Another stupid exemption for clergy.

[Worldtraveller]

So there I am, filling out my juror questionaire (not a summons...yet), and in the list of options for getting out of jury duty are:

Physician
Fireman
Nurse
Nursing asst
Member of Clergy

WTF?? Why is that considered a good reason to get out of jury duty? It's bad enough their businesses don't have to pay taxes.

[Preno]

Well, do you want clergymen on juries?

[Berthold]

Policeman isn't? :confused: Here it is (any administrative state employee).

[Worldtraveller]

Policeman isn't? :confused: Here it is (any administrative state employee).
I think they are too. I'm actually not sure why firefghters where on that list, except I think it specified volunteer, since about the first 6 questions where different ways of asking if you are a gov employee. :p

But regardless of whether I'd want clergy on my jury or not, they shouldn't get an automatic exemption. FFS, they don't even hold court on sunday, so it doesn't exactly interfere with the main part of their job (for the majority of them).

[Berthold]

The other exempted vocations all have something to do with having to be ready in emergencies. Well, a clergyman might be called to a deathbed.

I don't suppose the exemption is because of possible bias. That, however, is what Preno alludes to. :)

[BigEvil]

It probably varies from place to place but where I am at, no law enforcement officers are automatically exempt from jury duty. Automatic exempts are for emergency workers that can be called anytime. Police officers generally don't fit that description. Its easy for a law enforcement officer to get an exemption but its not automatic.

Don't know about the clergy, but I would go with the guess that they might be considered emergency for conducting last rites or something like that.

[Berthold]

In Austria, the thing about state employees is, of course, the suspicion that they could be biased if the trial has a political flavor, or if it's a lawsuit of individual(s) vs the Republic.

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, I can see a reason to exclude clergy. They hear things in confession that are secret.

What happens when the guy ends up on a jury and recognizes the defendant's voice as what he heard confessing to the crime?

At that point he can't serve, yet he can't leave without others realizing he knew something which would strongly suggest the guy is guilty.

[Amber Robot]

Actually, I can see a reason to exclude clergy. They hear things in confession that are secret.

What happens when the guy ends up on a jury and recognizes the defendant's voice as what he heard confessing to the crime?

At that point he can't serve, yet he can't leave without others realizing he knew something which would strongly suggest the guy is guilty.

Can't they exclude that on a case by case basis, though? Usually when vetting a jury you make sure that people on the jury don't know the people involved that closely.

[Berthold]

The Catholic sacrament of confession can take many forms. Usually it is (supposed to be, and/or indeed) anonymous. That's why Loren mentioned recognition of the voice, which is the only medium of communication between confessor snd sinner, except in private, special confessions.

[Lanakila]

So there I am, filling out my juror questionaire (not a summons...yet), and in the list of options for getting out of jury duty are:

Physician
Fireman
Nurse
Nursing asst
Member of Clergy

WTF?? Why is that considered a good reason to get out of jury duty? It's bad enough their businesses don't have to pay taxes.

I work security at the airport and 2 of my coworkers were recently called to jury duty. Why does a nurse get out of it, but I wouldn't? Doesn't make sense to me.

[dancer_rnb]

It's usually a nurse that will notice you are going sour in a hospital, not a doctor. And hospitals aren't normally overstaffed.

[Ray Moscow]

Well, do you want clergymen on juries?

No.

I suppose most clergy don't have a "normal" sense of justice, either holding to a bronze-age code of retribution or else a "repentance fixes everything" view that naively allows dangerous people to go on hurting others -- or both.

These are the people who assure us (and themselves) that God loves us all, even those millions/billions he sends off to be tortured forever.

[Worldtraveller]

So there I am, filling out my juror questionaire (not a summons...yet), and in the list of options for getting out of jury duty are:

Physician
Fireman
Nurse
Nursing asst
Member of Clergy

WTF?? Why is that considered a good reason to get out of jury duty? It's bad enough their businesses don't have to pay taxes.

I work security at the airport and 2 of my coworkers were recently called to jury duty. Why does a nurse get out of it, but I wouldn't? Doesn't make sense to me.
Oh please. TSA aren't exactly high on the list of jobs that we can't do without. That's sorta the point.

[Lanakila]

Ok, but I am a federal government employee with emergency call back responsibilities. I know we aren't all that necessary and as this is the off season we are sorta overstaffed (in down times) but CAT X airports are routinely understaffed.

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, I can see a reason to exclude clergy. They hear things in confession that are secret.

What happens when the guy ends up on a jury and recognizes the defendant's voice as what he heard confessing to the crime?

At that point he can't serve, yet he can't leave without others realizing he knew something which would strongly suggest the guy is guilty.

Can't they exclude that on a case by case basis, though? Usually when vetting a jury you make sure that people on the jury don't know the people involved that closely.

The point is the clergyman might not realize it at first. The scenario I'm thinking of:

A voice confesses a crime. No names or the like, but details of the crime.

Clergyman gets called to jury duty. He's asked if he knows anything of the case and says no because he sees no connection between the crime as initially described and what was confessed to him. This is a mistake through ignorance, not a lie.

However, as the trial goes on he comes to realize a voice like the defendant confessed to an act like what is being shown in the trial.

