Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2012, 11:12 AM  
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Same sex marriage, social conservatives, and the future

This article is written by a social conservative who recognizes that same sex marriage (SSM) is inevitable and who recognizes dangers for those who value religious freedom if social conservatives don't find a way to make peace with that reality.

SSM, Social Conservatives, & The Future

By ROD DREHER • November 8, 2012, 12:27 PM

After the 2008 election, I wrote a Dallas Morning News column (now behind the paywall) in which I contended that social and religious conservatives had lost the argument over same-sex marriage, and that we would be smarter to retreat behind defensible borders.

By that I meant the following:

1) We should understand that this was not an argument we were going to win, in part because the elites, especially in the media, were dead-set against us, but mostly because SSM makes sense given how most people today, especially younger Americans, think about marriage and sexuality. In short, they believe marriage and sexuality has no intrinsic value, that it only has expressive value. In other words, sex and marriage are seen primarily, and perhaps entirely, as an expression of emotions partners have for one another.

For traditionalists — and remember that this was virtually everybody until very, very recently — it’s not that same-sex couples do not and cannot love each other; obviously they can, and do. It’s that their love cannot be marriage, in the same way the mail carrier cannot be Napoleon. It’s possible to explain this, and it has been explained by smart trads, but by this point, doing so is useless. If gay people did not exist, the culture would still have reached this conclusion about the meaning of sex and marriage. If it had not, we wouldn’t have the divorce culture. But because the culture has already accepted that this is what sex means, and this is what marriage means, it is perfectly logical that gay folks would want to participate in it, and that many people, especially those younger people raised post-Sexual Revolution, would see no rational basis for denying them.

On my most charitable days, I tell myself that this is why the cultural left, and even younger adults on the right, call trads “bigots”: because they cannot understand how anyone in his or her right mind could disagree with them. Therefore, disagreement can only be a sign of irrational prejudice and bad character.

Besides, even more consequential to this debate than the shift in sexual and marital mores, we have become a culture in which the pursuit of happiness is valued far more than the pursuit of virtue. Specifically, the pursuit of individual happiness is more important than the pursuit of communal virtue. This is what social conservatives have had to argue against, and it has been a losing proposition. Support for privileging traditional marriage is collapsing so quickly because the cultural revolution of the postwar period washed away the philosophical and psychological foundations for traditional marriage. The point I wanted my fellow social conservatives to grasp is that this is not a winnable argument.

2) The Republican Party is not going to do anything significant to protect traditional marriage. The high water mark of anti-SSM feeling was the 2004 election. In its aftermath, Sen. Rick Santorum and other social conservatives once again brought forth a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. It never made it out of the Senate, and despite campaigning on supporting it, and mild public statements supporting it, President Bush never really got behind it. If, in the wake of Bush’s re-election, with Republican control of both houses of Congress, this amendment couldn’t even make it out to the states for deliberation, because the GOP wouldn’t prioritize it — well, that was the handwriting on the wall. The Republicans were happy to run opposed to gay marriage, but when they had the only truly meaningful opportunity to stop it, they balked.

3) SSM opponents would do well to abandon the fight against SSM, and instead focus on the threat SSM poses to religious liberty — this, while there is still the prospect of energizing a majority of people to protect religious liberty.

Though it is repeatedly, even hysterically, denied by SSM proponents, SSM is a clear threat to religious liberty. It is virtually impossible to argue about this with SSM backers, because they insist religious liberty begins and ends with preachers being able to voice opposition to homosexuality, and having the right to refuse to marry gay couples in their houses of worship. This is a straw man, and always has been. The thing to read is this 2006 piece surveying prominent legal scholars, including some who favor SSM, explaining why there is an irresolvable clash between gay civil rights and religious liberty. Something’s got to give.

Nobody, least of all journalists, wants to hear it, but the clash is built into our legal framework. Marriage touches all kinds of laws. Anthony Picarello, general counsel of the Becket Fund For Religious Liberty (which defends religious liberty cases involving all religions) said of same-sex marriage:
“The impact will be severe and pervasive,” Picarello says flatly. “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don’t even notice that “the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.”
The truth of all this will be made apparent to everyone when SSM becomes constitutionalized, and religious organizations and religiously devout employers are compelled to offer benefits to their gay employees and their spouses, or face government sanction, including loss of tax-exempt status. For many churches, charities, and religious organizations operating on tiny financial margins, that tax-exempt status means the difference between existing and not existing.

