Marking for future reading, because I'm curious how non-profit money is held after the sale of a property.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
ABibleStudent
JoinedPosts by ABibleStudent
-
13
Pardon my ignorance....but what's the scoop with kingdom hall ownership?
by outsmartthesystem inwho actually owns the buildings and land?
is it the local congregation or the watchtower society?
.
-
-
-
58
New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions
by mind blown inthis is on the official us government site.. note: someone was under the impression this was unconstitutional and it wouldn't pass, however, steven unthank replyed that tax exempt status (re: usc title 26 501 tax exemptions requirements) is not a constitutional right and can indeed be regulated by the us government through the irs.
freedom of religion does no mean freedom from tax.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/protect-americans-dangerous-cults-modify-usc-title-26--501-tax-exemptions-requirements/zhpbvhfx.
-
-
ABibleStudent
Band on the Run - You have the right to file a petition. The govt does not have to answer it, though. I agree that freedom from religion is a good idea. Freedom from all religion. Can you imagine "imagine" if John Lennon only singled out the Witnesses? I expect the religious right is going to go full force during this election cycle. Rick Santorum was more of a threat than the Witnesses. Precisely b/c this is America, we can walk away from them. The converse is also true. They can walk away from us.
You may not be aware but vagueness itself is a const'l problem. "Dangerous" is very vague. From my readings but not from actual experience, it seems that Europe is more enlightened about religion than the United States. Colonists fled here to practice their own brand of religion not to be free from religion.
Hi Band on the Run, At least we can agree with the five sentences that are bolded above and your opinion that Justice Scalia provokes thought.
Although vagueness is not something that I like to do, sometimes I appear to be vague when I am limited to expressing myself to less than or equal to 800 characters, as I was when I wrote the White House Petition; when I can only influence a process and cannot participate in the process (i.e., writing Congressional bills); and when communicating with people, who have radically different experiences and memories from mine. I do believe that through dialogue and asking clarifying questions that I might appear less vague.
Since I feel that we are having more of a dialogue now than finding flaws in each other’s writings, pleasae answer two clarifying questions that I have about two posts that you wrote earlier (see your posts after the questions in the quote boxes below):
1) Do your childhood memories about your relatives doing “hard time because they were Witnesses” influence your perceptions about the White House petition? In other words your feelings are so strong that nothing could ever convince you that victims and tax exempt organizations’ rights could be protected simultaneously, or will you always feel that one will always benefit at the expense of the other.
2) Does your legal viewpoint that Witnesses and the Society have First Amendment association rights, influence your perceptions about whose rights are subordinate to the others' rights? Are members' rights always subordinate to an organizations' rights (i.e., the leaders decisions)? Example: would those private clubs that you belong to be legally within their rights to promote to their members not to associate with former club members, and if a member did associate with a former member that that member would no longer be a member. Does it matter whether an organization discloses or does not disclose this rule when a member joins?
Band on the Run - This triggers me no end b/c I grew up with multiple relatives who did hard time b/c they were Witnesses. They were not people in a WT book. Rather, they were my blood family. The Const'n kept them out of concentration camps. America was very right and very clerical in the 30s nd 40s. The Const'n was inept. The Supreme Court decision came too late to save my mother. Yes, I am passionate about this topic.
Band on the Run - Also, from a legal viewpoint, the Witnesses and the Society have First Amendment association rights. The Witnesses do not hide their rules. They have a right to decide whether they want to associate with someone who breaks their rules. I belong to private clubs. Why should I meet membership criteria to have others just walk in. My purpose is to meet others similarly vetted.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
58
New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions
by mind blown inthis is on the official us government site.. note: someone was under the impression this was unconstitutional and it wouldn't pass, however, steven unthank replyed that tax exempt status (re: usc title 26 501 tax exemptions requirements) is not a constitutional right and can indeed be regulated by the us government through the irs.
freedom of religion does no mean freedom from tax.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/protect-americans-dangerous-cults-modify-usc-title-26--501-tax-exemptions-requirements/zhpbvhfx.
-
-
ABibleStudent
apostatethunder - The question is: is the organization main focus to help individuals or to help themselves? If they are there mainly to help themselves they are not a charity or a npo, they are a business and should be dealt with as such.
To find out if their main focus is to help individuals or to help themselves we can pay attention to the people that was involved with them, and see if they have a sense of gratitude, or even indiference or rather a sense of having been scammed and manipulated.
