Pastors Face Jail?

[Teallaura]

http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/

On the other hand, ADF's front page has several more on point articles...

[pancreasman]

Shock! Horror! Organisation that receives tax breaks required to uphold the law!

[Jedidiah]

Why point out the non-Christians? I thought we were talking about Christians embarking on actively breaking the law.

I was just responding to the implication I saw that the things you listed were Christian criminal actions. In the USA disobeying such a law will end up taking it into the courts for ruling, ultimately perhaps the Supreme Court. It is called civil disobedience. This does not include the sort of criminal behavior you listed. It is more a matter of choosing to obey Christ rather than Caesar.

[Teallaura]

Shock! Horror! Organisation that receives tax breaks required to uphold the law!

Nonsense. Churches are tax-exempt - it isn't a 'tax break'. Constitutionally, the government cannot tax churches - simple as that. The IRS thing has never been tested in court - which is why with 1500 instances of civil disobedience and counting, the IRS hasn't made a single prosecution. The chances of it being upheld weren't good when they started it - getting worse as they go along...

[pancreasman]

Nonsense. Churches are tax-exempt - it isn't a 'tax break'. Constitutionally, the government cannot tax churches - simple as that. The IRS thing has never been tested in court - which is why with 1500 instances of civil disobedience and counting, the IRS hasn't made a single prosecution. The chances of it being upheld weren't good when they started it - getting worse as they go along...

It isn't nonsense just because you say it is. Personally, I think churches ought to be taxed. They benefit from the infrastructure of a civil society.

[pancreasman]

Actually, this thing does bring up the wider issue of civil disobedience and freedom. We're having a debate in this country (Oz) about a section of our racial vilification laws:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

Now, our conservative government tried to change some of these provisions with our Attorney General famously saying 'People have a right to be bigots.' After considerable public furore, the changes were shelved.

I really don't know where I stand here. It's a very grey area. OTOH, as a firm believer in as much free speech as possible, I think people ought to say whatever stupid and evil things they like and be ridiculed accordingly. OTOH, some groups in society (the disabled for example) ought to have the right to go peaceably about their business without being subjected to disgusting taunts. It's hard to know where to draw the line.

Similarly, in this case Seer is pointing out, it's a difficult issue. Yes, people ought to defy a law when they find it against their conscious. They should not however accept any government money as a matter of principle if the government has laws to which they object.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publi...-law-australia

[jordanriver]

It isn't nonsense just because you say it is. Personally, I think churches ought to be taxed. They benefit from the infrastructure of a civil society.

The bulk of tax revenue comes from churches.
The non-taxpaying segments of every community I've ever seen benefit from the church community segments

[One Bad Pig]

The answer is 'already have'. Abortion doctor murders, vandalists smashing cars, gluing together doors of abortion clinics, death threats, throwing bricks through windows... very unchristian behavior.

[pancreasman]

The bulk of tax revenue comes from churches.
The non-taxpaying segments of every community I've ever seen benefit from the church community segments

That's certainly true and a valid argument. But ... A collective, like a corporation, must still pay tax even though its shareholders pay their own tax.

[Darth Executor]

Abortion doctor

There is no such thing as an abortion doctor, but I guess murdered mass murderers doesn't sound quite as sexy.

[jordanriver]

That's certainly true and a valid argument. But ... A collective, like a corporation, must still pay tax even though its shareholders pay their own tax.

yes, but don't forget, churches are (supposed to be) not for profit, whereas on the other hand, corporations are for profit.

A church building, IMHO, is supposed to be a meeting place where Christians get together to pool their resources, (AFTER those resources have already been taxed) for the purpose of evangelizing, (especially missions) and helping those in need.

of course , some churches appear to have become profitable businesses.

[pancreasman]

yes, but don't forget, churches are (supposed to be) not for profit, whereas on the other hand, corporations are for profit.

A church building, IMHO, is supposed to be a meeting place where Christians get together to pool their resources, (AFTER those resources have already been taxed) for the purpose of evangelizing, (especially missions) and helping those in need.

of course , some churches appear to have become profitable businesses.

What you say would be nice if it were the case but you answered your own objection. How about this as a compromise. Churches should provide a record of their finances and should not be taxed on that proportion spent for the public good.

[phank]

There is no such thing as an abortion doctor, but I guess murdered mass murderers doesn't sound quite as sexy.

And here is the sort of brain-dead fanaticism we must deal with in the land of the free. An excellent illustration of why topics like this cannot be discussed rationally, or for that matter discussed at all.

Back to the OP, what we have is a California insurance regulation, and a carefully extracted, mindless drooling over-reaction on the part of some religious nitwit. The old saw "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", in religious hands, morphs into "I disagree with what you say and I'll kill you if you say it again." Christian tolerance American style is fascinating to behold. So it's entertaining to see another Christian cleric demonstrating Christ's advice to turn the other cheek, American style.

It's no wonder that Americans in a recent poll voted about ten to one that Christ would be appalled if he returned today and saw the vicious intolerance practiced in his name.

[jordanriver]

What you say would be nice if it were the case but you answered your own objection. How about this as a compromise. Churches should provide a record of their finances and should not be taxed on that proportion spent for the public good.

that would work if they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

it might be unhelpful for some televangelists.

[jordanriver]

And here is the sort of brain-dead fanaticism we must deal with in the land of the free. An excellent illustration of why topics like this cannot be discussed rationally, or for that matter discussed at all.

Back to the OP, what we have is a California insurance regulation, and a carefully extracted, mindless drooling over-reaction on the part of some religious nitwit. The old saw "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", in religious hands, morphs into "I disagree with what you say and I'll kill you if you say it again." Christian tolerance American style is fascinating to behold. So it's entertaining to see another Christian cleric demonstrating Christ's advice to turn the other cheek, American style.

It's no wonder that Americans in a recent poll voted about ten to one that Christ would be appalled if he returned today and saw the vicious intolerance practiced in his name.

this is one of the reasons I lean to direct democracy.

I know how to vote, and if I am ignorant on some issues, I still don't need to pay someone else (Representative) who is also ignorant on some issues to do my voting for me.

I think politicians who don't really know how to administrate (as in making sure water and food and roads are safe, bridges don't collapse, planes don't fall out of the air and criminals don't roam the streets) are elected on the basis of whether they are prolife or prochoice, pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage, or pro legal pot or anti legal pot.