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.
Thanks for the laugh.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Originally stated by jillian
and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.
If the Declaration of Independence does not have force of law, that leaves the United States of America as an illegitimate governing body.
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.
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.
An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.
A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.
An inalienable right is a right that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.
An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.
A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.
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.
An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.
A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.
An inalienable right is a right that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.
There's no such thing as "unalienable" rights, such as you describe. Absent a government rights don't exist. You may think you have rights granted to you, but if I'm stronger, the only right you have is to sit meekly by while I take all you have.
I think the NLRB is right.
The role of churches is NOT to become something other than a church.
A church founded university that is not ENTIRELY focused on matters religious is NOT a church, it is a university of higher education.
I think the NLRB is right.
The role of churches is NOT to become something other than a church.
A church founded university that is not ENTIRELY focused on matters religious is NOT a church, it is a university of higher education.
With this premise, a church cannot create a school for its paritioners to attend that teach basic values, principles, including the sciences of math, science and social studies, in a manner that they consider to be important (the same as a private school). A church school should only teach religious doctrine, straight up, and should not have the ability to teach the application of this doctrine as it applies to everyday life?
You have a problem with that?
I'd bet good money that if you dig deep enough, what you'll find in all the cases that came up in this thread is that the religious organizations in question accepted some form of Federal Aid.
Here's the thing, once you accept Federal or State Aid, in the form of vouchers, grants, loans, etc. you open up a whole Pandora's box of things you have to do to keep that aid flowing. That in particular is why I'm against most voucher programs, as once you start that money flowing towards Churches, I guarantee that the red tape will follow.
I think the NLRB is right.
The role of churches is NOT to become something other than a church.
A church founded university that is not ENTIRELY focused on matters religious is NOT a church, it is a university of higher education.
That is a big fail. I know that in NY religious institutions serve regularly in nonreligious function. Shelters, Pantry's, Food Banks, Soup Kitchens, Schools, State Special Education Schools, Charter Schools, Colleges, in which the Property is used. Religious Articles are covered up or removed so the space is neutral. Neither the Local, State, or Federal Authorities have had a problem with that. Keep stirring up shit though.
If a Church sets up a Soup Kitchen, are they responsible to the Health Dept. or not?
Yeah that is a good point, edjax, one that I cannot entirely dismiss as irrelevant.
But the point of freedom of religion is to keep RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
When a church goes into another business other than devine worship, it ought to be subjec tto the same laws as every other organization in THAT business.
The problem is deciding when a Church has stepped outside the boundry of what CHURCHES are first and foremost all about.
When a Church is in the business of providing SECULAR education, then it is no longer JUST a church.
Hogwash! If my church is forbidden to teach me how to live my faith in concordane with the world around me (secular) it is forbidden to teach it's doctrine.
If I go to Boston College (Jesuit, I think, isn't it?) and major in GEOLOGY, am I studying religion?
No, I am not.
Ergo, that instiution is NOT exclusively doing CHURCH business, it is now about the business of being and educational institute.
As an institution of higher learning it ought to be subject to the exact same laws as every other insitute of higher learning.
Now if BC ONLY taught theology, THEN of course, the government ought to stay the hell out of its business.
But it ain't so let's not pretend otherwise, okay?
What's the basis of the suit? I can't seem to find it. If we're talking worker protections, as implied by the fact that the NLRB is involved, how does that amount to interference with religion?
Peter N. Kirstein » Blog Archive » St Xavier University v NLRB in Adjunct Faculty Efforts to Unionize
It reffers to the right of the school to reject unionization of the educators because it is a church (private) school. The disagreement is that the school should not have non-catholic educators if it want to retain the priveledge of a church (private) school. At least that is what I get from it.
What about their being a religiously-backed institution makes them immune to labor laws?
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.
An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.
A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.
An inalienable right is a right that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.
There's no such thing as "unalienable" rights, such as you describe. Absent a government rights don't exist. You may think you have rights granted to you, but if I'm stronger, the only right you have is to sit meekly by while I take all you have.
How exactly are Obama and his DOJ fascist? Do you even understand what the term means? Obviously not if you apply it to Obama. And how exactly is organized labor threatening our fundamental freedoms?This is more "Super PAC" union crap! Obama and his Justice department are Big Brother fascists if ever there were any! He is using organized labor to strike at the very freedoms our nation was founded on whenever it suits his purposes.
Then THEY need to go to work at non PRIVATE institution!
There's no such thing as "unalienable" rights, such as you describe. Absent a government rights don't exist. You may think you have rights granted to you, but if I'm stronger, the only right you have is to sit meekly by while I take all you have.
Its not enough for President Obamas National Labor Relations Board to target the Boeing plant in South Carolina. Now the NLRB thinks it can tell a church school when its not religious enough.
The issue isnt labor laws as applied to religious institutions per se but whether or not certain employees meet the standard to be potentially exempt from regulation. The question is: does the NLRB have the authority to make that determination.