NLRB Claims authority over Church Schools

[clevergirl]

If the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Why are there laws that recognize institutes of religion and give them tax-exempt status?

You do not understand what that language intends or you would not ask the question. The language is specific to the government establishing one single religion to represent the US. i.e. the Anglican Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church of Rome.

 

[Ravi]

An interesting question... if voucher money is paid to private schools do they come under more federal control/scrunity?

they will be getting tax dollars after all.
And if they get tax dollars will they be allowed to teach a specific religion?

and keep their tax exempt status.....

 

[Ravi]

First of all, this isn't about the NLRB "taking control" of the school - the professors want to unionize, and the school is fighting it, and the NLRB is stepping in to help the professors (which is the point of the NLRB).

You can make this about "Church vs. State" as much as you like, but it's really about teachers wanting to collectively bargain, and a college that doesn't want to allow them to.

At what expense? The jobs exist because of the Diocese. They are on benefit packages through the Dioceses. Insurance, Vacation, Retirement. The Union's want a cut. The Unions want control. Maybe the Union's too, need to get Audited.

No, the jobs exist because people want their kids to be educated.

 

[Ravi]

If the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Why are there laws that recognize institutes of religion and give them tax-exempt status?

The 64 million dollar question.

 

[Hum Dinger]

How about We Tax Government Paychecks for the special privilege Government Workers receive?

How about the Government compensates Churches for they Infrastructure utilize at fair market value?

Why is it that Government subcontracts most of the real work that is done? Why are these people not compensated on the same scale as the Government workers they Pamper and Cater to? I thought so.

Government looking at everyone Else's pot with larceny in it's mind, scheming and scamming on how to gain possession and control. Got it, loud and clear.

1. Government workers paychecks are taxed

2. Government doesn't use any significant amount of church's infrastructure

3. Most people that work for government contractors do get paid at the same level, and recieve the same benefits as government workers - which is at best on par with private industry - and usually below. It's the owners & executives of the contracting corps that make out like bandits.

4. If you think that governement workers are pampered you have your head screwed up your ass. You seem to think that any compensation or benefits whatsoever for government workers is 'pampering'.

5. Without government, nobody but thieves and thugs would have a 'pot' in the first place.

6. You should be grateful to contribute to the society that you benefit so much from. If you don't want to contribute, then go live in some tax free third world shit hole!

I have to pay a Special Added Tax to NYS because I am Self Employed. How is that fair? Oh, that's right, it doesn't have to be.


Not true at all, Schools occupy Church Properties all around me, so do Pantries, Soup Kitchens, Shelters, Services for the poor, even Cell phone antennas, which are Government regulated.

Not the way I see it at all. I see contractors extorted by NYC Inspectors and shaken down regularly. I see Government obstructing progress, adding to the bottom line, in most industries. I'm not talking about oversight, just distinguishing between what is qualified and what is not. When Gov't wants to pay pennies on the dollar, it subcontracts. When Gov't does not want to break a sweat or get it's hands dirty, it subcontracts.


You have crippled the Golden Goose demanding compensation and salaries that are unrealistic. Your income is at the cost of our life styles, which you have decimated. Frankly, I don't give a shit anymore. I will try not to hold it against you. I try really really hard.

5. Without government, nobody but thieves and thugs would have a 'pot' in the first place.

Without the Right to Self Defense, Anarchy and Thuggery rule the day. Without Unalienable Rights like, Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of happiness, we would have no pot to piss in. Government needs to relearn the concept of Serving and turn away from it's parasitic nature. Your Anchor is killing us.

6. You should be grateful to contribute to the society that you benefit so much from. If you don't want to contribute, then go live in some tax free third world shit hole!

Or challenge the legitimacy of your claim. If we are so free here, why is it that you limit my options to your whims? Why don't I just question you and your motives? Why should I support you, and not you me? How about we each learn to live within our own means and not so much off of the backs of others? How about fair measure, honest scales, open and transparent taxation with full accountability? Hey? I have an Idea!!! Let's try Federalism!!! We almost tried it once. Why not give it a real shot, you know with 3 equal branches that are accountable to the People, not the other way around like it is now, with the 3 headed hydra taking turns feeding off of us while the others stand guard. I like that idea. Thanks so much for inspiring it. You are a Great American.

1. I am not a government worker.

2. The 'Special Added Tax to NYS' that you pay has nothing to do with the fact that governement workers pay taxes.

3. Churches run there own charitable services, not the government. Where do you see public schools being run on Church grounds? In NYC? You gotta be kidding!

4. If you know of NYC inspectors extorting government contractors, please report it to federal authorities.

5. Government contracting is one of the most secure and profitable ventures that there is. The government could save hundreds of billions if it did the work directly. But then political cronies wouldn't be making out like bandits and they'd be screaming "Socialists!" at any politician that didn't hand them contracts. Good luck getting political contributions!

6. Your lifestyle is do to the existence and services of government. Don't give me that 'golden goose' bullshit! The vast majority of governemet workers live a meager lower middle class existence. Good luck finding any government workers at a country club!

