[Silver]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111001978.html

Aww, making a mockery out of religion. I'm sure that people who get screwed over by mega churches that get to ignore zoning laws are crying themselves to sleep at night over the rich frat boys who figured out what a scam it is...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

awesomeness!!!

 

[JohnE]

I dont know who I should be pissed at-
1. The rich asshole who bought his kid a $2.4 million house to live in
2. The snotty rich kids who live in said house...
"This is America. If someone decides to buy a house and people who move in are not the people [the neighbors] expected, that doesn't give them the right to harass the kids," said Dennis Ianovale of Chester Springs, Pa., whose son, Christopher, lives in the house

3. The snotty rich neighbors trying to keep snotty rich kids from partying like rock stars

4. The asswipes at Geoergetown who condone this ****...
"A lot of these kids are quite spoiled. They're paying $35,000 [in tuition], and they can do whatever they damn well please"

How much is this going to cost Joe Lunchpail when they fight it out in the courts? Rich guy v. rich guy, who do I despise? The rich guy...hate on!

 

[Silver]

I dont know who I should be pissed at-
1. The rich asshole who bought his kid a $2.4 million house to live in
2. The snotty rich kids who live in said house...
3. The snotty rich neighbors trying to keep snotty rich kids from partying like rock stars
4. The asswipes at Geoergetown who condone this ****...
"A lot of these kids are quite spoiled. They're paying $35,000 [in tuition], and they can do whatever they damn well please"

How much is this going to cost Joe Lunchpail when they fight it out in the courts? Rich guy v. rich guy, who do I despise? The rich guy...hate on!

Well, nothing. Joe Lunchpail doesn't live in that neighbourhood.

I'd like to see the grade transcripts of the guys living in that house. Does Georgetown do legacies?

 

[JohnE]

He may not live in that neighborhood, but in town? The county? The state? Paying taxes, not being able to afford lawyers and tax shelters etc...
And another reason to be pissed, I havent been invited to any parties there...
And my Ps' never bought me a house or paid for me to join a frat...

 

[sanjuro]

I dont know who I should be pissed at-
1. The rich asshole who bought his kid a $2.4 million house to live in
2. The snotty rich kids who live in said house...
"This is America. If someone decides to buy a house and people who move in are not the people [the neighbors] expected, that doesn't give them the right to harass the kids," said Dennis Ianovale of Chester Springs, Pa., whose son, Christopher, lives in the house

3. The snotty rich neighbors trying to keep snotty rich kids from partying like rock stars

4. The asswipes at Geoergetown who condone this ****...
"A lot of these kids are quite spoiled. They're paying $35,000 [in tuition], and they can do whatever they damn well please"

How much is this going to cost Joe Lunchpail when they fight it out in the courts? Rich guy v. rich guy, who do I despise? The rich guy...hate on!

Well, you might be right about the rich person vs rich person aspect. But no harm done, just a mockery of zoning laws and religious classifications.

No problem for me.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Well, nothing. Joe Lunchpail doesn't live in that neighbourhood.

That's not necessarily true. There are quite a few areas around here where people were able to buy affordable houses that 20 years ago that are now out of their price range. It doesn't necessarily make them rich. I'm not sure exactly where this neighborhood is, but it might be the case that there are some Joe Lunchpails there who just happened to buy a while ago and have seen the value of their house skyrocket.

Personally, I could barely afford my condo 4 years ago, and it has since doubled in value. If I hadn't bought when I did, I would not have been able to afford it at all. So, in reality, I'm living in a richer neighborhood than I should be able to afford. It can and does happen.

 

[Reactor]

Comments in thread reminds me of the fight in dearbor (mi?) where the christians are up in arms because of the muslim calls to prayer. They claim it's disruptive. However the christian churches see nothing wrong with deafening church bells, and claim it's "normal".

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Comments in thread reminds me of the fight in dearbor (mi?) where the christians are up in arms because of the muslim calls to prayer. They claim it's disruptive. However the christian churches see nothing wrong with deafening church bells, and claim it's "normnal".

