J
JHow
Guest
How generous of the state to let us worship in private, unmolested.
- Status
H
holyrood
Guest
Very much like saying, in years past, “Has any state legalized abortion? If not, then what makes anyone think that will happen?”
Or, “Has anyone made you pay for contraception? If not, then what makes anyone think that will happen?”
We’ve been told every single step of the way, “We only want this one tiny little thing, that’s it–you’re CRAZY to say we’d ask for any more.” Then the ink is literally not even dry on giving that one tiny little thing before the demands begin for exactly what we were told nobody would EVER EVER EVER ask for.
Are you unaware there are already people calling for taking away tax exempt status? Already beginning to push for it?
C
CarolNoel
Guest
Great answer.
M
mek42
Guest
Yes, it is very generous. Be thankful and appreciative that this was one of the principles that motivated the founding fathers our country. The OP, being about the religion of the State in the UK, should be a very interesting story to follow.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I used to be more tolerant of gay people. But things like this just make me sick and less tolerant.
J
JHow
Guest
Don’t do irony much?
M
mek42
Guest
Have you been to a Mass in Saudi Arabia recently? Field services on foreign military bases don’t count.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Why are they asking that it be taken away? As far as I know, it’s because provisions of the tax code regulating tax-exempt status are allegedly being violated – specifically the rules prohibiting certain political activities. Again, as far as I know, there’s only one way that churches can lose their tax exemptions – and that’s by violating tax-code provisions. It’s important to note here that even when there have been apparent violations of the tax code provisions, the IRS has done virtually nothing about them, claiming it lacks the resources to even investigate the complaints. (Source) So, if the IRS can’t even investigate blatant violations of the tax provisions, how on Earth is it going to investigate whether or not churches are refusing to perform SSMs? Most importantly, even if the IRS did investigate and find that churches were refusing to perform SSMs, how could it punish the churches for something that’s not even illegal?
For the sake of discussion, let’s say the government somehow takes away the churches’ existing exemptions from civil rights laws – thereby making refusal to perform SSMs illegal – and then uses the tax code to punish those that don’t comply. We’ll then have some churches that will lose their tax exemption for doctrinal reasons and some that won’t – since not all churches will refuse to perform SSMs. At that point, it seems to me, that we’ll then have what appears to constitute a violation of the 1st Amendment by favoring religions that perform SSMs over those which do not – and we open yet another can of constitutional worms.
If someone wants to make a credible case that churches will lose their tax-exempt status for not performing SSMs, it seems they’ll have to explain how that gets accomplished in view of all of the above.
A
ahs
Guest
L
ltwin
Guest
Yep. Litigation may be meritless, but it can still ruin an organization financially. In addition, while I don’t think the US will ever get to the point of mandating that religions perform and recognize gay marriages, I do think it very possible that ministries and other institutions belonging to churches will have to recognize them if they want to receive government tax breaks.
For example, Christian schools and universities may not be allowed to discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of sexual orientation (even if the denomination teaches against active homosexuality). This of course would be untenable in the long term. How can theological integrity be maintained if churches and affiliated institutions are not given complete freedom to choose all its ministers, educators, and staff?
This will only result in more lawsuits that church-affiliated institutions may potentially lose.
Yes. It is my understanding that because it is a state church, the CofE is supposed to be open to all English people. So, while they are theoretically protected from having to recognize gay marriages, they may be forced, sooner or later, to accept them on the basis of being a state church that is open to all English people regardless of sexual orientation.
No. The Queen is the Governor of the Church, but she doesn’t have an active role in decision making. The General Synod makes church policy, not the Queen.
Royal Assent is automatic once Parliament has passed legislation. The Queen must assent to legislation. As a constitutional monarch, the Queen does not have an active role in government or politics.
Hmmm. There was a time when we thought the Constitution was pretty clear regarding forcing someone to buy something against their will, or requiring a Church to provide abortion and contraception services in their health insurance plans against their moral teachings.
I don’t believe that we can, in this era, depend on anything were thought the Constitution was clear on, particularly in the area of the first, second, and fourth amendments (the ninth and tenth are long-since dead)
Jon
B
bjh13
Guest
I’m not here to have political debates about requiring people to have health insurance. The issue has been so politicized that people on both sides look only at the extremes and refuse to look at the reality regarding the issue.
This will probably come down to the courts. It is a bit more of a gray area, as the current regulation requires that the insurance companies cover contraceptives rather than the Churches and their affiliated organizations.
I disagree, especially regarding this issue. The Church has never been forced to perform religious rites before. If religious organizations can’t be forced to perform interracial marriages or recognize divorce.
Either way, it really comes down to the fact that this isn’t an issue yet, and whether you and I think it will be in the future there is little we can do about it until it does become an issue. The first amendment is there to protect the Church, and the judicial branch is in place to make sure those protections stay there.
P
ProdigalSun
Guest
From what i hear and read and witness from Obama. I dont think he would think twice about amending your constitution. As a matter of fact he has been lininig up states for a major constitution conflab.
peace!
israpundit.com/2008/?p=6377
peace!
israpundit.com/2008/?p=6377
J
jimmy
Guest
That article is five years old and irrelevant.From what i hear and read and witness from Obama. I dont think he would think twice about amending your constitution. As a matter of fact he has been lininig up states for a major constitution conflab.
peace!
israpundit.com/2008/?p=6377
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for not admitting students who were in interracial relationships/advocates of interracial marriage.
Thanks for the info on the CoE and the constitutional monarchy. (I had thought that she had to give Royal assent, but wasn’t sure about the Queen’s role in the CoE).
- Status