Even worse, the confession could have been of something other than the crime.

Maybe the guy confessed to adultery and now he's on trial for killing his wife his wife and he's claiming to have loved her and been faithful to her. He only realizes it when the prosecution presents evidence of the adultery and he makes the connection.

[Amber Robot]

Ok. I'm not too familiar with the habits of clergymen, especially those that involve anonymous confession.

[BigEvil]

Out of curiosity, is the confidentuality of the confessional recognized by the court system in the same way doctor/patient or lawyer/client confidentuality is?

[LoneWolf]

Out of curiosity, is the confidentuality of the confessional recognized by the court system in the same way doctor/patient or lawyer/client confidentuality is?

Yes. At least in the US.

[Berthold]

If not even more. Doesn't a doctor have to report to the authorities when he / she suspects a crime in connection with a medical case?

[BigEvil]

There is information that doctors and lawyers are required by law to report but at the same time, there is information they are required to keep secret unless authorized by patient or client. If they do give out the information without patient or client consent, they can be sued.

If clergy can legally withhold information, then it would seem to me that they could be sued if they gave it out to just anybody without the confessee's permisssion.

I was under the impression that they didn't actually have any special legal rights/obligations in that regard. They just got away with it because courts didn't want the public outrage....alot like reporters and their anonymous sources.

But that was just an impression, so I asked for confirmation purposes.

[sohy]

Nobody gets out of jury duty in Georgia, at least not based on profession. The last time I had jury duty, I didn't get selected for a trial because I raised my hand when they asked if anyone believed that drugs should be legal. The defendant was being tried for selling cocaine.

I would imagine that the reason nurses are exempt in some states is because we are in such short supply, often have very specialized skills and can't always be readily replaced. I've never lived in a state that allowed nurses off of jury duty. To tell you the truth, most of the nurses I've known would prefer serving on a jury to working. It would be like a vacation. :D

[Lisa0315]

Yeah, I think it varies from state to state.

However, another point that people have not brought up...

Separation of church and state...As a representative and head of a church, wouldn't serving on a jury duty possibly conflict with that?

Of course, I have always read the no establishment clause as government not interfering with relgion, not that religion could not influence government...

Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

Well, do you want clergymen on juries?

No.

I suppose most clergy don't have a "normal" sense of justice, either holding to a bronze-age code of retribution or else a "repentance fixes everything" view that naively allows dangerous people to go on hurting others -- or both.

These are the people who assure us (and themselves) that God loves us all, even those millions/billions he sends off to be tortured forever.
Good point. Don't just exempt the clergy. Ban them from the courts.

@Lisa: Surely separation of church and state should mean that neither influences the other, otherwise they aren't really separate.

[Lisa0315]

Well, do you want clergymen on juries?

No.

I suppose most clergy don't have a "normal" sense of justice, either holding to a bronze-age code of retribution or else a "repentance fixes everything" view that naively allows dangerous people to go on hurting others -- or both.

These are the people who assure us (and themselves) that God loves us all, even those millions/billions he sends off to be tortured forever.
Good point. Don't just exempt the clergy. Ban them from the courts.

@Lisa: Surely separation of church and state should mean that neither influences the other, otherwise they aren't really separate.

Hi Mung!

Probably a separate topic, but let the staff decide. The reason I say that religion may influence state, but state must not establish or influence church, well, for several reasons...

For one, from the beginning to even now, we have religious ceremonies and traditions in our government, from a minister opening up Congress with prayer, to swearing in on a Bible in court. Yes, one can opt out of those, but that is definitely some heavy influence right there.

Second, the separation of church and state was likely the idea and definitely reinforced by private writings of our founding fathers, but that is not what the Constitution actually says. It only says that the state will not establish a national religion or interfere with religion period. It says nothing about religion having some kind of influence on the state.

Finally, I think it is a fine line...The clergy are already not allowed to endorse any candidate from the pulpit. There was not too long ago a bill proposed to make churches like groundroots organizations if they spoke out on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Under that bill, they would have lost their tax exemption status.

Now, THAT, had my dander up right there. THAT was potentially interference with church by the state. The whole point of not paying income taxes is separation of church and state. There is a great deal of European history associated with that which I am sure our founding fathers considered.

Admittedly, it was not LAW until the 20th century that churches did not pay taxes, BUT, even putting it on the books paved the way for such a bill as Nancy Pelosi proposed a couple of years ago.

Lisa

[dancer_rnb]

Lisa, religion being able to influence government very easily leads to interference in religious matters. for example, you mentioned swearing on the bible in court. Making that mandatory would be contrary to the religious beliefs of Quakers and Anabaptists, if I remember correctly.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, religion being able to influence government very easily leads to interference in religious matters. for example, you mentioned swearing on the bible in court. Making that mandatory would be contrary to the religious beliefs of Quakers and Anabaptists, if I remember correctly.

Of course! However, it has only been in the last 30 or 40 years in which someone who refused to swear in was not seen in a suspicious light. In some spots of the country, they still are.

