The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

what about 2Pence - no one else have concerns about that POS taking the throne? he's even more malevolent
(and good luck finding a way to impeach that one)

[Gatefan1976]

So what's the whole thing about "private clubs"?

They are free to set their own rules and traditions within their own structure, and BELIEVE in whatever they wish based on their faith, the first amendment certainly does protect that right, as does the separation of church and state, the state cannot tell them what to believe.
It is in that regard I call them a "private club". I am not meaning to denigrate them, merely noting what they are free to do.
Conversely, they have no right to affect anything outside of it's "private club" You can Believe what you want, you are not however free to ACT on that belief outside the confines of your club.

Not sure what you mean here.

Pretty obvious, religion has no right to affect social policy because it finds the behaviour in question "bad" or "sinful" Basically, any kind of legislation like Mike Pence tried to pass as governer "religious freedom acts" are a clear example of a church meddling in social -and legal- policy, something they have no right to do.

As far as Public law ins concerned...yes.

I think you will find you are mistaken, the law states religion, not church. I could be mistaken, but even if I am, allowing smaller churches to "slide" on the law based on their size would be giving advantage to the smaller church would it not?

Then it's a matter of simply enforcing existing law.

That's correct, applying the law equally to -all-

Because if churches were treated as simply "private clubs" they'd be no different than Labor Unions which also have tax exemptions and influence political elections. My Teacher's association has members vote for whom to support each election. Basically that would give these "private clubs" freedom to do the same thing as opposed to remaining simply as religions and not "private clubs". He touched upon this, as far as I interpreted, that it seems more like it's the specific individuals that are being supported that is causing distaste in Liberals and not the fact itself that individuals are being supported by these "private clubs".

As FH posted, they have different rules for unions. If you want to suggest making them equal under the law insofar a political donations are concerned, have at it. Unions, like any large organization are capable (hell, we have evidence of) becoming politically "corrupt"
Take away their ability to be politically active, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, make it a blanket rule for all tax exempt organizations, that's perfectly fine by me.

Changing the law so that these "private clubs" no longer get tax exemptions indiscriminately and so on and so forth ignoring that the US Constitution does recognize religions as a category on their own different to that of "private clubs".

You admitted yourself, I'm not asking for anything to change. As for private clubs, I hope I have shed light on what I meant.

[Gatefan1976]

what about 2Pence - no one else have concerns about that POS taking the throne? he's even more malevolent
(and good luck finding a way to impeach that one)

If Flynn leads to Pence, which is quite possible, he could go as well.
The constitutional issue is that IF it can be proven that republicans won based on Russian interference, does that invalidate the election?
If the answer is no, then if Trump goes, it falls to Pence, If pence goes, it falls to McConnal who is "clean" in this regard, that's the law and line of succession.
If the answer is yes however, there is no legal precedent to draw from.

[SoulReaver]

problem is Rump has so many things he can be charged with yet look how hard it is (impossible so far) to topple him - so imagine how much more impossible it would be with Pence since that one could only be charged with what, 1 wrongdoing at most?
gotta be realistic

The constitutional issue is that IF it can be proven that republicans won based on Russian interference, does that invalidate the election?

wasn't that already settled? iirc answer was no

besides who decides if the election was valid or not - Senate? Congress?

[aretood2]

They are free to set their own rules and traditions within their own structure, and BELIEVE in whatever they wish based on their faith, the first amendment certainly does protect that right, as does the separation of church and state, the state cannot tell them what to believe.
It is in that regard I call them a "private club". I am not meaning to denigrate them, merely noting what they are free to do.
Conversely, they have no right to affect anything outside of it's "private club" You can Believe what you want, you are not however free to ACT on that belief outside the confines of your club.

Pretty sure SCOTUS disagrees with you. One's religious freedom does not end at their home's or church's door. This is why Schools can't prevent a kid from saying grace during lunch,
or why Teachers can't be forbidden from wearing a piece of jewelry that is religious in nature. Or why...well...you get it.

Pretty obvious, religion has no right to affect social policy because it finds the behaviour in question "bad" or "sinful" Basically, any kind of legislation like Mike Pence tried to pass as governer "religious freedom acts" are a clear example of a church meddling in social -and legal- policy, something they have no right to do.

Beyond defending its own rights, yes. But individual citizens have the right to cast a vote for anything that is not unconstitutional or rather to demand that their elected reprasentatives do so.

I think you will find you are mistaken, the law states religion, not church. I could be mistaken, but even if I am, allowing smaller churches to "slide" on the law based on their size would be giving advantage to the smaller church would it not?

Read the majority opinion of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. When talking about a church it also uses "religion" in the discussion to a point of interchangeability. SCOTUS doesn't see a difference.