I was not at the time, and still am not, a lawyer, but I wrote in 2008 that social conservatives ought to be putting their money, their strategizing, and their public activism behind building some kind of legal firewall to protect religious liberty once SSM becomes the law of the land. It was my guess that most Americans who favor SSM don’t want to punish churches and religious charities who disagree. We should appeal to them while they still exist.

(Incidentally, by no means do I believe this irenic view is held by all pro-SSM folks. For some, it is not enough that gay couples gain the right to marry; religious “bigots” must be made to suffer, as payback. You hear this week that conservatives could have had peace with the SSM movement if only they had granted civil unions a few years ago, but they refused. Anybody who believes that revisionist nonsense need only look at California, where gay couples had civil unions, and all the legal benefits of marriage, without calling it marriage. That wasn’t good enough. They wanted it all, because to deny it all would be to give some quarter to Bigotry, and we can’t have that.)

The bottom line is that we are fast reaching a place in which before the law, churches that adhere to traditional religious teaching on homosexuality in practice will have the same status under federal civil rights laws as racist churches. Religious conservatives may argue that discrimination against homosexuals is not the same thing as racial discrimination, because there is, in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic teaching, a moral aspect to sexual behavior that is not present in race — they can argue this, and they would be correct, but nobody cares, because the culture in general is coming to accept that there is no particular moral status inherent in homosexual behavior. Nor, for that matter, in most heterosexual behavior.

This is what it means to live in a post-Christian culture. We may wail and moan and gnash our teeth, but we had better get used to it.



In short, I argued in 2008 that social conservatives ought to take sober stock of the battlefield, and use the time we had to carve out some living space for ourselves in the America that was fast coming into being. For this, Maggie Gallagher, who really has been brave and tireless in fighting for traditional marriage, called me a defeatist. I can understand why she felt that way at the time, but what she called defeatism looks today, in 2012, like realism. For the first time ever, three states have legalized same-sex marriage. This is the wave of the future. The people who most strongly oppose SSM are literally dying off. Social conservatives like to tell ourselves that young people will become more socially conservative as they get older, and maybe that’s true. But I see no reason to believe that they will change their mind on same-sex marriage, even if they become more socially conservative in their habits. The fact is, gay marriage is becoming a normal part of bourgeois life. If young people do get more socially conservative as they age, that will likely express itself not in an embrace of traditional views on marriage, but rather in a sense that their gay friends really ought to settle down and marry their partner and lead a more stable, respectable life.

What does this mean going forward? Religious and social conservatives cannot abandon what we believe to be true. What we can do — what we must do — is stop trying to turn back a tide that started rushing in half a century ago, and instead figure out how to ride it without being swamped or drowned by it. Our best legal minds need to figure out the best possible, and best possible, legal protections for religious liberty in the coming environment. Our most able socially conservative politicians need to start talking all the time about religious liberty in relation to same-sex marriage, and not in an alarmist way (“We’ve got to stop gay marriage before they destroy our churches!”) but in a sober, realistic way that opens the door to possible political compromise with Democrats of good will.

It may already be too late for that. Any attempt by moderate Democrats to compromise on religious liberty will be denounced by many liberals as selling out to bigotry. And for all I know, it really will be impossible, under the US constitutional framework, to carve out meaningful exceptions for religious liberty within civil rights law.

But we have to try. What else is there? Republicans can’t join the SSM crusade without alienating us social conservatives, who constitute a huge portion of their base. Choosing to remain silent on the issue is cowardly and stupid, if only because it allows the liberal, pro-gay narrative that all we are is troglodytic bigots to go unchallenged. Now is the time for creative reappraisal of our position, and the most prudent way to advocate for our interests within a changed, and rapidly changing, political and social context.