I can even give you a recent example. I had to testify against my ex for a temporary restraining order. Anyway, I had to be sworn in. Without even thinking, I said, "So help me God" as my words of affirmation rather than "I swear" or "I do" or whatever. I got a NOD of approval from the officer. I did not misread that nod either. It was approval rather than acknowledgment.

So, what I am saying is this: If we truly want separation of church and state, then, yeah, clergy should be exempt from jury duty, and churches should not pay taxes under any circumstances. This will be abused by some because I could have the Church of Lisa if I wanted to. However, it is the price that has to be paid.

No state employee led prayer, Clergy should be able to opt out of jury duty.

Lisa

[Amber Robot]

If we truly want separation of church and state, then, yeah, ... churches should not pay taxes under any circumstances.

It would seem to me that a true separation of church and state would have the state not treating the church any differently than any other organization. So, if other organizations have to pay taxes, so should churches. Then's there no special treatment that might potentially be abused.

[JamesBannon]

Clergy are exempt here as well, but anyone can claim an exemption on the grounds of conscience / religious belief.

[Lisa0315]

If we truly want separation of church and state, then, yeah, ... churches should not pay taxes under any circumstances.

It would seem to me that a true separation of church and state would have the state not treating the church any differently than any other organization. So, if other organizations have to pay taxes, so should churches. Then's there no special treatment that might potentially be abused.

No, then, you have corruption of the state where Senators and Special Interest Groups are being paid by the Church. I assure you that if Churches start paying taxes, then, abortion will be banned and gay marriages will never come to pass.

There is a GOOD reason why churches do not pay income tax. Look at European history to see what happens when rich churches control the government.

Special Interest groups are prolly already being supported by churches, but nowhere near what it would be. You do not want a near-theistic government, I assure you, not unless Jesus Christ is the head of that government.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Clergy are exempt here as well, but anyone can claim an exemption on the grounds of conscience / religious belief.


Hell, I wish we had that there. I would claim that exemption.

What do you guys have to do to claim it?

Lisa

[JamesBannon]

On the subject of "swearing in", I asked if, as an atheist, I would have to swear in the traditional fashion. The answer was "no" - we just say "I affirm". However, I got an exemption for my depression anyway.

[Copernicus]

The Catholic sacrament of confession can take many forms. Usually it is (supposed to be, and/or indeed) anonymous. That's why Loren mentioned recognition of the voice, which is the only medium of communication between confessor snd sinner, except in private, special confessions.

In any case, this would only hold for Catholic priests. We all know that the US government was formed on Protestant principles. :p

[JamesBannon]

Clergy are exempt here as well, but anyone can claim an exemption on the grounds of conscience / religious belief.


Hell, I wish we had that there. I would claim that exemption.

What do you guys have to do to claim it?

Lisa

You have to write to the Clerk of the Court with a reason. It's up to the Clerk whether or not to grant you the exemption.

[Worldtraveller]

No, then, you have corruption of the state where Senators and Special Interest Groups are being paid by the Church. I assure you that if Churches start paying taxes, then, abortion will be banned and gay marriages will never come to pass.
This is incorrect. Churches and other non-profits are already allowed to compaign as much as they want based on issues. The only thing they are not allowed to do is endorse a particular candidate, but there is rarely any doubt about which candidate a church or other sectarian group is endorsing.

Lisa, your proclamation that abortion will be banned and gay marriages will never come to pass is either gross ignorance of how the system really works, or some kind of scare tactic intended for...I don't know what.

I don't think that churches should automatically get a pass on taxes. I think if they want to be tax exempt, they should have to declare themselves a non-profit and make thier records just as open as any other non-profit, and follow the same rules.

And to eliminate another misperception that seems implicit in some of the posts here, pastors and other church leaders' salaries are taxed, just like anyone elses. So they do pay taxes. It's just that many mega churches buy big houses, fancy cars, etc, as part of the church property, but they are only for the personal use of the church leader(s). That is where having churches actually follow the rules would be a good thing. I can't think of any drawbacks to making churches follow the same rules as ever other non-profit.

[Lisa0315]

No, then, you have corruption of the state where Senators and Special Interest Groups are being paid by the Church. I assure you that if Churches start paying taxes, then, abortion will be banned and gay marriages will never come to pass.
This is incorrect. Churches and other non-profits are already allowed to compaign as much as they want based on issues. The only thing they are not allowed to do is endorse a particular candidate, but there is rarely any doubt about which candidate a church or other sectarian group is endorsing.

Lisa, your proclamation that abortion will be banned and gay marriages will never come to pass is either gross ignorance of how the system really works, or some kind of scare tactic intended for...I don't know what.

I don't think that churches should automatically get a pass on taxes. I think if they want to be tax exempt, they should have to declare themselves a non-profit and make thier records just as open as any other non-profit, and follow the same rules.

And to eliminate another misperception that seems implicit in some of the posts here, pastors and other church leaders' salaries are taxed, just like anyone elses. So they do pay taxes. It's just that many mega churches buy big houses, fancy cars, etc, as part of the church property, but they are only for the personal use of the church leader(s). That is where having churches actually follow the rules would be a good thing. I can't think of any drawbacks to making churches follow the same rules as ever other non-profit.