What's good for the goose and all that?

 

[Reactor]

What's good for the goose and all that?

Yep. If it's alright for someone to ring huge church bells at 7:00 am in the morning, then the call to prayer is too. If the call to prayer isn't o.k. then the bells shouldn't be either.

 

[JRogers]

Well, you might be right about the rich person vs rich person aspect. But no harm done, just a mockery of zoning laws and religious classifications.

No problem for me.

Maybe...but what about problems created by a precedent that might be set? Religious organizations being exempt from many taxes, severely relaxing the standards for classification could create a few problems....

 

[Silver]

Maybe...but what about problems created by a precedent that might be set? Religious organizations being exempt from many taxes, severely relaxing the standards for classification could create a few problems....

Then maybe it's time to stop exempting businesses from taxes just because they claim the boss is God?

 

[Transcend]

I think it is absolute genius, good for the spoiled brats. The neighbors can go take a flying leap and the zoning laws are absolutely retarded. As for the tax issues...religious organizations should NOT be exempt from taxes, period.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I think it is absolute genius, good for the spoiled brats. The neighbors can go take a flying leap and the zoning laws are absolutely retarded. As for the tax issues...religious organizations should NOT be exempt from taxes, period.

They are exempt from taxes and the gov. wants to give them money for faith-based initiatives. Sounds like a win-win for religious organizations to me. So, who wants to start the Apostles of RM?

 

[MudGrrl]

I'm an ordained minister..............

 

[jimmydean]

I think it's very creative. If they are noisy, then call the cops, but don't bitch because they found a way to get around a stupid use law.

 

[JRogers]

They are exempt from taxes and the gov. wants to give them money for faith-based initiatives. Sounds like a win-win for religious organizations to me. So, who wants to start the Apostles of RM?

Some of you seem to be under the impression that most churches are raking in money. A lot of congregations would crumble if they were taxed like corporations. And as much as you might condemn them, many churches do a lot of good community work and function essentially like many other non-profits. Asset-rich megachurches etc. make up a small percentage of the overall numbers. I just have a hard time thinking about some of the churches I've seen that are scraping by and have constant worries about money (in spite of careful planning and spending) but do good work in the community- taxing them to the point of extinction or extreme hardship seems unfair and unjust.

And if religious groups are taxed, then should non-profit organizations be taxed? Should colleges and universities be taxed? If your answer is yes, then think about the implications of that and how it would affect the level of services those organizations provide. It makes no sense at a practical level.

Of course, tax exempt status can and has been abused. But, for the most part, I think that the organizations that have this status try to be good neighbors and not abuse the privelege. In any case, the zoning laws in this instance are completely stupid.


On a different subject, I'm not sure where to draw the line on what is and is not a religious organization. There has to be some kind of line, but I am hesitant to leave it up to judges to decide what is and is not a "legitimate" religious organization.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm an ordained minister..............

Praise and Read Between the Lines to YOU!!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Some of you seem to be under the impression that most churches are raking in money. A lot of congregations would crumble if they were taxed like corporations. And as much as you might condemn them, many churches do a lot of good community work and function essentially like many other non-profits. Asset-rich megachurches etc. make up a small percentage of the overall numbers. I just have a hard time thinking about some of the churches I've seen that are scraping by and have constant worries about money (in spite of careful planning and spending) but do good work in the community- taxing them to the point of extinction or extreme hardship seems unfair and unjust.

And if religious groups are taxed, then should non-profit organizations be taxed? Should colleges and universities be taxed? If your answer is yes, then think about the implications of that and how it would affect the level of services those organizations provide. It makes no sense at a practical level.

Of course, tax exempt status can and has been abused. But, for the most part, I think that the organizations that have this status try to be good neighbors and not abuse the privelege. In any case, the zoning laws in this instance are completely stupid.


On a different subject, I'm not sure where to draw the line on what is and is not a religious organization. There has to be some kind of line, but I am hesitant to leave it up to judges to decide what is and is not a "legitimate" religious organization.

