 |
Let me sum it up one more time.
There is a guarantee for the free exericise of religion . There is no guarantee you can build a house of worship anywhere you want to.
I can't make my position any clearer than that. IF the community approves it ,then whether I think it should go there or not is irrelevant.
You're just baiting him, ex. Tom answered your question in his first reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Thank you for that summation. Your position is clear. Mine's different...
As I said before, if your commercial building is EXACTLY like the building next door, nobody can stop you from putting a church/mosque there. NOBODY. That is freedom of religion at work!
Which brings up my SECOND rebuttal to your summation. The CONSTITUTION rules - NOT the community. You seem to think the community gets a vote. WRONG!!
excon
Wrong . As previously mentioned religion for some strange reason is a tax free enterprise in the US . They have no right to build as big as they want any more than any other business had a right to build as high as the WTC were .Quote:
As I said before, if your commercial building is EXACTLY like the building next door, nobody can stop you from putting a church/mosque there. NOBODY. That is freedom of religion at work!
Can a business be discriminated against in zoning laws ? Certainly... happens all the time.Zoning in my neighborhood prevents commercial businesses completely .
NYC cleaned up Time Square that way. Many citys outright ban adult entertainment.
Really ? Ask the Mormons about religious freedom .Quote:
Which brings up my SECOND rebuttal to your summation. The CONSTITUTION rules - NOT the community. You seem to think the community gets a vote. WRONG!!
Freedom of religion does not give you carte blanche to build anywhere you want. The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) in fact requires zoning that specifies where houses of worship can and can't be built . Is this Federal law Constitutional ? I guess that remains to be seen. But at the time of it's passage it actually gave religious institutions greater leeway.
Like I mentioned already .This is a mute point since the only thing that will prevent this is public pressure compelling a reversal for an approval that was already made.
Wrong. Zoning laws have use restrictions. You can't build or convert a building to an adult entertainment venue anywhere near a school in these parts, or do you think that would be OK, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We disagree. My argument is simple. The federal government cannot establish a religion. Consequently, it can't say what a church ISN'T without saying what a church IS. As previously mentioned, it can't say what a church IS, because THAT establishes a religion.
Therefore, the government can't make ANY laws that regulate church's. I didn't stutter. That's an absolute. That's why the tax code on church's is ONE SENTENCE LONG. It say's simply, "church's are exempt". So, when the government looks out upon its minions, it doesn't see church's. It is Constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
Oh, it DOES see their BUILDINGS. Those can be regulated. But, I say again, as long as the building meets the BUILDING requirements of the local zoning board, and the activities within the building are not CRIMINAL in nature, the government, local, state, or federal, CANNOT prohibit what goes on there.
Does that mean the federal government CANNOT tell a group of people that they CAN'T establish a church based upon their lord and savior, POPEYE? Yes, it does. So, I'll repeat my question to you. Do you believe in freedom of religion for your church, but NOT those crazy Popeye nuts??
excon
Still wrong. If the tax code is one sentence long why do so many churches have to incorporate, have bylaws, hold business meetings and otherwise act similarly to businesses? A church is only exempt if it complies with the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Again we agree that Congress can make no laws regarding establishment or the free exercise .(although Mormons and groups like Rastafarians may say huh? )
This is an irrelevant point and Steve is right that you are trying to bait me into giving some greater status to my religion over others .
In this sentence is where we disagreeThis is untrue . I already gave you examples where legal business unrelated to religion are routinely restricted . I cannot place an industrial business in a residential area ,and you can't build a house of worship anywhere you chose . Zoning against it is completely constitutional .Quote:
Oh, it DOES see their BUILDINGS. Those can be regulated. But, I say again, as long as the building meets the BUILDING requirements of the local zoning board, and the activities within the building are not CRIMINAL in nature, the government, local, state, or federal, CANNOT prohibit what goes on there.
But in the neighborhood in question there are already houses of worship so I do not dispute their right to build even though I oppose it (I mentioned that in my 1st response ) .I have argued against the size of the project ;which happens to be my biggest objection . Of that you just agreed with me that the local community can restrict the size of the edifice.