I see it as a slippery slope and honestly, it seems like a blind spot for the non-religious. The Nancy Pelosi bill was not just aimed at churches but all grassroots movements. Second, the bill was aimed at taking away freedom of speech and was defeated based on that. There were various versions of the bill, but there was one in which not only could the pastor not preach on social issues, but as an individual, he could not speak in any public venue. The bill was worded so that if there was a single non-member of the church in attendance, they would lose their tax-exempt status. If the church had a radio or television broadcast...

The final version of the bill in which BOTH the ACLJ and the ACLU argued side by side against sought to remove the tax exemption from the most powerful churches, those who spent $50K quarterly on radio or television broadcasts. The bills were soundly defeated in both the House and the Congress. (There were two versions)

However, many saw this as a stepping stone which would have gone after every other church out there. (I say church, but it could have been a synagogue or mosque for that matter) Some churches like the one my grandmother attended for about twenty years only have a membership of about 25 people. The pastor received about $100 per month, and they would have to shut their doors before taxes could be paid.

This is wrong on a very basic level. Think about it not from it being a church, but from any grassroots movement. Those tea parties that are going on right now could be considered taxable.

Think on this, WT. Remove the church and insert your favorite charity or organization.

This bill was in effect was saying, "Do not speak unless you pay first!" Since when did Americans pay to speak their opinions?

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

I see it as a slippery slope and honestly, it seems like a blind spot for the non-religious. The Nancy Pelosi bill was not just aimed at churches but all grassroots movements. Second, the bill was aimed at taking away freedom of speech and was defeated based on that. There were various versions of the bill, but there was one in which not only could the pastor not preach on social issues, but as an individual, he could not speak in any public venue. The bill was worded so that if there was a single non-member of the church in attendance, they would lose their tax-exempt status. If the church had a radio or television broadcast...
Can you provide a number for this bill? I doubt it says what you are claiming here, given your past record on accepting these sort of claims uncritically. I would like to read it for myself.

However, many saw this as a stepping stone which would have gone after every other church out there. (I say church, but it could have been a synagogue or mosque for that matter) Some churches like the one my grandmother attended for about twenty years only have a membership of about 25 people. The pastor received about $100 per month, and they would have to shut their doors before taxes could be paid.
This personal anecdote is beside the point, and until I read the text of the bill, I remain skeptical of these claims.

This is wrong on a very basic level. Think about it not from it being a church, but from any grassroots movement. Those tea parties that are going on right now could be considered taxable.
See above. I doubt it.

Think on this, WT. Remove the church and insert your favorite charity or organization.
I serve on the BoD of a 501(c)(3) charity, but I haven't heard of this bill, and no one on our board has mentioned us being in danger, so I remain skeptical of your claims.

This bill was in effect was saying, "Do not speak unless you pay first!" Since when did Americans pay to speak their opinions?
This is an exxageration of the current state of some charitable organizations. And it has been this way for a long time, actually. I don't have any qualms with it, and the organization I serve has no issues with it. I don't see why it's such a big deal for religious organizations. The only reason they seem to want to make a big deal out of it, I would guess, is because they have become so accustomed to their privileged place that actually having to follow the same rules as everyone else sticks in their proverbial craw.

[maddog]

I don't know whether I think the exemption is that terrible. They could be concerned about some religions' conscientious scruples against sitting in judgment on others, and also treating clergy like other on-call emergency persons, whose time and duties are not necessarily their own, but answer a fundamental interest of the community they serve. They are using shorthands, based on experience, to save time in selecting a qualified panel. There will be plenty of prospective jurors who have circumstances which mean they cannot serve either; it's not like the presumptive categories are denying someone with a real reason for excusal to present that reason.

[Lisa0315]

Hold on, I am searching for it. It is related to the Fairness Doctrine. Heard of that?

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

H.R. 2093 and S1 section 220 are the bills. You may need to know the year...2007

[Worldtraveller]

H.R. 2093 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2093:)
I don't see anything particularly damning there. It looks like the bill would have increased transparency on money spent by lobbyists. As a matter of fact, the only reasons I can see that congress would vote down this bill are all bad. This looks like it would have been a good thing, had it passed. Just shows how much influence lobbyists have compared to 'we the people'.
.
Again, I'd like you to point out what was so egregious about this. It doesn't seem to do what you claim. This bill was difficult to find on the Thomas.loc site, and I oddly found it through [url=http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2007/S1/default.asp]another site (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00001:S1 section 220[/url) that makes claims similar to yours. I'm curious if you've read the actual text of the bill or just took the word of these other sites? That link, BTW, is a pro-homeschooling site, if it matters.

So, please enlighten me on the evils of this bill. Also, your labelling of them as 'Nancy Pelosi' bills smacks of partisan scare tactics. ou may just as well have said 'San Francisco liberal' or gay agenda just to be sure you got all the buzzwords out there. Since it seems the speaker of the house was not a sponsor on either bill. Curious that.

