T his petition is to actively encourage Congress to revise USC Title 26 § 501 (and possibly § 170) so that all tax exempt organizations must promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and employees.
Congress should authorize the IRS to promulgate regulations; investigate members’, employees’, and former members’ complaints; and enforce legislation. An Organization’s tax exempt status should be suspended for not less than 3 years that does not promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and employees and instead intimidates or coerces them.
Dangerous Orgs promote that their members shun and mark unrepentant members or former members to intimidate members to blindly follow what the Org’s leadership orders. To learn more please visit the FB page
Protecting-Americans-from-Dangerous-Orgs
http://wh.gov/tFK
A Pettion for US Residents to Suspend Tax Exemption From Religious Cults deadline July 1st
by discreetslave 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
discreetslave
-
WTWizard
Freedom of speech and religion is too good an idea for the United Tyranny of Stupidity (or, for that matter, the One World Totalitarian Government). It must be known that failure to suspend or revoke their tax exempt status on the grounds of not allowing freedom of religion or speech, or allowing weaseling around it with altering the meanings of words, means that the Washtowel Babble and Crap Slaveholdery currently supports the One World Totalitarian Government, perhaps via the UN scandal and the United Council of Churches.
-
Band on the Run
To synthesize what appeared in a very long thread, signing such a petition is a complete waste of time b/c "dangerous" cults only are unconst'l under any view of the Estbalishment Clause. Both conservative and more progressive justices would agree that it is forbidden completely. First, "dangerous" is too vague. It fails to put people on notice. Officials are granted almost carte blanche power. This country was formed by a wealth of religious dissidents, fleeing such actions in England.
Law does not provide a remedy for every hurt or boo boo in life. Dropping tax exemption for all religions is const'l. It would be hard to legislate but there is no absolute bar. Europe and other countries provide hundreds of thousands of brutal deaths when the state can condone or outlaw certain religions. The main reason religions have such favorable treatment is that government played almost no social role when this country was founded. Church groups ran hospitals, orphanages, fed the hungry, etc. It is only since FDR and the New Deal that government changed to include such functions.
Why should any religion get a free pass at the expense of nonbelievers? Let me state most emphatically that this is the epitome of nonAmerican to targetr select religions. If any religion is so dangerous that bureaucrats must ban them, the criminal laws that presently exist protect society better than losing tax exempt status would. There is no religious exemption to crimes of universal applicability with no intent to target any religion.
Europe has freedom from religion, besides freedom of religion. The United States does not, Rather than sign a petition iwth no validity, I suggest writing letters to the editors, creating blogs, fund raising, and other activities to bring awareness that subsizing religion by tax exemption is an old world idea with no place in our current society. Also, most people view the Witnesses as odd but nice people. Such a description does not fit my view of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. Without using the word "cult" or ranting, a public education campaign to show the overreaching and mind control of the WTBTS would restrict the Witnesses in a way that is doable.
The Society is lawyered up. If apostates want to play ball, we should be just as savvy. Although Establishment Clause law is complex at its boundaries, this point is very clear. It concerns me that Americans do not grasp the limits on government. I completely understand why people don't understand it. It was only in professional school that I began to grasp the basic ideas. This can be taught to elementary school students. It is so sad that most Americans do not understand our basic structures. The Brits here seem to know nuances sof American politics. Civics education would be a good idea.
-
ABibleStudent
Thanks discreetslave for starting this thread!
For the naysayers of this thread I would suggest reading BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983) that shows that the Supreme Court held that the IRS could revoke the tax exmption of Bob Jones University for not following public policy. It would be a refreshing change for naysayers to actually reference Supreme Court decisions or published articles in respected legal journals with hyperlinks instead of spouting personal opinions.
If people would like to learn more about this petition they can read the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/226465/1/Its-Back-Round-2 and visit the "Protecting Americans from Dangerous Orgs" Facebook page at http://on.fb.me/wh-petition.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
cofty
Robert how does Bob Jones overt racial dscrimination have relevance to JW shunning former members?
-
blindnomore
I was at the Naturalization Ceremony the other day. A lady from Laos related her story.
She was 5 when she and her family fled her native Country 32 years ago. Laos fell to the Communist Regime. She has waited last 32 years to return her native Country but finally gave up in realizing its ongoing inhumane political situation. She said,
"We have no idea how good we have here(the US). If we were to have a public meeting like this one in my native Country, we would be arrested and never to be seen again. There's no human dignity or basic human rights are honored in Laos. I am proud to become an American citizen and grateful for the land that allow me to have dream and freedom."
I also am a proud citizen of the US that honors the voice of no one without punishment.
-
ABibleStudent
Cofty -
Robert how does Bob Jones overt racial dscrimination have relevance to JW shunning former members?
Hi Cofty, That is an interesting question considering what Justice Rehnquist wrote in his dissenting opinion in BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983) (see quote box below). According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the responsibility and the authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The current White House petition only asks the Obama Administration to actively encourage Congress to pass legislation. If this petition inspires a law that tax exempt organizations must promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and/or employees, then Congress would have fulfilled its Constitutional responsibilities that it failed to do with racial discrimination according to Justice Rehnquist.