As FH posted, they have different rules for unions. If you want to suggest making them equal under the law insofar a political donations are concerned, have at it. Unions, like any large organization are capable (hell, we have evidence of) becoming politically "corrupt"
Take away their ability to be politically active, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, make it a blanket rule for all tax exempt organizations, that's perfectly fine by me.

You admitted yourself, I'm not asking for anything to change. As for private clubs, I hope I have shed light on what I meant.

In my prefered world, a church would be apolitical outside of defending its own religious rights. But of course, the individuals are free to do as they please.

[Gatefan1976]

problem is Rump has so many things he can be charged with yet look how hard it is (impossible so far) to topple him - so imagine how much more impossible it would be with Pence since that one could only be charged with what, 1 wrongdoing at most?
gotta be realistic

As president, he is basically immune to prosecution, that's the law, when not the president, different story. The only recourse ATM is impeachment (which is not a legal proceeding) or Article 25.
Pence does not have this protection, and has done less.

wasn't that already settled? iirc answer was no

besides who decides if the election was valid or not - Senate? Congress?

Not settled, and who knows, the constitution does not cover it, hence the issue.

[Gatefan1976]

Pretty sure SCOTUS disagrees with you. One's religious freedom does not end at their home's or church's door. This is why Schools can't prevent a kid from saying grace during lunch, or why Teachers can't be forbidden from wearing a piece of jewelry that is religious in nature. Or why...well...you get it.

No, but they can and have stopped things like polygamy even though it was claimed as a religious freedom. They did address this issue before the lemon test, and they have ruled against acts based on faith based belief or morality.
As for wearing Crosses or Hijabs, or Stars of David, or anything else, they are non invasive displays of faith, they affect no one but the bearer, hence the freedom to exercise your "free speech" and the state to have no right to stop you.

Beyond defending its own rights, yes. But individual citizens have the right to cast a vote for anything that is not unconstitutional or rather to demand that their elected reprasentatives do so.

Sure.
If you live in bible belt, and everyone wants religious law, have at it.
Of course, it would be unconstitutional however.

Read the majority opinion of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. When talking about a church it also uses "religion" in the discussion to a point of interchangeability. SCOTUS doesn't see a difference.

Can I have a link so we are reading the same thing?

In my prefered world, a church would be apolitical outside of defending its own religious rights. But of course, the individuals are free to do as they please.

I agree with you Tood.

[aretood2]

No, but they can and have stopped things like polygamy even though it was claimed as a religious freedom. They did address this issue before the lemon test, and they have ruled against acts based on faith based belief or morality.
As for wearing Crosses or Hijabs, or Stars of David, or anything else, they are non invasive displays of faith, they affect no one but the bearer, hence the freedom to exercise your "free speech" and the state to have no right to stop you.


Sure.
If you live in bible belt, and everyone wants religious law, have at it.
Of course, it would be unconstitutional however.




Can I have a link so we are reading the same thing?


I agree with you Tood.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664

OK, give me a novel
I read the first 10 or so "pages", and while church and religion are both used, I'm not sure they are used as "interchangeably" as you seem to be saying. They use religion when speaking of a faith, and Church when they are speaking about propery.
Is there a specific area you think I should look at?

[aretood2]

OK, give me a novel
I read the first 10 or so "pages", and while church and religion are both used, I'm not sure they are used as "interchangeably" as you seem to be saying. They use religion when speaking of a faith, and Church when they are speaking about propery.
Is there a specific area you think I should look at?

Pg. 676
"The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees "on the public payroll." There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion. "

Notice how they are talking about churches, the case being about a tax exemption on church properties. The use of religion in the last sentence is related to the case. Even though the case is about a church, the "religious clause" still applies to the issue of a property tax exemption on a church (not on a religion). The church is treated as the religion. Establishment of religion means establishment of a church as much as a belief system.

Pg 674
"Governments have not always been tolerant of religious activity, and hostility toward religion has taken many shapes and forms economic, political, and sometimes harshly oppressive. Grants of exemption historically reflect the concern of authors of constitutions and statutes as to the latent dangers inherent in the imposition of property taxes"

How can a property tax be levied against a belief system? For a belief system is an abstract string of ideas...it owns no property. But a church does!

That's what I mean. The courts read "Religion" they also see "Church" as a natural aspect of religion. So taxing a church can be limiting to the religion. Establishing a religion means also establishing a church.

Pg 675
"Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result -- the effect -- is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion. Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes."

When talking about religion, a church is mentioned. Not to mention, the whole case is about taxing a church and the court can't help itself but use the word religion some....124 times while church is used 176 times.