[Lisa0315]

H.R. 2093 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2093:)
I don't see anything particularly damning there. It looks like the bill would have increased transparency on money spent by lobbyists. As a matter of fact, the only reasons I can see that congress would vote down this bill are all bad. This looks like it would have been a good thing, had it passed. Just shows how much influence lobbyists have compared to 'we the people'.
S1 section 220 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110L723nX:e38473:).
Again, I'd like you to point out what was so egregious about this. It doesn't seem to do what you claim. This bill was difficult to find on the Thomas.loc site, and I oddly found it through another site (http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2007/S1/default.asp) that makes claims similar to yours. I'm curious if you've read the actual text of the bill or just took the word of these other sites? That link, BTW, is a pro-homeschooling site, if it matters.

So, please enlighten me on the evils of this bill. Also, your labelling of them as 'Nancy Pelosi' bills smacks of partisan scare tactics. ou may just as well have said 'San Francisco liberal' or gay agenda just to be sure you got all the buzzwords out there. Since it seems the speaker of the house was not a sponsor on either bill. Curious that.

Here is the ACLU's address on section H1 Section 220:

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/28756leg20070228.html

Reject Efforts to Incorporate Provisions on “Grassroots Lobbying.”

The Senate considered a provision (Section 220) in S.1 that would have required registration and reporting of grassroots lobbying activities. The ACLU and others opposed this effort because it only served to erect barriers between the people and their elected representatives. The Senate wisely agreed, and removed the provision from the final bill. We urge you to not place such a provision in the bill during consideration by the House.

The right to petition the government is “one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.”[5] (http://www.aclu.org/ACLU/default.asp?_task=create&_lastsubtask=&_lasttask=assetbrowse&_lastassetid=9329&_in_preview=&_subtask=&_assetid=9329&_assettype=4&_back=&_path=/Development+Site/Free+Speech/General/&_path_ids=/828/8398/9329&_noteson=&_pagenum=&_inarchive=False&_selectedid=&_render_states=&_copy=&_move=&_copy_id=&_move_id=&_extra=9329&_selected=1124&_rnd=10404#_ftn5) When viewed through this prism, the thrust of the grassroots lobbying regulation is at best misguided, and at worst would seriously undermine the basic freedom that is the cornerstone of our system of government.

It is well settled that lobbying, which embodies the separate and distinct political freedoms of petitioning, speech, and assembly, enjoys the highest constitutional protection.[6] (http://www.aclu.org/ACLU/default.asp?_task=create&_lastsubtask=&_lasttask=assetbrowse&_lastassetid=9329&_in_preview=&_subtask=&_assetid=9329&_assettype=4&_back=&_path=/Development+Site/Free+Speech/General/&_path_ids=/828/8398/9329&_noteson=&_pagenum=&_inarchive=False&_selectedid=&_render_states=&_copy=&_move=&_copy_id=&_move_id=&_extra=9329&_selected=1124&_rnd=10404#_ftn6) Petitioning the government is “core political speech,” for which First Amendment protection is “at its zenith.”[7] (http://www.aclu.org/ACLU/default.asp?_task=create&_lastsubtask=&_lasttask=assetbrowse&_lastassetid=9329&_in_preview=&_subtask=&_assetid=9329&_assettype=4&_back=&_path=/Development+Site/Free+Speech/General/&_path_ids=/828/8398/9329&_noteson=&_pagenum=&_inarchive=False&_selectedid=&_render_states=&_copy=&_move=&_copy_id=&_move_id=&_extra=9329&_selected=1124&_rnd=10404#_ftn7)

Constitutional protection of lobbying is not in the least diminished by the fact that it may be performed for others for a fee.[8] (http://www.aclu.org/ACLU/default.asp?_task=create&_lastsubtask=&_lasttask=assetbrowse&_lastassetid=9329&_in_preview=&_subtask=&_assetid=9329&_assettype=4&_back=&_path=/Development+Site/Free+Speech/General/&_path_ids=/828/8398/9329&_noteson=&_pagenum=&_inarchive=False&_selectedid=&_render_states=&_copy=&_move=&_copy_id=&_move_id=&_extra=9329&_selected=1124&_rnd=10404#_ftn8) Further, “the First Amendment protects [the] right not only to advocate [one’s] cause but also to select what [one] believe[s] to be the most effective means of doing so.”[9] (http://www.aclu.org/ACLU/default.asp?_task=create&_lastsubtask=&_lasttask=assetbrowse&_lastassetid=9329&_in_preview=&_subtask=&_assetid=9329&_assettype=4&_back=&_path=/Development+Site/Free+Speech/General/&_path_ids=/828/8398/9329&_noteson=&_pagenum=&_inarchive=False&_selectedid=&_render_states=&_copy=&_move=&_copy_id=&_move_id=&_extra=9329&_selected=1124&_rnd=10404#_ftn9) In Meyer, the Court emphasized that legislative restrictions on political advocacy or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation are “wholly at odds with the guarantees of the First Amendment.”[10] (http://www.aclu.org/ACLU/default.asp?_task=create&_lastsubtask=&_lasttask=assetbrowse&_lastassetid=9329&_in_preview=&_subtask=&_assetid=9329&_assettype=4&_back=&_path=/Development+Site/Free+Speech/General/&_path_ids=/828/8398/9329&_noteson=&_pagenum=&_inarchive=False&_selectedid=&_render_states=&_copy=&_move=&_copy_id=&_move_id=&_extra=9329&_selected=1124&_rnd=10404#_ftn10)