I hope that anyone who does sign the White House petition will also write letters to the President, U.S. senators, and U.S. representatives.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Excerpt from Justice Rehnquiest's dissenting opinion in BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983)
"The Court points out that there is a strong national policy in this country against racial discrimination. To the extent that the Court states that Congress, in furtherance of this policy, could deny tax-exempt status to educational institutions that promote racial discrimination, I readily agree. But, unlike the Court, I am convinced that Congress simply has failed to take this action and, as this Court has said over and over again, regardless of our view on the propriety of Congress' failure to legislate, we are not constitutionally empowered to act for it."
-
Band on the Run
Robert, a dissenting opinion is a dissenting opinion. All the classic Establishment Clauses apply. See,(most recently), Hein v. Freedom from Religion, Bowen v. Kendrick, Lemon and Agostini to cite the most recent and the most classic. The Supreme Court can only give opinions in Article III "cases and controversies." Unlike foreign courts, it is banned from giving advisory opinions. Bob Jones has nothing to do with tax exemptions and targeting one religion in particular.
Something comes up with an idea and thinks cases will fit into his beliefs, an area at which the WT is skilled. I read the cases and look for pitfalls. One of us has a bar admission, another has not. One practices, the other is not admitted in any state.
Please note that the bottom line goal of stopping tax exemption on religious bodies is advocated by all. It is the means used to achieve the result. If you are absolutely forbidden to go near a certain strategy, why not find a fruitful side road. True, perhaps you did not realize how unconst'l your opinion was. It so against American law that I believe ordinary Americans would rise up to fight it. No judge would ever touch it. The same end is available. Why not focus on the end goal rather than make snide comments. Almost everything I write in this forum is my opinion. This is an absolute fact. Dead certain.
So you can go with a const'l lawyer or you can go with an ad hoc poster. Adults would focus on the goal, not ego strokes.
-
ABibleStudent
Band on the Run - Robert, a dissenting opinion is a dissenting opinion. All the classic Establishment Clauses apply. See,(most recently), Hein v. Freedom from Religion, Bowen v. Kendrick, Lemon and Agostini to cite the most recent and the most classic. The Supreme Court can only give opinions in Article III "cases and controversies." Unlike foreign courts, it is banned from giving advisory opinions. Bob Jones has nothing to do with tax exemptions and targeting one religion in particular. . . .
Hi Band on the Run, Are we talking past each other? I wrote to Cofty about Justice Rehnquist's dissenting opinion in BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983) to explain that if the White House petition did inspire a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that the law would have more legal standing than court cases that established that racial discrimination was contrary to public policy. If you would like to discuss the White House petition more, please feel free to post your comments on the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/226465/1/Its-Back-Round-2.
All I ask is that you provide hyperlinks to your legal citations so that I do not have to ask you whether I found the correct court opinion. If you need help to embedded hyperlinks into your posts, just ask and I will be happy to help you. Personally, I like to use Word to embedded hyperlinks into posts with the legal citation visible and the url address invisible.
By the way I'm not trying to legally challenge any court cases. I'm trying to promote changes to existing laws that would uphold constitutional principles.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
Band on the Run
All you have to do is go to the Supreme Court website or FindLaw and put in the case name. These are major decisions. Some of the cases cited are older. Reading Hein should link you to all the cases. I'm not your secretary. Also, I am switching from Windows to a Mac and I am uncertain how to do links. Not having a link is no excuse.
You are misreading Bob Jones. It helps to know basic concepts. My hunch is that you do not distant yourself from the cases when you read them. You find what you want to find. This is not scriptural interpretation. It is hard for me to remember what cases were like before law school. The basic point that the government cannot exclude religions based on "dangerousness" or based on animus towards any religion is clear. It should be to you if you read ing these cases.
Again, as I said in previous threads, Freedom From Religion, ADL, ACLU, and the National Constitution Center all have First Amendment Estabhlishment Clause materials at their websites. The National Constitution Center is neutral. The Thomas More Society also has First Amendment materials on their site. They represent the Roman Catholic Church in cases. Cornell Law School prob. has a synopsis on their site.
So no one is asking you to take my word for this matter. If you focus on the end goal and read the materials at this site, you will clearly see that while I am certain you have good intentions, the petition is not a good move. Further, the White House promised that a staffer would "review" the petition. Did the White House state what level of staffer and what the review entails? I see a publicity move on behalf of the White House. Good policy should not depend on signatures on a petition. Petitions rarely work. Individual letters detailing their own circumstances that are clearly not uniform are much more persusasive. Imagine how you could have honed a letter to the editor on this issue.
Get past my logic, my writing, my music, whatever and focus on the content. So you can't read legal cases well. I could not either when I started. Something tells me I probably could not begin to do whatever your job is. I wonder if you have ideas as to why I would care so much or bother you so much unless this is very important.
If I write to the Pope or President about this matter, do those letters that I wrote trump your letters. Why would NOW care, anyway?