Hi apostatethunder, I agree with your philosophy of examining how an organization's actions affect its members. If members are afraid to express their religious beliefs to their leader(s) or to other members because they fear reprisal because of what an organization or its leader(s) promote, then I feel that an organization's leadership is subverting a basic human right.
Most dangerous groups (or cults) evolve and then prey on vulnerable people. Other dangerous groups (or cults) start out as being dangerous cults and use mind control techniques to enslave members. The end result is always the same. Except for the leaders, individuals’ basic rights to think or behave in a civil manner are infringed on by the organization or its leadership for the supposed good of all (i.e., the leadership). If a member is not involved in freely selecting his/her leader(s), I do not feel that a member must be forced to leave an organization because a member publically disagrees with policies (or doctrines) of an organization, nor should a member feel trapped within an organization because a member is afraid to express his/her opinion.
I have read many Supreme Court opinions and still cannot find a Supreme Court decision where justices unanimously agreed that an individual’s rights of freedom of religion and speech are subordinate to an organization’s rights. I personally do not feel that organizations have freedom of religion rights, because organizations cannot think only an organization's leader(s) can think.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
21
Has the Watchtower been sued for defamation?
by biometrics indoes anyone know if the watchtower or individual elders have been successfully sued for defamation follwing a disfellowshipping.
i know some have tried to sue for shunning, and their case had no legal basis.. what is the current platform announcment for a df or da?.
what about court action to recover past donations?.
-
-
ABibleStudent
Answer: Yes for libel a long-time ago by a former WTBTS attorney during the 1930's I believe. I belive I read a thread on JWN about this topic several months ago.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
58
New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions
by mind blown inthis is on the official us government site.. note: someone was under the impression this was unconstitutional and it wouldn't pass, however, steven unthank replyed that tax exempt status (re: usc title 26 501 tax exemptions requirements) is not a constitutional right and can indeed be regulated by the us government through the irs.
freedom of religion does no mean freedom from tax.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/protect-americans-dangerous-cults-modify-usc-title-26--501-tax-exemptions-requirements/zhpbvhfx.
-
-
ABibleStudent
Band on the Run - An establishment is not defined. Sometimes things are left vague b/c there is no political consensus. You don't know law. There is no reason why you should. Many people are taught civics, however. I admire that you want to make an impact. You are very mistaken as to the political process and the law. Dangerousness will never pass const'l muster. If you could define dangerous, I doubt any court would apply it to the Witnesses. No White House administration will apply it to the Witnesses.
Dangerousness is adequately covered by criminal laws. We don't need government scouring religious mission and doctrine to stop criminal conduct.
Hi Band on the Run, I'm not trying to define dangerous. I use the words "dangerous cult" in my posts, because Steve Hassan used those words in his book "Combatting Cult Mind Control" and then described basic characteristics of all dangerous cults. If I knew of a different label than "dangerous cult" that does not have any religious overtones, I would use it. Does dangerous group or dangerous organization sound less religious?
You are right that I am not a lawyer. I am an American citizen. One of my 1st Amendment rights is to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I feel that since the American government cannot (or will not) protect Americans from tax exempt organizations that coerce or intimidate their members to blindly follow its leaders than the American government should be required to clearly define public policy that tax exempt organizations must adhere to.
The White House petition only asks the President to support revising USC Title 26 § 501 to require that tax exempt organizations promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and employees. Although, I feel that the chances for a law to be enacted to revise USC Title 26 § 501 is very small, I do feel that a congressional hearing would raise the awareness of a lot of politicians, government officials, and Americans, especially during an election year with a Mormon running for the Presidency.
If a law was enacted that was inspired by this petition, that law would allow members, employees, former members, and former employees to file complaints with the IRS that they felt afraid to follow their religious convictions or to voice their concerns to their organization's leaders because of their organization's doctrines and/or their leaders comments made to them. The IRS would be required to investigate those complaints. If a sufficient number of valid complaints were filed against an organization, the IRS would suspend an organization's tax exempt status for not less than 3 years.