Where the government seeks to regulate such First Amendment protected activity, the regulations must survive exacting scrutiny.[11] (http://www.aclu.org/ACLU/default.asp?_task=create&_lastsubtask=&_lasttask=assetbrowse&_lastassetid=9329&_in_preview=&_subtask=&_assetid=9329&_assettype=4&_back=&_path=/Development+Site/Free+Speech/General/&_path_ids=/828/8398/9329&_noteson=&_pagenum=&_inarchive=False&_selectedid=&_render_states=&_copy=&_move=&_copy_id=&_move_id=&_extra=9329&_selected=1124&_rnd=10404#_ftn11) To satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must establish: (a) a compelling governmental interest sufficient to override the burden on individual rights; (b) a substantial correlation between the regulation and the furtherance of that interest; and (c) that the least drastic means to achieve its goal have been employed.[12] (http://www.aclu.org/ACLU/default.asp?_task=create&_lastsubtask=&_lasttask=assetbrowse&_lastassetid=9329&_in_preview=&_subtask=&_assetid=9329&_assettype=4&_back=&_path=/Development+Site/Free+Speech/General/&_path_ids=/828/8398/9329&_noteson=&_pagenum=&_inarchive=False&_selectedid=&_render_states=&_copy=&_move=&_copy_id=&_move_id=&_extra=9329&_selected=1124&_rnd=10404#_ftn12)

A compelling governmental interest cannot be established on the basis of conjecture. There must be a factual record to sustain the government’s assertion that burdens on fundamental rights are warranted. Here, there is little if any record to support the contention that grassroots lobbying needs to be regulated. Without this record, the government will be unable to sustain its assertion that grassroots lobbying should be regulated.

The grassroots lobbying provision is troubling for other reasons as well. First, the provision seems to assume Americans can be easily manipulated by advocacy organizations to take actions that do not reflect their own interests. To the contrary, Americans are highly independent and capable of making their own judgment. Whether or not they were informed of an issue through a grassroots campaign is irrelevant--their action in contacting their representative is based on their own belief in the importance of matters before Congress.

Requiring groups or individuals to report First Amendment activity to the government is antithetical to the values enshrined in our Constitution. If our government is truly one “of the people, for the people, and by the people,” then the people must be able to disseminate information, contact their representatives, and encourage others to do so as well.

[Lisa0315]

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Summary_HR2093_Representative_Meehan_Grassroots_Lo bbying_Bill_05112007.pdf

ACLJ memo in regards to HR 2093

[Lisa0315]

As for Nancy Pelosi, you are right. She was the one who wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. All of this was around the same time, and interrelated.

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

Lisa, you didn't answer my question. Did you read any of the bill? Even though I support the ACLU almost 100% of the time, I don't think their analysis is always accurate, so I'd like for you to point out to me the exact wording that does what you (and they) say it does.

Here's what I see:
`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
So if you are a paid lobbyist, with the exception noted in (B), you have to report it? Am I misreading that? (I could be...I hate legalese sometimes..)
Furthermore, it specifically defines grassroots organization here:
`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
So if you are making more than $25k per quarter you have to classify yourself as a lobbyist? Again, where is the incursion on anyone's freedoms?

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, you didn't answer my question. Did you read any of the bill? Even though I support the ACLU almost 100% of the time, I don't think their analysis is always accurate, so I'd like for you to point out to me the exact wording that does what you (and they) say it does.

Here's what I see:
`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
So if you are a paid lobbyist, with the exception noted in (B), you have to report it? Am I misreading that? (I could be...I hate legalese sometimes..)
Furthermore, it specifically defines grassroots organization here:
`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
So if you are making more than $25k per quarter you have to classify yourself as a lobbyist? Again, where is the incursion on anyone's freedoms?

Read the ACLJ letter memo too please before doubting me. The ACLJ and ACLU, believe it or not, were in agreement on this one. They were on the same side for different reasons obviously, but the legal ramifications of this bill included churches.

For me, it was very alarming that the House and Senate would even conceive of such a bill.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and yes, I did read the bill back in 2007 before it was defeated. I read all versions of it before it was completely struck down. What is surprising is that the entire country was not in arms over this. What is surprising to me is the lethargy that has settled on this country. I hope that the bad economy will at least lift the blinders from everyone's eyes in regards to how corrupt our government has become.

This is not a Pub or Dem issue here. This is that any representative would present something like this to be voted upon. This is about why all 100 Senators and however many reps we have weren't morally offended at the very idea.

Yes, it was defeated, but it was actually presented for a vote. I cannot believe that much happened.

Naturally, my chief worry was how it would impact churches, but it literally would have impacted anyone and everyone who spent as a group a certain $ to petition the government for redress. That is beyond my comprehension.

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

I read the ACLU and ACLJ letters. They claim that having to register as a lobbyist is an infringement on free speech, but I don't see how. And if you are spending thousands of dollars to advertise for a politician or political cause, I think it's fair to say you could qualify as a lobbyist, especially in light of reports like this (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/lobbying_pays_off.php).
In a remarkable illustration of the power of lobbying in Washington, a study released last week found that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue -- a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment.