No, I don't think most churches are rolling in money. Many smaller churches do, however, belong to many larger networks of churches that are. While the local LDS church or Catholic church might not be rich, the larger LDS and Catholic organizations are most assuredly rich. LDS, for instance, owns many secular tv stations, hotels, etc. Their financial gains from those ventures most assuredly should be taxed if they aren't already (and that is not singular to LDS.) The smaller churches' tax burden should be part of the larger organization's holdings. If a company has two offices, those 2 offices are taxed as one entity.

As for the non-profit part of things, that's a good question. Do churches really operate as non-profit orgs? I highly doubt it.

As for the good they do, if that is their decision, go for it. But, it invariably comes with either an explicit or an implicit call to their religion, which should not be financed with my tax dollars. Period.

 

[rockwool]

 

[JRogers]

No, I don't think most churches are rolling in money. Many smaller churches do, however, belong to many larger networks of churches that are. While the local LDS church or Catholic church might not be rich, the larger LDS and Catholic organizations are most assuredly rich. LDS, for instance, owns many secular tv stations, hotels, etc. Their financial gains from those ventures most assuredly should be taxed if they aren't already (and that is not singular to LDS.) The smaller churches' tax burden should be part of the larger organization's holdings. If a company has two offices, those 2 offices are taxed as one entity.

As for the non-profit part of things, that's a good question. Do churches really operate as non-profit orgs? I highly doubt it.

As for the good they do, if that is their decision, go for it. But, it invariably comes with either an explicit or an implicit call to their religion, which should not be financed with my tax dollars. Period.

Point taken.

But here's where we differ: how do churches not function as non-profit organizations? What qualifications do they not meet?

Non-profit organizations have social and political agendas, they often have a lot of money, they sell things, they buy things...there are quite a few non-profits out there that are not far from corporations.

And we have discussed the explicit or implicit call to religion from outreach activities before and not gotten far...all I can say is that I think most people with experience in church outreach type of activities will say that the religious character of them very subdued and often entirely absent.

Is a religious organization doing work in the community any different from one with social or political goals?



[just for the record, I do sometimes attend church and I teach Sunday school, but I do not consider myself a member of any church and I do not accept the religious creeds or doctrines of any church at all]

 

[Secret Squirrel]

[just for the record, I do sometimes attend church and I teach Sunday school, but I do not consider myself a member of any church and I do not accept the religious creeds or doctrines of any church at all]

So you're pretty much the epitomy of the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality....good show, sir...good show. :biggrin:

 

[JohnE]

How can you teach Sunday school if you "do not accept the religious creeds or doctrines of any church"? Explain...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

But here's where we differ: how do churches not function as non-profit organizations? What qualifications do they not meet?

Non-profit organizations have social and political agendas, they often have a lot of money, they sell things, they buy things...there are quite a few non-profits out there that are not far from corporations.

Can non-profits incorporate? If not, then churches are not non-profit. One of the ballot initiatives we had in VA this election cycle was whether to strike from the State Constitution wording that prohibits churches from incorporating. The reason it was on the ballot was because the Supreme Court had already ruled that it was unconstitutional (The US Constitution). So, we know that churches can incorporate, and probably do since the case did come up. I'm not up on my non-profit law by any stretch, so maybe I'm way off base here. If you know more, please let me know.

And we have discussed the explicit or implicit call to religion from outreach activities before and not gotten far...all I can say is that I think most people with experience in church outreach type of activities will say that the religious character of them very subdued and often entirely absent.

Yes, we have. In a society where people are pretty much inundated with religion and especially Xtianity from a pretty early age, most people probably wouldn't notice it, so I think you are right about that. Perhaps I'm being too idealistic.

Is a religious organization doing work in the community any different from one with social or political goals?

Most assuredly yes. Especially if my tax money is being used.

