Individuals endangering others by exercising their faith

thirsty

 

Yeah, I had to look up the word "athirst".

I guess typo started here.

 

No: If the government decided to "recognize" one or more religions (especially if they included different "kinds" of religions, e.g., Muslim as well as Christian), that would not be an "establishment" of religion. The UK has an "Established Religion," the Church of England: the monarch is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and is the "secular head" of that church, although what that means in practice I am not sure. Until a few years ago the Lutheran Church was "established" in Norway, with clergy being government employees, and bishops complaining that they could not get rid of heretical clergy without the permission of some government official who may not even have been a Lutheran. I could go on.

 

You need to update Wikipedia then.
"State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.
....
The degree and nature of state backing for denomination or creed designated as a state religion can vary. It can range from mere endorsement (with or without financial support) with freedom for other faiths to practice, to prohibiting any competing religious body from operating and to persecuting the followers of other sects."
State religion - Wikipedia

 

Yeah, I was banking off that post.

 

I liked the original. Having just come inside from working outside in the newly dry weather, I was very definitely athirst. A quenching beverage was necessary.

 

For long time I've often thought people hurry very quickly over the 'respecting' in that clause, in haste to say something about 'establishment'. To see what I mean, just start typing a Google search on the phrase, and this will pop up as a common search:

What does it mean to respect an establishment of religion

... which shows a lot of people are reading that 'respecting' as if it were the verb in its modern sense (are you respecting me, or dissing me?).

Of course the verb in the clause is 'make' (Congress shall make no law ...), and the kind of law that Congress shall not make is any law respecting an establishment of religion. And today's English rarely uses 'respecting' that way anymore. Lawyers still do, sometimes, and mathematicians still say "with respect to" pretty often, which means the same thing, that is, pertaining to or concerning. ('nother thread on that)

So the clause isn't saying "hey, Congress, you don't get to establish a religion", it's saying "you don't get to make any law that pertains to a religion (never mind who established it)."

Scientology isn't a state religion of any kind (it was established by L. Ron Hubbard, who isn't .gov). But Congress doesn't get to make any law saying Scientology is a good thing, or that it's a bad thing, or that its adherents need to drive on the other side of the road. Congress doesn't get to make a law telling Scientologists to shelter at home.

But Congress can make a law telling everybody to shelter at home, if the reasons are independent of religion, even though 'everybody' includes Scientologists, and even if Scientologists would rather not.

 

it only matters how the supreme court interprets it, at any point in time.

 

I almost always find your reasoning to be superb, but in this case, I have to respectfully disagree -- at least in part. Because of the balance of power established in our constitution, if the executive or judicial branch did such a thing, the other two branches can and should over rule it. Unfortunately, our so-called leaders have not done a very good job of this for a long long time. So I suppose it is not as absurd a thought as it was when we first escaped rule by the Church of England.

Unfortunately, that clause gets used to prohibit the government from engaging in cooperative efforts with various faiths even though its purpose seems to me to be the prevention of favoritism by the government of one faith over any others.

But I wholeheartedly agree that the church and state must not get mingled as they were in England, Norway, and so on. Jesus made a clear distinction between government authority and our personal allegiance to Him. (Matthew 22:21) Paul elaborated on that in Romans 13.

Yes. "respect to" is completely different from "respect for."

 

It had never occurred to me that anyone would take the term "respecting" to mean other than "concerning," "in regard to," or something like that. But now that I think about it, that is a two-edged sword: that part of the First Amendment, read in the historical context, where some States already had an "Established Religion," prohibits Congress from passing any laws overturning the "Established Religion" of any of those States.

 

The examples of the UK and Norway were simply particular forms of an "Established Church"; the relationship does not have to be that close.

 

But it would have been a matter for the States in question -- their voters and legislatures.

 

And a state or nation having an "Established Religion" does not *necessarily* mean that no other religion is permitted. The UK, I know, has Roman Catholic, and Baptist, and Pentecostal, and Presbyterian, and Orthodox churches, not to mention the new I've-read-the-Bible-and-I'm-the-first-person-to-have-understood-it churches; and there are synagogues and mosques. Norway has many churches other than Lutheran, plus Muslims and Hindus and...

 

This applied not just to 'establishment of religion', it applied to the entire Bill of Rights. The BoR limited only the federal government, no the state and local governments. These lower levels frequently passed laws restricting or limiting various 'rights' that the feds could not similarly restrict.

