Hey Jewish people, how was your weekend? Did you go to Jew Church and get very upset because you don't want President Obama to force your Jew Church to do gay weddings? OBVIOUSLY YOU DID. But don't worry anymore, because when he is president, Ted Cruz will shut all that down
This is what bugs me. By all standard measures he's incredibly intelligent and also well educated, so we're left trying to figure out if he's delusional, an extreme cynic, or maybe IQ ain't all it's cracked up to be. (That was an inclusive 'or'.)
Okay, that was a new one to me. I'll just grab my statistician hat and mention that 0.27 v. 0.28 is not significant; what's alarming is that's not even close to a full standard deviation below the mean (~0.6)*
*See in other alleged comments the usefulness of standard IQ tests.
I think Ted Cruz is one of them fknuts that will run for prez every four years hoping his ship will come in. Dream on scuz bucket no one wants your pincer eared ass.
There really are rules governing how much political action tax-exempt organizations can engage in, though, and they should be enforced.
It really has nothing to do with the free speech of individuals. My problem is with the idea of a "church" (as an entity) engaging in politics. The individuals active within the church or religion have all the rights everyone has to free speech, expression, and political activity, but they do not get an extra vote, greater influence, or more weight because they also belong to a particular religion or church.
If they want to lobby or organize, and speak out on issues, great...that's their right as citizens, and I'll cheer them on even when I disagree with them on the issue around which they organize. They're welcome to base their positions on their religious beliefs as much as they want, but their religion or church does not get to use its power and influence in the lives of its adherents to control the narrative or force doctrine into the law or public policy. It's not a clear line or an easy one to discern all the time, but there has to be a difference between individual action and a kind of "corporate" religious policy.
I've always seen the tax exemption as part of the bargain we strike with religions - a recognition that they operate within a different sphere of authority in their adherents' lives...a sphere that is not interfered with or controlled by the government. In return, they don't interfere or attempt to control citizens through the government. The price of that tax exemption is NON-representation in government.
Unfortunately, some churches (particularly) seem to expect that tax exemption with no rules attached. It seems to me that they're looking for hegemony, not expression, and I have a serious issue with that kind of entitlement and attempted control.
What was actually said in the Supreme Court oral argument:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I, I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.
Didn't you mean Molotov?
Let's a-go-go to Jew Church this Satursun.
This is what bugs me. By all standard measures he's incredibly intelligent and also well educated, so we're left trying to figure out if he's delusional, an extreme cynic, or maybe IQ ain't all it's cracked up to be. (That was an inclusive 'or'.)
Okay, that was a new one to me. I'll just grab my statistician hat and mention that 0.27 v. 0.28 is not significant; what's alarming is that's not even close to a full standard deviation below the mean (~0.6)*
*See in other alleged comments the usefulness of standard IQ tests.
Ted Cruz, a waste of DNA.
I think Ted Cruz is one of them fknuts that will run for prez every four years hoping his ship will come in. Dream on scuz bucket no one wants your pincer eared ass.
These two are perfect candidates for mental disorder research.
You mean like Huckabee and Santorum?
Exactly...
Like you said, YMMV. Just as you're entitled to not be bothered by it, I'm entitled to have the opposite feeling - and to express that.
There really are rules governing how much political action tax-exempt organizations can engage in, though, and they should be enforced.
It really has nothing to do with the free speech of individuals. My problem is with the idea of a "church" (as an entity) engaging in politics. The individuals active within the church or religion have all the rights everyone has to free speech, expression, and political activity, but they do not get an extra vote, greater influence, or more weight because they also belong to a particular religion or church.
If they want to lobby or organize, and speak out on issues, great...that's their right as citizens, and I'll cheer them on even when I disagree with them on the issue around which they organize. They're welcome to base their positions on their religious beliefs as much as they want, but their religion or church does not get to use its power and influence in the lives of its adherents to control the narrative or force doctrine into the law or public policy. It's not a clear line or an easy one to discern all the time, but there has to be a difference between individual action and a kind of "corporate" religious policy.
I've always seen the tax exemption as part of the bargain we strike with religions - a recognition that they operate within a different sphere of authority in their adherents' lives...a sphere that is not interfered with or controlled by the government. In return, they don't interfere or attempt to control citizens through the government. The price of that tax exemption is NON-representation in government.
Unfortunately, some churches (particularly) seem to expect that tax exemption with no rules attached. It seems to me that they're looking for hegemony, not expression, and I have a serious issue with that kind of entitlement and attempted control.
Glenn is morphing into Jerry Falwell.
Cristians do not like you Idiot,,what makes you think Jews do
... you must be new here. "Bless your heart."
What was actually said in the Supreme Court oral argument:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I, I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.
... Rafael 'Shart-Ted' Cruz.