I also would argue that the insensitive ,offensive and distasteful placement of a mosque that size looming over what will be a memorial to the dead from the 9-11 attack will create a security risk that the city alone will have to use it's resources to protect . Therefore the city has a right if it feels the security situation would become a burden to prevent it. The city has already made many revisions to the construction projects on the WTC site due to the security problems that have contributed to a great extent to the delays in the construction projects.
Evidently the powers that be in the city disagree with me on that point also. But I have been in many battles at the local level where zoning regs were proposed and revised all the time for special projects the elected officials wanted . Public opinion properly organized is often quite effective.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nope, I'm not wrong. I'm as right as rain. The tax code about church's IS one sentence long. Church's are exempt. That's what it says. I believe it. So, since they're exempt, why would they need to apply to, or ask permission from, the federal government for an exemption (501C3 status)?? Let me say it another way, if church's are exempt, and the tax code says they are, then why would they need permission from the government to BE exempt??
Well, of course, they DON'T. As I said before, the government cannot decide what a church IS and what it ISN'T. Therefore, they ARE exempt from the git go, and don't need a designation from the government telling them that.
I don't know why church's incorporate. By doing so, they make themselves instruments of the state, which requires all those things you mention. A church that took MY legal advice, would take the form of an unincorporated association. Those entity's don't require meeting, bylaws, reports, or any of those things. Since it's exempt, it doesn't have to file tax returns telling the government that it IS exempt.
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The way SOME people exercise their freedom IS insensitive, offensive and distasteful. It was offensive when the KKK wanted to march in Skokie, Ill. What Glenn Beck says is offensive. The mosque at ground zero IS offensive. Rights for detainees is offensive.
My arguments aren't based on popularity. They're based on the Constitution.
excon
To avoid taxes and for protection. It's the reality and it's the law, I already pointed that out. Specifically:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And whether it's right or not, the government does indeed define what a church is. If you don't believe me, start on page 13 of the application to apply as a charity.Quote:
"To be organized exclusively for a charitable purpose, the organization must be a corporation (or unincorporated association), community chest, fund, or foundation."
Yep, just one sentence and nothing about the government saying what a church is.Quote:
Do you have a written creed, statement of faith, or summary of beliefs? If “Yes,” attach copies of relevant documents.
Do you have a form of worship? If “Yes,” describe your form of worship.
Do you have a formal code of doctrine and discipline? If “Yes,” describe your code of doctrine and discipline.
Do you have a distinct religious history? If “Yes,” describe your religious history.
Do you have a literature of your own? If “Yes,” describe your literature.
Describe the organization’s religious hierarchy or ecclesiastical government.
Do you have regularly scheduled religious services? If “Yes,” describe the nature of the services and provide representative copies of relevant literature such as church bulletins.
What is the average attendance at your regularly scheduled religious services?
Do you have an established place of worship? If “Yes,” refer to the instructions for the information required.
Do you own the property where you have an established place of worship?
Do you have an established congregation or other regular membership group?
How many members do you have?
Do you have a process by which an individual becomes a member? If “Yes,” describe the process and complete lines 8b–8d, below.
If you have members, do your members have voting rights, rights to participate in religious functions, or other rights? If “Yes,” describe the rights your members have.
May your members be associated with another denomination or church?
Are all of your members part of the same family?
Do you conduct baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc.
Do you have a school for the religious instruction of the young?
Do you have a minister or religious leader? If “Yes,” describe this person’s role and explain whether the minister or religious leader was ordained, commissioned, or licensed after a prescribed course of study.
Do you have schools for the preparation of your ordained ministers or religious leaders?
Is your minister or religious leader also one of your officers, directors, or trustees?
Do you ordain, commission, or license ministers or religious leaders? If “Yes,” describe the requirements for ordination, commission, or licensure.
Are you part of a group of churches with similar beliefs and structures? If “Yes,” explain. Include the name of the group of churches.
Do you issue church charters? If “Yes,” describe the requirements for issuing a charter.
Did you pay a fee for a church charter? If “Yes,” attach a copy of the charter.
Do you have other information you believe should be considered regarding your status as a church?If “Yes,” explain.
My position has been consistent about the tax status of churches . It is a bad move by both the church and State .
The state is involved with establishment issues trying to determine which entity is and isn't eligible.