I still don't see the issue with this. And if it means churches have to report the money they spend influencing politicians, I think that's a good thing as well. I don't see it from the same side you do, obviously, as far as that goes.

[Lisa0315]

I read the ACLU and ACLJ letters. They claim that having to register as a lobbyist is an infringement on free speech, but I don't see how. And if you are spending thousands of dollars to advertise for a politician or political cause, I think it's fair to say you could qualify as a lobbyist, especially in light of reports like this (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/lobbying_pays_off.php).
In a remarkable illustration of the power of lobbying in Washington, a study released last week found that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue -- a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment.

I still don't see the issue with this. And if it means churches have to report the money they spend influencing politicians, I think that's a good thing as well. I don't see it from the same side you do, obviously, as far as that goes.

Clergy are not allowed to endorse a candidate from the pulpit today. This, however, would have required any church who broadcast a sermon either on radio or television (who spent a specific amount of money per quarter) to register as a lobbying organization and lose their tax exemption status.

Do you not see the slippery slope here? Once a church loses its status as a religion and is reclassified as a lobbying organization, it loses all protection. This was an attack to our constitution on many fronts: Freedom of speech, separation of church and state, as well as the right to petition for redress of grievances.

It was not an endorsement of a specific candidate, but if a priest, pastor, rabbi, uhm, a muslim religious leader, whatever, if they spoke on any social issue such as abortion or gay rights...they would be subject to income taxes as well as lose identity and therefore protection under the constitution. This is damn well interference by the government into religion. It is an effort to silence viewpoints unless they pay to speak.

As I keep saying, forget the fact that it would impact religious groups, and imagine your favorite organization and how it would be impacted from a financial point of view.

Lets say that there was a small group out there who held rallies in favor of expanding the space program. There are just 100 people in the group nationwide, but they spent over the amount set in the bill which in one version was as low as $5000 per quarter...now, this group has to register as a lobbying group and pay taxes. Otherwise, they need to shut the fuck up.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and I just realized what might be the missing link between us.

The bills themselves appear pretty innocent. The fear from the ACLU and ACLJ were how those bills might later be interpreted and enforced.

Lisa

[David B]

Once a church loses its status as a religion and is reclassified as a lobbying organization, it loses all protection

What sort of protection does a church need, and why?:dunno:

David

[Lisa0315]

Once a church loses its status as a religion and is reclassified as a lobbying organization, it loses all protection

What sort of protection does a church need, and why?:dunno:

David

Are you kidding me? :eek:

[Copernicus]

Once a church loses its status as a religion and is reclassified as a lobbying organization, it loses all protection

What sort of protection does a church need, and why?:dunno:

David

Are you kidding me? :eek:

Lisa, you may have found the question absurd, but I found it perfectly reasonable. What sort of protection does a church need in this case, and why? You may have a perfectly good and obvious answer, but you should not expect nonbelievers to share your perceptions. We need more information as to how you justify maintenance of the "religion" status. Should not all political lobbying groups be treated alike by the law? Why give special consideration to religious groups that become political lobbyists?

[David B]

Once a church loses its status as a religion and is reclassified as a lobbying organization, it loses all protection

What sort of protection does a church need, and why?:dunno:

David

Are you kidding me? :eek:

Nope. What protection does a church need over and above any other institution?

David

[Lisa0315]

What sort of protection does a church need, and why?:dunno:

David

Are you kidding me? :eek:

Lisa, you may have found the question absurd, but I found it perfectly reasonable. What sort of protection does a church need in this case, and why? You may have a perfectly good and obvious answer, but you should not expect nonbelievers to share your perceptions. We need more information as to how you justify maintenance of the "religion" status. Should not all political lobbying groups be treated alike by the law? Why give special consideration to religious groups that become political lobbyists?

Because they are not lobbying congress, but are speaking to the people. It is a freedom of speech issue.

Imagine Martin Luther King, Jr. speaking from the pulpit one moment. He says to the congregation that the time has come for equal rights for black men and women. If this law had been in effect then, that little church in Alabama would have been labeled as a grassroots organization and would have lost their tax exemption status. That little church in Alabama would have had to shut its doors because they would not be able to afford paying taxes.

More so, after being labeled a lobbying group, they would no longer be protected under the separation of church and state as they would no longer be a CHURCH by federal definition. This is a slippery slope by which the state could interfere in what is said or done within the church.

The whole POINT of the bill is to control who says what and where. The whole reason it was struck down was because it was unconstitutional.

The IDEA is alarming to me. The effects of such a bill would change the entire fabric of this nation. Those with money would be able to speak their consciences. Those without would not.

Again, I am no lawyer. The ACLU and ACLJ articles can better show the impact than I can. THEY saw the possibilities in that bill that I am telling you about. How often do the ACLU and ACLJ unite on any issue? That is how big this was. That is how apathetic America has become that this was not all over the news. It should have been on the news for weeks. There should have been protests. There should have been outrage over this proposed bill.

Lisa

[David B]

Why should churches have tax exempt status?

David

[Lisa0315]

Why should churches have tax exempt status?

David

It keeps state and churches separate. It keeps either from corrupting the other.

