christians), if not for the christians relenting, repeatedly, to the demands of their fellow americans (while still be referred to as intolerant, bigotted, idiots!!)? Eventually, the stereotyping begins alienating more and more of your own supporters, and the real bigots out there, step right into their niche of power.

Then, rather than realizing they should be separating out one mindset from another, rather than one political platform from another, or one religion from another, they just lump us all in the same dung heap and expect us to stay there, smiling, admitting this is where we've belonged all along.

WHO IS GOING TO VOTE FOR YOUR DEMANDS IF YOU'VE TOLD THEM ALL THEY ARE WORTHLESS PIECES OF CACA WITH NOT A BRAIN BETWEEN THEM?

Please, use your common sense.

This is further exacerbated by complete denial of the basic human freedoms given to everyone, such as displaying the nativity where the mennorah and islamic crescent are displayed or having a christian club on the same grounds as the other religious and non-religious clubs. How can anyone demand repeatedly to be accepted across the board, while still telling the bulk of those who they are demanding from, that they don't deserve the same rights as them? And what happens from such a mindset? YOU'RE WITNESSING THE RESULTS NOW.

 

Whoops, never mind.

 

dp,

vote what way?

 

Oh, wait, I misunderstood you. Oops.

 

dp.

np.

 

Undomiel, forgive me, but I'm still lost. It appears that you're saying that there's an across-the-board cultural assault on Christianity, despite the fact that most of the country is Christian. I just don't see that as being the case. Christians are harrassed in certain sections of society, and America is more secular than it was a couple of generations ago, but I just don't see a widespread threat to the religion in general. I'm also unclear on how the situation with Christians relates to the situation with gays, other than in either a vague, "everything relates to everything" way, or in a zero-sum culture-wars way.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't get it.

 

Ophelia,

You mentioned that when a parent threatens a lawsuit on a school because their child saw something christian while there, the school is put in jeopardy and as a result, they cater to the demands of the parent, creating an unconstituional situation for christians. This also happens for christian clubs who want to be on the same campus as the other religious and non-religious clubs, which end up more than half the time, in having to take it to court to get it resolved. One example, I explained elsewhere, resulted in a couple of young christians of oriental descent, being told they couldn't have their club because they had requirements for leadership, that you couldn't have a leadership position unless you were a christian. The school said no because they considered it discriminatory. And it went to litigation, where it stayed tied up in the courts for so long, the girl and her brother had already graduated from high school and had been out for 2 years, before it was resolved.

This kind of thing happens constantly because there's so much anomosity generated out there by total BS about christians. "All christians are bigots." and "All christians are intolerant." and my personal favorite, "All fundamentalists are idiots." I mean, who do they think their voting base is? It's so outrageous now, it's gone past the pale.

When Matthew Shepard (gay man) was murdered, Katie Couric got on national television on the NBC news and said that groups like "Focus on the Family" and other christian organizations were responsible for his death. Now, I dunno about you (although I suspect that you're a good person), but no christians I know of would kill a homosexual for being a homosexual. In fact, christianity does not support killing people. In fact, most christians are just people like you, me and the guy next door. It was outrageous propaganda of a magnitude that incites people on both sides of such issues, to be less and less understanding.

 

You mentioned that when a parent threatens a lawsuit on a school because their child saw something christian while there, the school is put in jeopardy and as a result, they cater to the demands of the parent, creating an unconstituional situation for christians. This also happens for christian clubs who want to be on the same campus as the other religious and non-religious clubs, which end up more than half the time, in having to take it to court to get it resolved. One example, I explained elsewhere, resulted in a couple of young christians of oriental descent, being told they couldn't have their club because they had requirements for leadership, that you couldn't have a leadership position unless you were a christian. The school said no because they considered it discriminatory. And it went to litigation, where it stayed tied up in the courts for so long, the girl and her brother had already graduated from high school and had been out for 2 years, before it was resolved.

I still don't get what point you're trying to make. The fact that organizations have to cater to those that even threat litigation is not a sign of an all-out assault on christianity, but a sign of a legal system that is constantly being over used and abused. This kind of thing happens all the time, most of the time it has nothing to do with religion, it's not just a christian vs. secular thing, it's a "I'm going to use the legal system to get what I want" thing.

This kind of thing happens constantly because there's so much anomosity generated out there by total BS about christians. "All christians are bigots." and "All christians are intolerant." and my personal favorite, "All fundamentalists are idiots." I mean, who do they think their voting base is? It's so outrageous now, it's gone past the pale.

Well anybody that says "all fundamentalists are idiots" is truly the idiot. But you know this just comes across to me as more of your paranoia. You keep approaching things like there is some anti-christian movement and christians are being chastized all the time. Well imagine yourself as an atheist, for centuries atheists have been looked down on and even today there is a stigma surrounding that word. If you're an atheist that wanted to run for politics, you can't possibly win and be openly atheist, it's impossible. Why is that? It's that way because so much of the american population approaches atheism not as a lack of religion, but as a lack of morals and ethics, as if without a fictional god looking over our shoulder we're only in it for ourselves, it's 100% pure ignorance on their part. So I just have to laugh at this "everyone is out to get us" rhetoric from christians.

When Matthew Shepard (gay man) was murdered, Katie Couric got on national television on the NBC news and said that groups like "Focus on the Family" and other christian organizations were responsible for his death.

Ok, I KNOW she never said such a thing. So how about you post the actual quote instead of putting your own spin on what she said.

Now, I dunno about you (although I suspect that you're a good person), but no christians I know of would kill a homosexual for being a homosexual. In fact, christianity does not support killing people. In fact, most christians are just people like you, me and the guy next door. It was outrageous propaganda of a magnitude that incites people on both sides of such issues, to be less and less understanding.

Well like every religion you do have your christian wackos as well, God Hates Fags is a good example. While there may have been people that used Matthew Shepard as a tool against christianity, most of what I saw was just a peaceful non-hateful movement for tolerance. I think that incident can be directly responsible for a huge swing in the perception of homosexuals. Now more and more homosexuals aren't afraid to come out, and although there is still a stigma surrounding homosexuality it's not nearly as bad as it was just 10 years ago. They've got a long way to go, and I think

 

Cyprus,

I agree that politically, atheists have a rough road to tow, and it is precisely for the same things I've been trying to tell since we started discussions of this nature: stereotyping. It's been rampant on the news, in music, in books, everywhere.

Here's the Couric quote:

while interviewing then-Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer about the slaying on Oct. 12, 1998, Ms. Couric asked the following question:

"And, finally, governor, some--some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying, 'If you're a homosexual, you can change your orientation.' That prompts people to say, 'If I meet someone who is homosexual, I'm going to take action and try to convince them or try to harm them.' Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?"

---

She chose to ask that question, that was loaded with insinuation, saying "Some" gay rights activists have accused conservative political organizations (notice here, all the organizations listed are christian-based)... and then following it up with "That prompts people to say, 'If I meet someone who is homosexual, I'm going to take action and try to convince them or try to harm them.' That second part, was her own reasoning.

While I agree that lawsuits are abused, I see it as being used as an especially useful tool against christian groups or just christians in general. You're smart enough to realize, if the bulk of people in the US are christians, and if they have voted in laxer laws in the past in order to accomodate their fellow americans, that rhetoric depicting christians of any cloth as idiotic, homocidial or whatever, is just shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Uhhh....if they are saying it then where's the problem? It's not unfair stereotyping. It's stating a fact (if it is one).