7. This isn't the old west anymore. If you think that your right to self-defense is going to save you from gangs, your plainly an idiot. The only reason that you have any 'inalienable' is becuse the governement protects those rights. Believe it or not YOU ARE NOT RAMBO!

8. Seriously, there are lots of countries that don't tax hardly at all. Why don't you move to one? Becuase you want to enjoy the benefits of an advanced society with a strong government perhaps?

 

[saveliberty]

First of all, this isn't about the NLRB "taking control" of the school - the professors want to unionize, and the school is fighting it, and the NLRB is stepping in to help the professors (which is the point of the NLRB).

You can make this about "Church vs. State" as much as you like, but it's really about teachers wanting to collectively bargain, and a college that doesn't want to allow them to.

At what expense? The jobs exist because of the Diocese. They are on benefit packages through the Dioceses. Insurance, Vacation, Retirement. The Union's want a cut. The Unions want control. Maybe the Union's too, need to get Audited.

It's not "the unions" that want control, it's the professors who want better wages, and the ability to collectively bargain. If the professors didn't want to unionize, this wouldn't be an issue.

I guess those professors will have to find a job at another university then. The Supreme Court says no way.

 

[Hum Dinger]

If the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Why are there laws that recognize institutes of religion and give them tax-exempt status?

You do not understand what that language intends or you would not ask the question. The language is specific to the government establishing one single religion to represent the US. i.e. the Anglican Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church of Rome.

The Constitution say what the Constitution says. ONE aspect of that statement is that the governement cannot establish a state religion. But that statement goes beyond just that.

The Constitution is not just interperted to your liking.

 

[clevergirl]

If the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Why are there laws that recognize institutes of religion and give them tax-exempt status?

You do not understand what that language intends or you would not ask the question. The language is specific to the government establishing one single religion to represent the US. i.e. the Anglican Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church of Rome.

The Constitution say what the Constitution says. ONE aspect of that statement is that the governement cannot establish a state religion. But that statement goes beyond just that.

The Constitution is not just interperted to your liking.

No, the Constitution, has nothing whatsoever to do with my liking or your liking-but I am correct in how I explained the verbiage you posted.

So why don't you tell me what you think it means...

btw I am still interested in hearing what specific labor laws you claim were broken?

 

[edjax1952]

Originally quoted by Richard H.

7. This isn't the old west anymore. If you think that your right to self-defense is going to save you from gangs, your plainly an idiot. The only reason that you have any 'inalienable' is becuse the governement protects those rights. Believe it or not YOU ARE NOT RAMBO!

Inalienable means: incapable of being alienated,surrended, or transferred. So you are telling me that the only reason I have them is because the government protects them? These rights are God given and do not only pertain to Americans but all men.

The statement in the Declaration of Independence that we quote them from says that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

Obviously your young life has conditioned you well by the movement of the progressive politicians who are trying to gain dominace over the American people through governmental dictates.

You are a very faithful young comrade!

You might want to re-read the part in the Declaration of Independence that instituted the right for people to overthrow such a government "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

 

[jillian]

I will concede that the title of the article is biased. There was not decree. The right wing is just as guilty of twisting facts as the left in many cases.
I posted the article to bring to light that agencies under Obama, and his Democratic left wing crew (mostly appointed by Obama) are attempting to make a sweeping effort to expand the dictates of government control once more.

in other words, you posted meaningless trash.

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

you seem to have a problem differentiating between propaganda and reality.

 

[edjax1952]

I will concede that the title of the article is biased. There was not decree. The right wing is just as guilty of twisting facts as the left in many cases.
I posted the article to bring to light that agencies under Obama, and his Democratic left wing crew (mostly appointed by Obama) are attempting to make a sweeping effort to expand the dictates of government control once more.

in other words, you posted meaningless trash.

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

you seem to have a problem differentiating between propaganda and reality.

It was that "propoganda" that created this country. Hopefully it will be that "propoganda" that saves it for the people who are seeking liberty from governmental oppression through a series of laws encroaching on our individual freedom.

 

[edjax1952]

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

You make my point exactly. I should trust a govenment that would do that to protect me? I choose to speak against that government when it, figuratively, does the same thing to me by a series of laws that are intrusive to my liberty.

 

[chanel]

Well I don't understand the legal mumbo jumbo, but if the argument is that Catholic colleges have become too "secular", then I couldn't agree more. Uber liberal professors spewing uber progressive ideology is commonplace. They only have themselves to blame.

There were plenty of flags arrayed on stage when President Barack Obama delivered his midday address on the economy this week at Georgetown University.

But there was no Jesus.

...because the White House had asked the Jesuit-run university to cover up all signs and symbols there.

Obama at Georgetown: No Jesuit seal : The Swamp

 

[edjax1952]

Well I don't understand the legal mumbo jumbo, but if the argument is that Catholic colleges have become too "secular", then I couldn't agree more. Uber liberal professors spewing uber progressive ideology is commonplace. They only have themselves to blame.

There were plenty of flags arrayed on stage when President Barack Obama delivered his midday address on the economy this week at Georgetown University.

But there was no Jesus.

...because the White House had asked the Jesuit-run university to cover up all signs and symbols there.