Lisa

[David B]

Why should churches have tax exempt status?

David

It keeps state and churches separate. It keeps either from corrupting the other.

Lisa

Well I'm not an expert on the US constitution.

But it looks to me as if granting tax free status to churches means that in effect the state subsidises them at the expense of people and other institutions that do pay tax.

David

[Lisa0315]

Why should churches have tax exempt status?

David

It keeps state and churches separate. It keeps either from corrupting the other.

Lisa

Well I'm not an expert on the US constitution.

But it looks to me as if granting tax free status to churches means that in effect the state subsidises them at the expense of people and other institutions that do pay tax.

David

Not anymore than any other charity out there.

Churches in America are THE grassroots organization. If not for the pulpit, there would have been no Revolution, no abolition, no child labor laws, and no civil rights.

Plus, churches provide a huge portion of goods and services to poor people. The Salvation Army and the Red Cross for example began (or still are) church organizations.

That tax exempt status allows more funds to flow to these goods and services. It is an economic win. Whereas, if that same money went to the federal government, it would be wasted just like all the rest.

[dancer_rnb]

What sort of protection does a church need, and why?:dunno:

David

Are you kidding me? :eek:

Nope. What protection does a church need over and above any other institution?

David

It needs protection from powerful adherents of other churches with different views.

Can you imagine what shrub's administration would have done to the UUs if they could have gotten away with it?

[Worldtraveller]

Not anymore than any other charity out there.
Wrong! I thought you said you had worked on some 501(c)(3) charities?

The major difference is that normal non-profits have to show their non-profit status annually on their tax return to maintain it. There's a reason the CEOs of even big non-profits don't live in big mansions, have private jets, and what all else that the mega churches have.
Churches in America are THE grassroots organization. If not for the pulpit, there would have been no Revolution, no abolition, no child labor laws, and no civil rights.
Whoah..put the pom poms down and step away. :p Some of these things were fought for just as strongly as against by organized religious. Enough with the rainbows and lollipops cheerleading of churches and religion, we all know it ain't that neat and tidy.

Plus, churches provide a huge portion of goods and services to poor people. The Salvation Army and the Red Cross for example began (or still are) church organizations.
The SA also discriminates who they donate to based on their religion. At least the Red Cross is almost entirely secular these days, especially outside the US.
That tax exempt status allows more funds to flow to these goods and services. It is an economic win. Whereas, if that same money went to the federal government, it would be wasted just like all the rest.
This part is correct. But (you knew that was coming, right?) why shouldn't we expect churches to have open books like every other non-profit if they are all on the up and up? It's not like they would actually wind up paying taxes that you are so strongly opposed to if they really were operating as a non-profit.

You are mixng the message of making churches follow the rules of non profits and equating it to tax all churches. One does not necessariyl follow the other, unless the churches aren't playing by the rules.....

[Lisa0315]

Not anymore than any other charity out there.
Wrong! I thought you said you had worked on some 501(c)(3) charities?

The major difference is that normal non-profits have to show their non-profit status annually on their tax return to maintain it. There's a reason the CEOs of even big non-profits don't live in big mansions, have private jets, and what all else that the mega churches have.
Churches in America are THE grassroots organization. If not for the pulpit, there would have been no Revolution, no abolition, no child labor laws, and no civil rights.
Whoah..put the pom poms down and step away. :p Some of these things were fought for just as strongly as against by organized religious. Enough with the rainbows and lollipops cheerleading of churches and religion, we all know it ain't that neat and tidy.

Plus, churches provide a huge portion of goods and services to poor people. The Salvation Army and the Red Cross for example began (or still are) church organizations.
The SA also discriminates who they donate to based on their religion. At least the Red Cross is almost entirely secular these days, especially outside the US.
That tax exempt status allows more funds to flow to these goods and services. It is an economic win. Whereas, if that same money went to the federal government, it would be wasted just like all the rest.
This part is correct. But (you knew that was coming, right?) why shouldn't we expect churches to have open books like every other non-profit if they are all on the up and up? It's not like they would actually wind up paying taxes that you are so strongly opposed to if they really were operating as a non-profit.

You are mixng the message of making churches follow the rules of non profits and equating it to tax all churches. One does not necessariyl follow the other, unless the churches aren't playing by the rules.....

Whoa! I never said that. I have been involved with a couple but I didn't do their accounting.

[Worldtraveller]

Are you kidding me? :eek:

Nope. What protection does a church need over and above any other institution?

David

It needs protection from powerful adherents of other churches with different views.

Can you imagine what shrub's administration would have done to the UUs if they could have gotten away with it?
And how exactly does making churches exempt from having to file their tax returns like everyone else do this? There was an example of someone trying to deny church status to a church in TX...about 3 years ago. It was shot down hard by the courts.

The government can't tell someone that their religion isn't 'real' or doesn't count, and that I agree with 100%. However, just because someone can call their home a church doesn't mean they should automatically get tax exemption, which is what could really happen under current laws if we all really wanted to. It might be a good way to force the issue. :D

BTW, not all cities/counties/states waive poperty taxes on churches, so even if they were taxed for the services they get (fire, police, roads, etc.) it clearly would not be the end of the world.