Only in the 20th Century did the Supreme Court start use the 14th and 15th Amendments to start extending the BoR to apply to state and local governments too, in a process call Incorporation of the BoR. And this has been done selectively, piecemeal, one clause or phrase at a time, starting with part of the First Amendment. And this process has continued into the 21st Century, mostly recently with the Second Amendment in 2010. And several pieces remain unincorporated.

 

That was exactly my point. The Amendment concerns laws in relation to establishing a religion, and only Congress can write laws. So while the Amendment has no direct connection the separation phrase, it's implementation results in it.

Unfortunate, though I think the Court recently sided with a church over use of a state program giving a grant for a playground or other obvious non-religious use.

A potential problem I see, though I admit being ignorant on the details, is with the accounting. Tax-exempt institutions have to keep detailed paperwork of their finances to maintain that status. Do churches have to maintain the same level of clarity with their paperwork, or are they murky enough that government funds given for a non-religious purpose end up going to a religious one? it is the issue some have with Planned Parenthood, but PP has the accounting showing that the federal funding they get isn't going to where it shouldn't.

Another concern is with church workers on any such jointed project with a government is in them proselytizing.

IIRC, the separation of church and state phrase came from one of Thomas Jeffereson's letters to someone concerned the government would get into their church's business.

The relationship can just be the government stating that X is our state religion, and nothing more. It seems minor, but it is the government showing one religion favor over another.

 

The IRS is relatively relaxed with churches compared to parachurch organizations such as the missionary organization where I serve. For example, form 990 is absolute torture. I'd guess that our mission's accountant spends close to 10% of her hours working on gathering data for that. But churches don't need to do a 990. On top of that, the mission has rigorous reporting to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) so we can keep that seal of approval. If the government was to get financially involved with either churches or parachurch groups, I can't begin to imagine the reporting burden that would generate. And the restrictions the government would impose in order to keep the money coming. Nope. I don't think I would want the government's so-called help.

I've never been part of a church that had a school. Churches that I know of that have schools don't get income from them afaik. The financial potential might come from parents who decide to attend that church because of the affiliation, but that's a pretty small impact.

 

At the small end of the spectrum, I've been treasurer of a 501(c)(3) choral group for a while.

If your annual budget is under 50 grand, your "form 990" is a web page you visit once a year and say "yes, we're still here, this is our contact info, and our budget's still under 50 grand." Pretty painless.

 

My church is a 501(c)(3) just like PITA, the NRA, and some others.
Unlike some others we are NOT also a line item in the federal budget. (lookin at YOU Public Radio...and PP)

I lean decidedly away from most of my brothers and sisters in that I would be delighted if churches were no longer tax exempt.
If you take dot.gov's shilling.....
My CFO and I converted our contributions to cash a while back since for me personally (speaking ONLY for myself!) the conversion of coins from "taxable" to "tax deduction" was a little too close to another historical currency conversion for me personally.

My "9/11' moment for dot.gov being able to close down a church pretty much at will came when my humble 110 year old church built a larger sanctuary (for a little more than the median cost of a house in Caly)
Watching our building committee dance, grovel, and beg before our county building commission left me wondering how any new small businesses get started in this country....AND WE'RE IN THE COUNTY!

I have no problem with compliance.
We probably average 250 folks on a Sunday service, and they need to do so safely and our books need to be (and ARE!) open to microscopic inspection.
Anybody who thinks that churches stand immune from dot.gov's regulatory powers probably doesn't go to church very much.

Like I said.....I think that removing churches from tax exempt status would unshackle us more than cripple us.
YMMV
I understand that some of the people out on the sharp end of the stick rely on cooperate donors who themselves are looking for tax relief.
'tis an ill wind.....

My usta-church (think: FBC) spun off a "Christian Academy" a few years back, and they've been growing like kudzu. They will reach their goal of being a K-12 well before their 'plank owner' class graduates.
Although this school was started by a church they have always been a completely separate entity.
Every now and then the subject of vouchers will come up, but there's nearly universal agreement that they would only serve as a means for the camel to get its nose inside the tent flap.

If you take the king's shilling.....

 

All good points! This one, is essentially already done from the perspective of donors. With the new standard deduction on my tax form, I'd have to donate a HUGE chunk of my income to be able to itemize. But being able to reduce my tax bill by a small percentage of what I give was never a giving motive anyway.