Obama at Georgetown: No Jesuit seal : The Swamp

I do not disagree with most of your statement.

You present a great senario here. The president gives a speech at a religious college and asks the Jesuit-run university to cover up all signs and symbols there. Then some of his own delegates, in the guise of a federal agency, deem that a college is not religious enough and tries to use that as reason to infiltrate that religous school with federal dictates because it is not religous enough.

This senario does stretch the point in this discussion but it brings home the hipocracy of the current administration. On one hand they want to go to a religious place and they tell the administrators that they must hide the religious symbols there because they are from the government and do not want to be represented in an improper manner. On the other hand they tell a religous college that since they are not religious enough, they are now under jurisdition of the federal government.

Something just smells about this whole scene.

More to the point. The professors at the Catholic College in this discussion were under the authority of the Catholic leaders of the college. If they were "Uber liberal professors spewing uber progressive ideology" I doubt they would have been hired or at least been employed for very long.

 

[jillian]

I will concede that the title of the article is biased. There was not decree. The right wing is just as guilty of twisting facts as the left in many cases.
I posted the article to bring to light that agencies under Obama, and his Democratic left wing crew (mostly appointed by Obama) are attempting to make a sweeping effort to expand the dictates of government control once more.

in other words, you posted meaningless trash.

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

you seem to have a problem differentiating between propaganda and reality.

It was that "propoganda" that created this country. Hopefully it will be that "propoganda" that saves it for the people who are seeking liberty from governmental oppression through a series of laws encroaching on our individual freedom.

propaganda formed this country? really. and here i thought it was a desire for a government that wasn't headed by a king thousands of miles overseas...

you're spouting nonsense.

 

[jillian]

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

You make my point exactly. I should trust a govenment that would do that to protect me? I choose to speak against that government when it, figuratively, does the same thing to me by a series of laws that are intrusive to my liberty.

what you are saying above has nothing to do with the concept of "inalienable rights".

 

[editec]

If the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Why are there laws that recognize institutes of religion and give them tax-exempt status?

I have long wondered the same thing.

 

[edjax1952]

in other words, you posted meaningless trash.

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

you seem to have a problem differentiating between propaganda and reality.

It was that "propoganda" that created this country. Hopefully it will be that "propoganda" that saves it for the people who are seeking liberty from governmental oppression through a series of laws encroaching on our individual freedom.

propaganda formed this country? really. and here i thought it was a desire for a government that wasn't headed by a king thousands of miles overseas...

you're spouting nonsense.

You called The Declaration of Independence propaganda by the insunuation in your first post. It was that declaration that established the intent of the colonies to separate from England and gave them autonomy to act on thier own behalf. This allowed for other countries to recognize them as a group that was separate from England and join in on the behalf of the colonies and assist with the Revolutionary war. I hardly call a document with that weight and authority, propoganda.

If you notice, I was quoting you in sarcasm about the declaration being "propaganda".

 

[edjax1952]

It was that "propoganda" that created this country. Hopefully it will be that "propoganda" that saves it for the people who are seeking liberty from governmental oppression through a series of laws encroaching on our individual freedom.

propaganda formed this country? really. and here i thought it was a desire for a government that wasn't headed by a king thousands of miles overseas...

you're spouting nonsense.

You called The Declaration of Independence propaganda by the insunuation in your first post. It was that declaration that established the intent of the colonies to separate from England and gave them autonomy to act on thier own behalf. This allowed for other countries to recognize them as a group that was separate from England and join in on the behalf of the colonies and assist with the Revolutionary war. I hardly call a document with that weight and authority, propoganda.

If you notice, I was quoting you in sarcasm about the declaration being "propaganda".

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? It names the "present King of Great Britian" as the reason for their grievances and explains them in detail. Then it it states:

"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. "

Maybe you need to re-read the document again to understand its significance.
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

 

[Intense]

I will concede that the title of the article is biased. There was not decree. The right wing is just as guilty of twisting facts as the left in many cases.
I posted the article to bring to light that agencies under Obama, and his Democratic left wing crew (mostly appointed by Obama) are attempting to make a sweeping effort to expand the dictates of government control once more.

in other words, you posted meaningless trash.

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

you seem to have a problem differentiating between propaganda and reality.

Unalienable Rights where there is the Will to Enforce them, be it through the Individual, the Group, the Society, or the Government. They actually exist even where there is no Law or Government. It is for Good Government to Recognize Inalienable Right's, to Establish and Defend them. Yes, there is no force of law behind the Declaration of Independence, only Intention. Agreed. The Declaration also establishes that there is a limit in principle and Theory, to the Jurisdiction and Power of Government, that there are boundaries. The Mechanism created to serve the will of the People, does not take precedent over the will of the people. It is not of more value than that which it was purposed to serve. Measure twice, cut once still applies, so does accountability and transparency. Every machine needs tuning and maintenance.

Sometimes there is a choice to be made between Principle and Government, just like every other creation, there is a danger of going astray. We may argue over what going astray is, or where the line is crossed, granted, let's try to agree that we do need to be vigilant about what gets imposed on others by mandate, and qualify it, and limit the harm that is done.