Don't forget discriminating.
Although sometimes some people use words to label another's views
negatively, or at least in the sense of I disagree, that is not the
only (or main) way those same words are used outside the political
arena, or at least inside academic or serious discussion groups.
In a message dated 6/2/2004 10:34:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The one
I particularly like is the guy who condemns "beingjudgmental," which of
course, requires a judgment.
The above remark, I
suspect, reveals the poverty of the 'reasoning' behind this sort
Title: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
Just got this from a friend. It is published by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian outfit in Colorado Springs.
Frank
---
June 1, 2004
Church's Tax-Exempt Status Threatened
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Pro-homosexual
Title: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
There really is nothing to the threat. Churches
are free to take stands on political issues provided they do not spend a substantial
amount on these activities. The late Dean Kelly obtained an internal IRS memo which
indicted that
Title: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
This appears to be the hot-button issue of the day,
what with today's New York Times front-page story about Bush's attempt to use
churches for electioneering (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/politics/campaign/03CHUR.html?hp),
and the
In a message dated 6/3/2004 9:05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I dont think it
was fair of you to isolate my last sentencewhich, admittedly, I poorly
phrased--from the larger point I was making: we use terms like judgmental,
dogmas, sectarian, etc. in ways
Title: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
The
"susbtantial" limit on lobbying does provide ample breathing room for most
religious institutions, including any bona fide house of worship I could
imagine. And there's probably no limit onreligious groups' advocacy
re moral
Title: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
The IRS has spoken reasonably
authoritatively about this in its training manuals. By and large, unless the
advocacy is express (vote against candidate Q because of their stand on.)
pronouncements on policy in the air are not construed
Title: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
My favorite example is this.Several years
ago, Cardinal Law urged that it was a sin to vote for a candidate who supported
abortion. Great uproar from the usual suspects. No critical comment at all when
the then Bishop of San Diego said
No doubt persuaded by the discussion on this list
Marc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Parks will not block baptism
From:Volokh, Eugene To:
I agree
that the absolute limit on candidate advocacy is a problem. Of
course it is a problem for all other non-profits as well, and the usual
solution is to set up a political affiliate. The one other way in
which churches are differently situated is the speech of the
clergy. When the church
An interesting question. Let me pose another -- Should the law provide a
different answer to this question for religious organization than it
provides to other tax exempt, secular, nonprofit organizations that are
grounded on, or espouse, particular moral principles. And a third, while I
am at
Since this is a list serve on law, I guess I misread your argument to
include the idea that gay people should not be accorded the same rights
as the rest of us, which would include the right of marriage, equal
protection of the law, etc. If your position is merely that a religious
person has
I'm not sure about the following argument, but what do you think of it? The
ban on lobbying can be circumvented by setting up a separate 501(c)(4)
organization, which the Court in Regan said was relevant (if not crucial) to
its constitutionality. Suppose that it doesn't cost much in terms of
Are restrictions on the political speech of clergy a constitutional problem
for this particular issue (loss of a religious institution's tax exempt
status) or more generally? For example, if the ban on political speech on
military bases upheld in Greer v. Spock is applied to a member of the
If the sentence below were correct, then most civil rights laws would be
wrong. Markets are not neutral, and it is necessary, from time to
time, to intervene in order to protect important social interests --
like jobs, housing, education and the like. Or at least that is the way
we have been
No doubt. That and the successful but unintentional and uncoordinated pinscers maneuver accomplished the the ACLU and the ACLJ inseparate correspondence to the Park Authority.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL
No. That's a rule about where you can speak, and it affects a
bishop no differently than it affects Dr. Spock. There may be a secular
case where a well known leader of a secular 501(c)(3) wants to speak
himself, and the leader of his 501(c)(4) affiliate is not known to the
public.
I'm not sure I fully understand this argument, but I don't know all that
much about church doctrine or tax law. Can you help me, Tom. Is the
argument that the religious leaders of certain faith communities are
prohibited by church doctrine from serving in leadership positions or
taking on
I have held my peace for a bit. But Professor Finkelman has fallen for a bait and switch tactic. The net result is that something the state calls marriage, defined according to its terms, is changed to suit something that homosexual activists call marriage, but which is, in nature and essence, a
I'm a bit unclear on one part of Doug's post.
Are you saying, Doug,
(i) that the church is differently situated
because, unlike secular nonprofits, it can't (or realistically won't be able to)
set up an affiliate through which to engage in political speech (if so, why is
that true?), or,
well, Jim, some countries do not define marriage that way at all; the
French don't let the state do marriages. Indeed, I find it odd that
people of serious faith would want the state involved in marriage; state
defines marriage it then defines who can perform it. I am a devotee of
ROger
This discussion puts me in mind of Waldron's observation about the difficulty of
rights based discourse: Rights purport to be fundamental commitments to which we can
appeal to neutrally resolve basic disputes, but what counts as a right is precisely
what people disagree about.
I suspect that
Title: Re: And proselytizing Re: religious indoctrination
Thanks Bobby. Its my fault for a bad choice of words.
Frank
On 6/3/04 9:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/3/2004 9:05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I dont think it was
24 matches
Mail list logo