There are practical political benefits from this exercise too, benefits that go beyond the SSM issue. I fear that strong socially conservative Republican leaders like Bobby Jindal, my own governor, may be fatally compromised at the national level precisely because they have been so strong on the gay marriage issue. If Republicans like Jindal spend the next few years thinking and talking about the issue in terms of religious liberty, and in terms of the need to find a live-and-let-live compromise that maximizes religious liberty within a marriage-law culture that accepts SSM, then this might neutralize the issue as something that can be used against them. To be clear, I’m not talking about Republican pols adopting this strategy as a cosmetic approach; they would have to be sincere, because I see no realistic possibility that the country is going to come around to the socially conservative position on same-sex marriage.

To put it another way, at the political level, social conservatives are going to have to start thinking and talking about gay marriage in a libertarian way. As a general matter, the way you succeed in American politics is by framing issues in terms of expanding liberty. This is not how conservative traditionalists (versus libertarians) think, but if we are going to protect our churches and religious institutions, we are going to have to start approaching SSM in this way. This is not a matter of sleight of hand; it really is true. The expansion of gay civil rights inevitably means a retraction of religious liberty rights for tens of millions of Americans who belong to and practice traditional Abrahamic religion. The media doesn’t talk about this, for obvious reasons, but there’s no reason why Republican politicians shouldn’t talk about it. Highlight the illiberality of SSM proponents who demand that religious folks give up a significant degree of their liberties. The dominant narrative — the only narrative — in American public discourse today is that gay people only want the same liberties that others have, and that conservatives, especially religious conservatives, want to deny them liberty. Republican politicians must start talking about the other side of the liberty story, and position themselves as being the more liberty-minded, in that they are willing to forge a strong and meaningful compromise. Even if that compromise proves elusive, at least it will change the image of conservative Republicans as implacably opposed to SSM, by shifting them to a position of conditional acceptance. We social conservatives don’t have to like SSM, but we are fooling ourselves if we don’t recognize that it is inevitable in post-Christian America, and we had better figure out the best possible arrangement to protect ourselves and our institutions while there is still time.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 08:24 AM   #151
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
It's pretty straightforward, and it's an easy line to draw. Employees of a business run by a church aren't part of that church. Church officials are part of that church. It is actually quite simple.
No, it's not. It's easy for you to decide where you draw the line, but that line is somewhat arbitrary and, IMO, overly restrictive.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 08:28 AM   #152
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Diddy View Post
If you are a libertarian then I am the reincarnation of Abe Lincoln.
How was the play?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 08:50 AM   #153
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco View Post
Huh?
Tax law. Churches risk losing their tax exempt status when they allow themselves to become political entities.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 28,402
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 08:55 AM   #154
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
No, it's not. It's easy for you to decide where you draw the line, but that line is somewhat arbitrary and, IMO, overly restrictive.
Yes it is. I didn't draw the line. The US Constitution did. It's a clear line and has to be respected by both the State and the Church.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 28,402
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 09:18 AM   #155
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
Yes it is. I didn't draw the line. The US Constitution did. It's a clear line and has to be respected by both the State and the Church.
When the US constitution was written and ratified (including the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), there was no expectation that private employers would be prevented from discriminating even on the basis of race, ethnicity, and religion. That's a more modern development that may well be a good one, but it comes from a line of thinking that is in direct conflict with the idea of freedom that inspired our constitution in the first place. The change should have required an amendment.

So, no, our constitution doesn't draw that line and it's not clear within the four corners of the document.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 09:47 AM   #156
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
When the US constitution was written and ratified (including the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), there was no expectation that private employers would be prevented from discriminating even on the basis of race, ethnicity, and religion. That's a more modern development that may well be a good one, but it comes from a line of thinking that is in direct conflict with the idea of freedom that inspired our constitution in the first place. The change should have required an amendment.

So, no, our constitution doesn't draw that line and it's not clear within the four corners of the document.
It goes to the first amendment. Jefferson referred to it in his famous letter. As a society we have to allow "the Church" to operate without interference from "the State", and "the State" must not be influenced by "the Church." Things like performing religious ceremonies, choices about who does and does not get ordained or financial decisions involving member donations are off limits to "the State."