And the church sacrifices it's complete independence from the state or as Excon said ,becomes an instrument of the state .I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged the tax status under the establishment clause.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You pointed out what you READ. I'm pointing out how it works in real life. In 1979, I founded a church based upon the principles of Popeye. I didn't ask the government if I could, because I KNEW I could. The church still operates, owns property, collects donations and redistributes it. It's never spoken to the government, and the government has never spoken to the church.
If you believe in what the First Amendment says, then the truth of what I'm telling you becomes apparent. That's not to say that the government hasn't tried to ALTER what the First Amendment says. It does it all the time. It writes stuff down in books and calls it law, but it isn't. I can read.
excon
I knew it ! Popeye's is a cult trying the take out KFC !
And it's open to all manner of legal action against which you have very little legal protection. The Supreme Court has addressed these issues many times. Organizations exist just for the purpose of advising churches on their rights and defending them in court. What you say may be technically right, but it isn't the legal reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again,
The discussion is STILL going on...
But, I want to talk about lists... Right wingers seem to carry around a LIST of people WHO have rights under the Constitution, and those who don't. Their list includes all sorts of bad people to WHOM the Constitution SHOULD NOT apply. For example, if you want to excercize your First Amendment rights to open a Mosque near ground zero, the right wingers will consult their LIST to see if YOU qualify...
The discussion underway is whether we want radical Muslims, who support Sharia Law, for crying out loud, to open a Mosque THAT is pretty close to ground zero...
But, when I read the First Amendment, it doesn't say anything about a list of people who DON'T qualify.
Freedom is messy. It WOULD be neat and tidy if we just gave freedom to those who DESERVE it, after they've been checked out by the government. But, it wouldn't BE freedom, would it?
excon
You're baiting again, but I'll play along. How much Sharia is constitutional?
Let's give common sense a chance one of these days. The bad guys love the fact that we expose our bellies to their swords. It brings a lot of chuckles in the caves. The constitution doesn't cover modern conditions and everybody knows it.
Where I worked in a state highway dept/DOT, we had a thick book of specifications that governed road and bridge construction. A new book had to be published every few years and addenda were issued just about daily. The addenda were as thick as the original book by the time a new book was published. You write and rewrite it over and over and somebody still finds a loophole or a new way of building is developed. If you want a new spec on an older job you have to pay for it.
Convene a committee of some kind (I know-who, what, where, how) and let them settle (temporarily) these issues: Mosque- yes, Mosque -no. decision stands until next election--2 yrs or less--let the people vote on the decision. If people say yes (agree with board's no on mosques), change constit. 1. No mosques within x feet of y. People say no (board was wrong) pay applicable damages to those the people say were wrongly barred. Add to const.--Mosques OK within x ft of y. Maybe the board would be comprised of 1/2 randomly chosen judges from all levels, and the other half randomly chosen citizens who would add some common sense to the mix.
I can tell you this. If the constit. Was a set of specs for a bridge, nobody would bid to build it because they would have no idea what you want or they would take a wild stab at a price, triple it and send it in, about the same odds as roulette.
The Sublime Court is a joke and always will be. You don't know what the current status of any law is until you pay a few lawyers $ 300 per hour to search the maze.
We all know the mosque idea is wrong. Would the citizens uphold the board if the board said NO mosque! I think it would be yes at about 75% min.
Our agency could have held the line and stuck to the 1923 spec. book. You would be driving on 2 lane (maybe) wooden bridges, and mud roads with 2 foot ruts. The product would suffer just like it does with the Constitution, now. Let the people decide and get on with it!
Lawyers would not like my procedure. Clear and concise documents are their death knell.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You just don't like the way I phrase my questions. It makes you uncomfortable because you don't look at your OWN actions the way I do. Bummer for you, huh?
But, you DID ask a good question. Sharia, assuming it's a religious concept, is just as Constitutional as the Talmud. If you say it isn't the same because Muslims want to turn this country into a Caliphate. I'd retort that Christians want this country to be (and think it IS), a Christian country. So what? If you say that it isn't the same because a Mosque right THERE is offensive to us. I'd agree. But, offensive isn't Unconstitutional.
Now, if you tell me that their funding is from terrorist organizations, that's a different matter completely.
So, the question you ask, while interesting, has NO Constitutional bearing.
excon
Hello again, smear.Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
If RIGHTS could be voted on, they wouldn't call 'em RIGHTS.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 PM. |