I do not have all the answers. I was hoping Congressional hearings would help fill in necessary legal protections for victims and tax exempt organizations as well as the correct legal wording.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
58
New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions
by mind blown inthis is on the official us government site.. note: someone was under the impression this was unconstitutional and it wouldn't pass, however, steven unthank replyed that tax exempt status (re: usc title 26 501 tax exemptions requirements) is not a constitutional right and can indeed be regulated by the us government through the irs.
freedom of religion does no mean freedom from tax.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/protect-americans-dangerous-cults-modify-usc-title-26--501-tax-exemptions-requirements/zhpbvhfx.
-
-
ABibleStudent
Band on the Run - Robert,
You are thick. And I don't believe you are. Call me when you are admitted to a bar in the United States. A state law bar. Otherwise, gaining admittance is a cake walk. You continue to ignore the core of American freedoms. Laws must be const'l. Also, you have never defined what the public policy is. The Supreme Court will not endorse Robert's smell test. See what becomes of your petition. As tho Obama would touch it with a 1,000 ft. pole. Obama favors government funding of faith-based social welfare organizations.
Hi Band on the Run, Are you feeling ok? Your writing seems to me to be getting more antagonistic.
If asking you to clarify statements that you make is being thick, then I would rather you think that I am thick, than I assume that I know what you are writing and be wrong.
I have not defined what the IRS considers as guidelines to meet the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3) “that the practices and rituals associated with the organization’s religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy”, because I have not received a response from the IRS or the Treasury Department to my letter to Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Timothy Franz Geithner that was dated April 10, 2012. Did you read my first post in the Thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/politics/225023/1/URGENT-Please-Sign-White-House-Petition-to-Protect-Americans-from-Dangerous-Cults-Modify-USC-Title-26-c2a7-501-Tax-Exemption-Requirements ? I thought that you would know what the IRS meant in IRS publications 557 and 1828 .
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
58
New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions
by mind blown inthis is on the official us government site.. note: someone was under the impression this was unconstitutional and it wouldn't pass, however, steven unthank replyed that tax exempt status (re: usc title 26 501 tax exemptions requirements) is not a constitutional right and can indeed be regulated by the us government through the irs.
freedom of religion does no mean freedom from tax.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/protect-americans-dangerous-cults-modify-usc-title-26--501-tax-exemptions-requirements/zhpbvhfx.
-
-
ABibleStudent
apostatethunder - I think there is a fundamental difference between a religion, that helps improve people's lives and a cult, that is damaging to people's lives at many levels, mostly because it lies to people for the benefit of the cult and makes them supporters of something that they would not support if they had all the facts. . . . The fact that jws have a religion status in many countries is a distortion of reality. They are a cult, and people that come in contact with them end up losing out not winning out. Therefore they shouldn't be tax exempt as if they were a religion because they are not.
Hi apostatethunder, Although I am empathetic with your sentiments, I believe it would be an uphill battle legally defining what is or is not a religion and still withstand Constitutional challenges. The Congress did not even attempt to define a religion when it created laws that created USC Title 26 § 501 nor did the IRS when it created regulations and publications. The only thing that government has done is that the IRS maintains basic guidelines to determine whether an organization meets the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3) “that the practices and rituals associated with the organization’s religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy”.
The White House petition is not intended to define what a religion is, but what a tax exempt organization (including religions) can do that is not contrary to clearly defined public policy.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
58
New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions
by mind blown inthis is on the official us government site.. note: someone was under the impression this was unconstitutional and it wouldn't pass, however, steven unthank replyed that tax exempt status (re: usc title 26 501 tax exemptions requirements) is not a constitutional right and can indeed be regulated by the us government through the irs.
freedom of religion does no mean freedom from tax.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/protect-americans-dangerous-cults-modify-usc-title-26--501-tax-exemptions-requirements/zhpbvhfx.
-
-
ABibleStudent
Band on the Run - You don't care about the case law or the Const'n. . . . Taxpayers generally cannot challenge govt. action if the only basis is their status as taxpayers. An exception was carved out for Establishment Clause cases in the famous case of Flast v. Cohen. . . . Every opinion discussed at great lengths the underlying rules for funding. No entanglement by the government, the biggest obstacle to revoking a particular religion's tax exempt status, no endorsement of religion, the extent of government enforcement ( must be minimal but present). Accountability that funds were not diverted to religious purposes. Computers and other items for Roman Catholic schools are iffy b/c a secular use computer can easily become a religious teaching computer. . .
. . . . The basic three-prong test for E C purposes, which came close to be overruled in Hein, remains the basic law for EC violations. It is set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Agostini. These are landmark cases. Findlaw has them. Cornell Law will have them. The Supreme Court may have time.