[just for the record, I do sometimes attend church and I teach Sunday school, but I do not consider myself a member of any church and I do not accept the religious creeds or doctrines of any church at all]

No disclaimers needed. Your arguments stand on their own merits, regardless of how you conduct your personal life.

BTW, I used to know a J Rogers. You wouldn't happen to have attended a small private school in IN did you?

 

[JRogers]

BTW, I used to know a J Rogers. You wouldn't happen to have attended a small private school in IN did you?

Sorry, not me!

I don't really know much about the laws, so I can't comment on that. Some of what I am arguing is based on principle and some on personal experience. To clarify the second part- in my experience, some non-profits are basically regular ol' companies with certain objectives and priveleges. Look at the College Board (SAT people) for example. They have tons of money, a large structure, lots of people, etc. But they are non-profit.

And, yes, our society is inundated with Christian symbol, allusion and history at many levels. No escaping that. But in my personal experience, a lot of the outreach activities that churches engage in (sending volunteers to soup kitchens, visiting nursing homes, giving school supplies to kids...) were completely non-religious in nature, but provided a valuable service to the community. The only way someone would even be able to tell it was a religious organization that was running the program or helping out would be by asking around. There was no test of faith before someone got help, no preaching, no prayers, no symbols and no pleas for credit or publicity. This is not always the case, but it is many times. Are we going to tax an organization for doing that? Doesn't seem right.


On a different note, explain to me how a religious organization getting a certain status is so different from a social or political group? Say, a gay rights group or foundation- they may promote a goal that you have no interest in ever supporting (just an example!), that you may even despise, but they can gain non-profit status. Does this bother you?

And (this is not a pointed question) when you say "using my tax dollars", what are you referring to? The fact that they do not pay for municipal services?

 

[Silver]

And (this is not a pointed question) when you say "using my tax dollars", what are you referring to? The fact that they do not pay for municipal services?

Faith based initiatives baby!

Non-religious non-profits can't get away with firing a gay person. Religious ones can (eg. Ted Haggard) There's also a whole different set of regulations that you get to sidestep as soon as you are "religious". Back to the original point, these drunk rich frat boys have as good a claim to it as the Catholic Church, for example...I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that the frat kids haven't covered up systematic pederasty, for example. Who are you to judge? :biggrin:

 

[JRogers]

How can you teach Sunday school if you "do not accept the religious creeds or doctrines of any church"? Explain...

Pretty easily. I comment on the history, the literature, the moral messages- those sorts of things. But I do not say "Jesus is your Lord and Savior" or "There is a God and you must worship him" etc.

For example, last week I had to teach about Isaiah...I talked for quite a while about where he fits into Jewish history... A few weeks ago, I needed to teach them about Amos, so I tried to make the thrust of the lesson that Amos was telling us to respect the poor, be kind to each other and treat everyone well. I might have even made the specific point that these were not really religious acts in the conventional sense, but just things you did all the time, every day in the normal world.

Honestly, I mostly do it as a favor to people I know in the church- they were short of volunteers this year. When I don't have to teach, there's a pretty good chance I just don't go.


On a side note, I am sending out applications now to MA and PhD programs in religious studies.

 

[skinny mike]

i would be a bad sunday school teacher. just for kicks i'd get the kids to start chanting "hail satan!" as they were leaving to see their parents' reaction. ultra-religious people are funny.

 

[JohnE]

Pretty easily. I comment on the history, the literature, the moral messages- those sorts of things. But I do not say "Jesus is your Lord and Savior" or "There is a God and you must worship him" etc.

For example, last week I had to teach about Isaiah...I talked for quite a while about where he fits into Jewish history... A few weeks ago, I needed to teach them about Amos, so I tried to make the thrust of the lesson that Amos was telling us to respect the poor, be kind to each other and treat everyone well. I might have even made the specific point that these were not really religious acts in the conventional sense, but just things you did all the time, every day in the normal world.

Honestly, I mostly do it as a favor to people I know in the church- they were short of volunteers this year. When I don't have to teach, there's a pretty good chance I just don't go.