But, by that very same token, "the Church" isn't allowed to carry it's doctrine or its dogma out into the secular world. They aren't allowed to compel others to change their behavior. Religious beliefs are not allowed to be written into law. Of course we can vote against SSM. If we want to vote it down because we think it's an abomination before God we are free to do so. It doesn't matter why we vote the way we do in the eyes of the law. The problem is that the law has to stand on its own merit. Their must be a legitimate reason for that law to exist other than "God said so" or it will be, and should be, struck down.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 28,402
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 10:26 AM   #157
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is offline
The Bitch is back
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $10014
If gays wanted equal rights (legal, financial), civil unions would suffice. But that's not what it's about and never has been, although they've used that as their "trojan horse" to goad the public into what they r-e-a-l-l-y want: full acceptance of the gay lifestyle.


That's it in a nutshell. It's true, and it is undeniable.
Posts: 13,874
Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 11:15 AM   #158
jidar jidar is offline
MVP
 
jidar's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: a
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock View Post
"countless"
It's countless because it's 0.
Posts: 5,502
jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 11:19 AM   #159
jidar jidar is offline
MVP
 
jidar's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: a
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
If gays wanted equal rights (legal, financial), civil unions would suffice. But that's not what it's about and never has been, although they've used that as their "trojan horse" to goad the public into what they r-e-a-l-l-y want: full acceptance of the gay lifestyle.


That's it in a nutshell. It's true, and it is undeniable.
Right, it's about more than the legal ramifications, they want acceptance and equality. I think that's pretty clear.

The people who don't want SSM don't want to accept them.

Those are all the cards laid out on the table. We can see where reasonable people stand and where the bigots stand.
Posts: 5,502
jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.jidar is not part of the Right 53.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 11:48 AM   #160
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
It goes to the first amendment. Jefferson referred to it in his famous letter. As a society we have to allow "the Church" to operate without interference from "the State", and "the State" must not be influenced by "the Church." Things like performing religious ceremonies, choices about who does and does not get ordained or financial decisions involving member donations are off limits to "the State."

But, by that very same token, "the Church" isn't allowed to carry it's doctrine or its dogma out into the secular world. They aren't allowed to compel others to change their behavior. Religious beliefs are not allowed to be written into law. Of course we can vote against SSM. If we want to vote it down because we think it's an abomination before God we are free to do so. It doesn't matter why we vote the way we do in the eyes of the law. The problem is that the law has to stand on its own merit. Their must be a legitimate reason for that law to exist other than "God said so" or it will be, and should be, struck down.
Can the state force a restaurant owned by a Jew to serve pork or withdraw from the restaurant business? What about the cafeteria of a Jewish school?

Religious practitioners don't just practice their religions on Sunday when they sit in the pew at church or when they're a functionary of the church organization. They practice their religion 24/7/365. The line between secular activities and religious practice isn't nearly as clear as you say it is.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 11:49 AM   #161
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jidar View Post
Right, it's about more than the legal ramifications, they want acceptance and equality. I think that's pretty clear.

The people who don't want SSM don't want to accept them.

Those are all the cards laid out on the table. We can see where reasonable people stand and where the bigots stand.
It's like you're playing a part to demonstrate what the author of the article is talking about.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 12:05 PM   #162
blaise blaise is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plano, TX
Casino cash: $440
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
Tax law. Churches risk losing their tax exempt status when they allow themselves to become political entities.
You mean all non profits that delve into politics or just churches? I'm not understanding why churches would be singled out.
Posts: 20,544
blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 02:10 PM   #163
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaise View Post
You mean all non profits that delve into politics or just churches? I'm not understanding why churches would be singled out.
Churches are specifically protected by the first amendment from a variety of legal actions.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 28,402
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 02:17 PM   #164
blaise blaise is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plano, TX
Casino cash: $440
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
Churches are specifically protected by the first amendment from a variety of legal actions.
Yeah, but you're just saying political involvement would cancel tax exempt status it sounds like. If that's the case why not all not for profits?
Posts: 20,544
blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.blaise is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 02:37 PM   #165
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaise View Post
Yeah, but you're just saying political involvement would cancel tax exempt status it sounds like. If that's the case why not all not for profits?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_organization
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 28,402
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:28 AM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.