Hi Band on the Run, Just because I disagree with your opinion and conclusions, does not mean that I don't care about case or Constitutional law. I do care about both.
I'm confused about your comment that I bolded in the preceeding quote box. Do you feel that the White House petition requests the President to challenge existing laws in court, or to use his influence to support revising USC Title 26 § 501 throught the process of enacting new law(s)? The petition was created for the latter reason, and not the former.
When you write about the basic three-prong test for Establishment Clause purposes, are you referring to what Justice Scalia wrote in Hein Vs Christian Freedom Foundation, Inc.? Since the White House petition is trying to revise the US Tax code and not to challange it in court, what is the relavance of the 3-prong test?
In Hein vs Christian Freedom Foundation, Inc., Justice Scalia wrote - There is a simple reason why our taxpayer-standing cases involving Establishment Clause challenges to government expenditures are notoriously inconsistent: We have inconsistently described the first element of the "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing," which minimum consists of (1) a "concrete and particularized" " 'injury in fact' " that is (2) fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged unlawful conduct and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560-561 (1992). We have alternately relied on two entirely distinct conceptions of injury in fact, which for convenience I will call "Wallet Injury" and "Psychic Injury." . . .
As the following review of our cases demonstrates, we initially denied taxpayer standing based on Wallet Injury, but then found standing in some later cases based on the limited version of Psychic Injury described above. The basic logical flaw in our cases is thus twofold: We have never explained why Psychic Injury was insufficient in the cases in which standing was denied, and we have never explained why Psychic Injury, however limited, is cognizable under Article III.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
58
New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions
by mind blown inthis is on the official us government site.. note: someone was under the impression this was unconstitutional and it wouldn't pass, however, steven unthank replyed that tax exempt status (re: usc title 26 501 tax exemptions requirements) is not a constitutional right and can indeed be regulated by the us government through the irs.
freedom of religion does no mean freedom from tax.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/protect-americans-dangerous-cults-modify-usc-title-26--501-tax-exemptions-requirements/zhpbvhfx.
-
-
ABibleStudent
Band on the Run - I cited a slew of U S Supreme Court cases, provided historical analysis, philosophical overtones from the European experience, and current trends by the Supreme Court. My recitation of cases, such as Lemon/Agostini, Hein v. Freedom From Religion, McCreary and Van Orden were scoffed at by you. I was severely ridiculed for listing them b/c you cannot refute my points. To be accurate, they are not points but well-estabished law.
See any American lawyer for a consultation and you will hear what I wrote. I dare you.
Hi Band on the Run, I am sorry that you are not feeling well in the thread that you started: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/225721/1/Horrid-Time-for-Me. I will try to be more tolerant of your posts, but I still disagree with your opinion.
Please provide additional information about the cases that you cited. I searched for the cases that are bolded in the above quote on http://lp.findlaw.com/ . I could only find information for Hein v. Freedom From Religion. Is HEIN, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, et al. v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., et al. the case that you are refering to?
Since Justice Souter, Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer dissented against the majority of the Supreme Court Justices in Hein et al versus Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., et al., doesn’t that prove that “any American lawyer” will not agree with your opinion about the Constitutionality of a law inspired by the White House petition that I am promoting? Also, I do not see the connection that you see with Hein versus Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., et al and the White House petition that I am promoting.
The White House petition asks the President to support revising the USC Title 26 § 501 by adding requirements for all tax exempt organizations. The President can ask Congress to revise USC Title 26 § 501. Congress will need to create bills to modify USC Title 26 § 501 and pass legislation before the President can sign the passed legislation to create a law. Since the Supreme Court narrowly construes interpretation of the 1 st Amendment, how is the White House petition related to Hein versus Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.?
In Hein versus Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., the President, by executive orders, created a White House office and several centers within federal agencies to ensure that faith-based community groups are eligible to compete for federal financial support. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. represented some taxpayers that felt that funding through general Executive Branch appropriations was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1 st Amendment. Please read the Supreme Court Opinion in the provided link to understand the thinking of the Justices.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
76
Horrid Time for Me
by Band on the Run inmy pain has been in remission.
i have a morphine pump.
pain broke through toward the end of the medication.
-
-
ABibleStudent
Hi ((((Band on the Run)))))), I'm sorry that you are in so much pain.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert