I was stumped on an issue in class today that I feel must be opened for discussion because... well, I have formed an opinion now and will probably forget by Tuesday.
Iowa's own Senator Grassley (Rep. Finance Committee), "Chucky" as I like to call him, the same man that destroyed bankruptcy for the middle-classes, has touched on the fascinating concept of taxing churches on funds they receive by donation (do your own research, I am not even supposed to be posting this week:)
I would say taxing churches is a direct violation of the disestablishment clause and would serve to deteriorate the 'free exercise' of both the state and the church. Considering the intimate relationship of business and politics need we make it a messy menage a trois?
The path that need be taken to make churches accountable for funds squandered in the name of religion must come from the class action angle of the congregation under possibly... fraudulence (I don't know I am not a lawyer); basically civil action NOT congressional legislation.
What say you providence and duke?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I concur, and applaud this bloggers' intellectual courage. Don't get me wrong, I am all for polyamory, but the military-industrial complex along with the Iron Triangle (interest group lobbyists, bureaucrats, and members of Congress) needn't the further complications involved with the hefty influential would-be tax base of churches. Not to mention the plethora of ecclesiastical problems associated with the concept of disallowing tax exemptions for churches and turning 'donations' into 'payments'. What part of SEPARATE don't you understand Chucky? Your heart is in the right place, by trying to curb exploitative televangelists and Scientologists, but your head, as usual, is in a place that I refuse to describe here.
In response to both Carmine the author and Carmine the commenter (same person?):
After conducting research, I have found that Senator Charles Grassley does not want to tax churches. I came to this conclusion after performing internet searches, calling Senator Grassley's Des Moines office, and consulting with independent sources.
The goal of Senator Grassley's look into specific church finances stems from complaints. These complaints are from church members and tax payers. He wants to ensure that church leaders are not taking the money of the church members and spending it on themselves. Rather, he wants to ensure that when people give money to support their individual church and spread the word of their God, that their money is being used for that purpose.
Further, religion is not above the law. The United States Supreme Court has made that clear. Senator Grassley's look into the financial dealings of churches stemming from inquiries is what I expect a senator to do. Individual citizens do not always have the tools necessary to bring this before the court system. If churches are found to be in violation of non-profit qualifications, then action can be taken.
To reiterate, religion does not have the trump card in regards to the rule of law in America. Being a holy-roller does not exempt you from ethical legal obligations or moral obligations to your God.
Tyler-
Not to be condescending, but, you have to tease-out the logic of congressional action, they operate very strategically and often seem to contradict themselves in voting habits and actions.
Moreover,I don't know many that would go so far as to speculate exactly what Chucky 'wants to do'(you'll notice I wrote "touches on...concept of taxing churches" not 'wants to'--apologies if that was misleading:). If I were to be so presumptuous, I would speculate that Chucky is like many of his cronies in office and he 'wants to' 1) obviously,get reelected and 2)possibly,hide his pedophilia.
Beyond that one can only follow the money, which in this case means, as you mention, "if churches are found to be in violation of non-profit qualifications then action can be taken." It's quite obvious, especially considering the James Bakker types, that many churches are not as 'not-for-profit' as they claim to be, this will certainly surface in his investigation. (Which is quite arbitrary really considering profits and expenses are on the same line in NGOs and NPOs).
The issue then becomes defining what is considered 'pious spending' and what is considered fraudulent spending, which can only be done if the state usurps this arbitrarily wielded ability. Chucky would never have started his investigation had he not thought ahead and decided what to do once he discovered so called "fraudulent" spending. Once a 'church' is found to be making profit it becomes a business, which makes it taxable. Chucky will, of course, claim he doesn't 'want to' tax churches, but his investigation certainly leads him down a road to a decision that is not his to make--what defines 'pious spending' and furthermore should it be regulated (ie taxed), by gov't? I really am concerned with the theoretical implications involved, not the particulars of his investigation.
As for your comment, "religion is not above the law...the Court has made that clear," Well you would be exactly right if looking at Oregon v Smith, yet, your comment would need serious qualifications to the point of your thought almost losing it's meaning if you were to consider Sherbert v Verner...mmmm seems logic is as malleable as Play Dough and the Court has done anything but make it "clear" when law overrides ecclesiastical exercise or when, as you put it, "religion trumps law."
As for individuals not having the tools necessary for checking the fraudulence of their church, this is why I mentioned class action which would cost them nothing but time to depose their claims. Also, they do have one choice which would squelch this entire issue STOP GIVING CHURCHES YOUR MONEY..this means you Scientologists!
First, why did you write the blog post, then congratulate your own logic? That is a rather interesting issue alone.
Second, of course elected members want to get reelected. That is common knowledge. And with the self-interest concept from Madison, it makes sense.
Third, I am exasperated that you use the idea of pedophilia as part of your argument. To be blunt, it is very concerning that such claims would be made by a college student.
Fourth, Sherbert v. Verner is in regards to the denial of unemployment benefits. This does not moderately relate to the issue of monetary fraud inside churches.
Finally, to be absolutely forthright, I view your hostility solely against Senator Grassley, rather than the issue itself. This is shown by you implying he is a pedophile and calling him Chucky. As far as I am concerned, your argument holds no merit, with the court case citations you provide, as they are barely relevant to the issue at hand.
For the record, I believe a compelling state interest is rendered when fraud allegations are present against a non-profit organization that has possibly misled their donors as to where their money will be going. This is fraud.
Tyler-
The comment on Chucky was to point out that one can SPECULATE (not claim as you mentioned, there is difference) anything about what congressmen 'want' and that we need to stick to what we know to be the consequences of their actions, draw conclusions from those points and only those points.
Now the Sherbert case is about unemployment benefits, yes, but it sets up a test that Supreme Court justices use (still in use as you can see in Lukumi v Hialeah) to decide on free exercise cases, which is exactly what this issue is about. The real point I was making with those cases comes from juxtaposing the logic used in Sherbert (which allows for an exemption to the law based on religious excercise) with Scalia's logic in Oregon v Smith, in which the state need only to demonstrate the 'generally applicability' of the law. When those decisions are compared they contradict each other on many levels, hence my statement that nothing is "clear" when it comes to the Court, which was one of your claims in your original comment.
As to your 1st point: yes I commented on my own blog, this is because I forgot some items in the original post, I actually thought it was funny, I'm sorry you didn't Tyler--loosen up, really.
As to your 3rd point: congressional desire for young boys is not part of my argument it was a cheap shot, read it again, it says "If I were to be so presumptuous...was like many of his cronies..." It is true that members of congress have been accused of pedophilia, as well solicitation and a host of other things. Actually, I could say it's as common knowledgeable as is their desire to get reelected..;)
Your last comment is actually commendable as you're actually engaging with the language of the Court. But Tyler, as I mentioned in my 2nd comment, one must think about what would happen if the state did begin to interfere with the finances of the church and begin to decide on what is 'pious spending' and what is not. This is the real beef I have with his investigation, this isn't just an NGO or another non-profit group, it's a church, it's religion! If I am a Reverend who claims to need a jet to preach the word of god, I am covered. I don't like it anymore then the next guy, which is why if I were a lawyer I would be soliciting the congregation for depositions. This, I think anyway, would be the only real way to keep the state out of it while proving fraud.
Rights make it more difficult for society to accomplish collective goals, that's what they are in place for.
I can see we have two different views on the congressional/judicial/executive branches. I am going to end my commenting now because it is apparent your argument relies on false fables that you find funny - example: pedophilia (which I don't find funny). When you have an argument without so many holes and the need for sarcasm, I will be more open to listening.
Also, it is apparent that your comment "applauding this bloggers' intellectual courage" wasn't you adding to your post. But if that is how you feel it is right to get people to listen to you, you made the right move.....
I accept you're forfeiture Tyler--good try.
When you can actually point to those holes in my argument that you mention I'll be glad to indulge, regardless of your spitefulness.
Post a Comment