Pg 678
"It is significant that Congress, from its earliest days, has viewed the Religion Clauses of the Constitution as authorizing statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies. In 1802, the 7th Congress enacted a taxing statute for the County of Alexandria, adopting the 1800 Virginia statutory pattern which provided tax exemptions for churches"

So when talking about religion, once again, church is mentioned. The religion clauses involve church. Otherwise it would be called "Separation of Religion and State" and not "Separation of Church and State".

[Gatefan1976]

Pg. 676
"The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees "on the public payroll." There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion. "

Notice how they are talking about churches, the case being about a tax exemption on church properties. The use of religion in the last sentence is related to the case. Even though the case is about a church, the "religious clause" still applies to the issue of a property tax exemption on a church (not on a religion). The church is treated as the religion. Establishment of religion means establishment of a church as much as a belief system.

Notice that belief, like religion is an intangible object, a property -is not-.
The wording is not interchangeable, it is -specific- in use.
I can't address what is in your heart, I can address what is in your property.

Pg 674
"Governments have not always been tolerant of religious activity, and hostility toward religion has taken many shapes and forms economic, political, and sometimes harshly oppressive. Grants of exemption historically reflect the concern of authors of constitutions and statutes as to the latent dangers inherent in the imposition of property taxes"

How can a property tax be levied against a belief system? For a belief system is an abstract string of ideas...it owns no property. But a church does!

Correct. you basically proved my point, the physical church is NOT the same as what lies in your heart, or your religion.

That's what I mean. The courts read "Religion" they also see "Church" as a natural aspect of religion. So taxing a church can be limiting to the religion. Establishing a religion means also establishing a church.

Nope.
I can follow Jedi-ism all I want, when I set up a Jedi temple, I have rules to follow.
You are missing the essential point of the individual Vs the collective.
The individual is free, the collective is not.

Pg 675
"Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result -- the effect -- is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion. Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes."

When talking about religion, a church is mentioned. Not to mention, the whole case is about taxing a church and the court can't help itself but use the word religion some....124 times while church is used 176 times.

And yet, they are still viewed as separate.
Belief in the Judeo-Christian god is a religion, a church that does or does not believe in the trinity, or whatever other foible they have does not make them 'non Judeo-Christian'. Mormons and JW's are -still- Christian under the law.

Pg 678
"It is significant that Congress, from its earliest days, has viewed the Religion Clauses of the Constitution as authorizing statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies. In 1802, the 7th Congress enacted a taxing statute for the County of Alexandria, adopting the 1800 Virginia statutory pattern which provided tax exemptions for churches"

So when talking about religion, once again, church is mentioned. The religion clauses involve church. Otherwise it would be called "Separation of Religion and State" and not "Separation of Church and State".

You are a sociology teacher, right?
Please explain how wording in current culture is not indicative of original intent.
I want a fully sick explanation

[Annoyed]

Pg. 676
"The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees "on the public payroll." There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion. "

Just a point that might make it easier to understand people who can't grasp this concept.

Some folks on the left believe that all wealth belongs first to the state. If the government doesn't collect something via taxation, in their mind, that is a gift from the government to the whoever it is that is not being taxed, a church in this case.

[aretood2]

Notice that belief, like religion is an intangible object, a property -is not-.
The wording is not interchangeable, it is -specific- in use.
I can't address what is in your heart, I can address what is in your property.

Correct. you basically proved my point, the physical church is NOT the same as what lies in your heart, or your religion.

Your point?

Nope.
I can follow Jedi-ism all I want, when I set up a Jedi temple, I have rules to follow.
You are missing the essential point of the individual Vs the collective.
The individual is free, the collective is not.

What SCOTUS decision lends that interpretation? If anything I see the opposite. Such as Trinity Lutheran Church V. Comer and Hosanna V. EEOC. And if Hobby Lobby can be considered an actor with religious freedom (questionable as that is) why wouldn't a church?

And yet, they are still viewed as separate.
Belief in the Judeo-Christian god is a religion, a church that does or does not believe in the trinity, or whatever other foible they have does not make them 'non Judeo-Christian'. Mormons and JW's are -still- Christian under the law.

Now you lost me. What are you talking about?

You are a sociology teacher, right?
Please explain how wording in current culture is not indicative of original intent.
I want a fully sick explanation

I don't know about Australia, but here in the US religion isn't limited to simply "Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist" but can also describe a smaller group inside of the aforementioned groups. That much hasn't really changed since say...the early 1800's.

[Gatefan1976]

Whoopsy Daisy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.89189fc9ea15

[Annoyed]

Whoopsy Daisy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.89189fc9ea15

Might want to wait till the dust settles on this one.

Update: The Post is now reporting that the tweet was authored by Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, according to two people familiar with the situation. The fact that Dowd authored the tweet could limit its salience to the investigation, but the White House still hasn't publicly corrected anything.