On a side note, I am sending out applications now to MA and PhD programs in religious studies.

I see, but isnt that kind of like being a computer guy who doesnt own a computer? Or a auto mechanic who cant drive? A bald barber, skinny cook or dentist with bad teeth? Does the message hit home, or is it empty?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Sorry, not me!

I figured it wasn't, but thought I'd ask on the off-chance.

I don't really know much about the laws, so I can't comment on that. Some of what I am arguing is based on principle and some on personal experience. To clarify the second part- in my experience, some non-profits are basically regular ol' companies with certain objectives and priveleges. Look at the College Board (SAT people) for example. They have tons of money, a large structure, lots of people, etc. But they are non-profit.

I'll look into it when I get a chance and maybe we can figure it out.

And, yes, our society is inundated with Christian symbol, allusion and history at many levels. No escaping that. But in my personal experience, a lot of the outreach activities that churches engage in (sending volunteers to soup kitchens, visiting nursing homes, giving school supplies to kids...) were completely non-religious in nature, but provided a valuable service to the community. The only way someone would even be able to tell it was a religious organization that was running the program or helping out would be by asking around. There was no test of faith before someone got help, no preaching, no prayers, no symbols and no pleas for credit or publicity. This is not always the case, but it is many times. Are we going to tax an organization for doing that? Doesn't seem right.

On a different note, explain to me how a religious organization getting a certain status is so different from a social or political group? Say, a gay rights group or foundation- they may promote a goal that you have no interest in ever supporting (just an example!), that you may even despise, but they can gain non-profit status. Does this bother you?

And (this is not a pointed question) when you say "using my tax dollars", what are you referring to? The fact that they do not pay for municipal services?

Silver already addressed this pretty well. I would add that giving money to church organizations violates the separation of church and state. Sure, we all have some tax dollars that allow for groups that we dislike to meet, assemble, etc. Having one group advocate for its cause seems on its face to be no different from having a church group advocate for its cause. The difference, however, comes from the First Amendment. It was thought sufficiently important to allow us to worship as we please that we set up safeguards against this sort of thing in regards to religious worship and proselytizing.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I found a pretty good site that goes over non-profit orgs.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf

The way the rules are written, churches are basically by default listed as non-profit. Although I don't object to that outright, I do think that churches should have to follow the rules that other orgs have to follow in order to maintain that status. IOW, I'm fine with churches not paying taxes, so long as they actually maintain the same standards as others have to in order to remain non-profit under the law.

 

[urbaindk]

Pretty easily. I comment on the history, the literature, the moral messages- those sorts of things. But I do not say "Jesus is your Lord and Savior" or "There is a God and you must worship him" etc.

.

You pretty much just summed up my religious philosophy as well...

 

[JRogers]

I see, but isnt that kind of like being a computer guy who doesnt own a computer? Or a auto mechanic who cant drive? A bald barber, skinny cook or dentist with bad teeth? Does the message hit home, or is it empty?

Maybe...but, then again, it depends on goals. My goal is to keep the kids in line, spark their interest and present some facts. I feel like I can do that ably and with enthusiasm, but without telling them what to believe when it comes to matters of faith. This really isn't all that far off from how most of the classes are run...northeast liberal upper-middle class Episcopal churches aren't exactly known for their religious fervor...

You do bring up a good point, though. How can one talk about Christian religion without discussing its cornerstone- personal faith? There's really no good answer. In a certain way, this is a fundamental problem with the academic study of religion.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

An update. Apparently the local gov. didn't go for their idea...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201924.html

 

[Reactor]

An update. Apparently the local gov. didn't go for their idea...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201924.html

Firefox ate my long and piithy reponse. arrg.

Bottom line is neither the town nor the students have a leg to stand on. The town doesn't define what a church or legitimte religion is and is de facto sponsering religion by giving them an exemption from zoning laws. While the students are clearly trying to exploit the loopole, and know what they are doing is wrong.

The proper resolution would be to remove the zoning exemption for churches and make everyone play by the same rules.