I think its far more likely that you'd see the States submitting a petition to carve out an exemption for religious organizations than the South attempting to secede again. Whether you'd get 2/3rds of the states agreeing to that, is another matter. Politics are a fickle beast, and the 2014 elections are still a long ways off, in political terms. 2016 is even farther away, and speculation as to what the public might be feeling at that time is futile.Only Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment and it has to be a joint resolution, requiring a majority in both houses. Then it has to be ratified by the states. I can’t see Congress voting to propose such an amendment. There has never been a Constitutional amendment proposed regarding a tax exemption. I can’t imagine it happening.No Lois, there is yet another way. 2/3rds of the States may submit a petition to Congress on a particular issue. This is called an Article V amendment. it's only been done once if I recall (18th Amendment) off the top of my head. Now the likelihood of that happening in today's secessionist climate is practically nil. Especially a tax exempt issue for religious institutions in the deep South. Cap't Jack
And what is going to happen when such exemptions include no blood transfusions(JW), or only homeopathy, or only healing prayers(CS), or no psychiatric treatment(scientology)? There are probably plenty of other religions with quirky health requirements the rest of us ignore. What if your employer refused to allow you to use pepper or drink coffee (7th day adventist) or alcohol, and caffeine (mormom), pork (jews and muslims) beef (hindi) forced you to be vegetarian (7th day adventist, jains). It can border on the ridiculous.
Thevillageatheist - 26 November 2013 06:12 AM Only Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment and it has to be a joint resolution, requiring a majority in both houses. Then it has to be ratified by the states. I can’t see Congress voting to propose such an amendment. There has never been a Constitutional amendment proposed regarding a tax exemption. I can’t imagine it happening. No Lois, there is yet another way. 2/3rds of the States may submit a petition to Congress on a particular issue. This is called an Article V amendment. it’s only been done once if I recall (18th Amendment) off the top of my head. Now the likelihood of that happening in today’s secessionist climate is practically nil. Especially a tax exempt issue for religious institutions in the deep South. Cap’t Jack Yes, know about that but it’s even less likely than a Congressional proposal. I didn’t think it was worth mentioning.Even though the possibility of it happening in today's volatile political climate is almost impossible, I was speaking to your statement that the Only way the Constituton may be amended is via Congress. I do agree with you that it would be considered extreme to amend the Constitution for a special tax exemption even though there have been wackier amendments proposed e.g.English as the official language. Thankfully legislators block these. 1787-2013 and only 27 Amendments. Cap't Jack
I think its far more likely that you’d see the States submitting a petition to carve out an exemption for religious organizations than the South attempting to secede again. Whether you’d get 2/3rds of the states agreeing to that, is another matter. Politics are a fickle beast, and the 2014 elections are still a long ways off, in political terms. 2016 is even farther away, and speculation as to what the public might be feeling at that time is futile.Personally I'm more concerned that this case could become a rallying cry for the arch conservatives to take control of the Senate in the near future and essentially make Obama a lame duck for the remainder of his term. Religious freedom (and guns) is a hot button issue and will further polarize the South and Midwest. Gerrymandering has put conservative govs in half of the states and now this challenge to ACA. We could be marching back to the Bush era next election and a return to jesusland no matter how the court rules. Cap't Jack
And what is going to happen when such exemptions include no blood transfusions(JW), or only homeopathy, or only healing prayers(CS), or no psychiatric treatment(scientology)? There are probably plenty of other religions with quirky health requirements the rest of us ignore. What if your employer refused to allow you to use pepper or drink coffee (7th day adventist) or alcohol, and caffeine (mormom), pork (jews and muslims) beef (hindi) forced you to be vegetarian (7th day adventist, jains). It can border on the ridiculous.border? I think you summed up the ridiculousness quite well. If they were not allowing their customers to do these things, then I might understand. Or if they weren't using the roads that all of our taxes pay for to get to work, or for their customers to get there, then it would make perfect sense. I think some non-vegetarian condom using politicians might have voted for the clean air act, so they might want to check if they are breathing air that conforms to their beliefs too. Totally logical.
And what is going to happen when such exemptions include no blood transfusions(JW), or only homeopathy, or only healing prayers(CS), or no psychiatric treatment(scientology)? There are probably plenty of other religions with quirky health requirements the rest of us ignore. What if your employer refused to allow you to use pepper or drink coffee (7th day adventist) or alcohol, and caffeine (mormom), pork (jews and muslims) beef (hindi) forced you to be vegetarian (7th day adventist, jains). It can border on the ridiculous.And if you notice, that's the current tack they're taking to kill the ACA. If the people in question were rational, they wouldn't subscribe to half the beliefs they have.
It just occured to me today that Muslims, if they had any political power here, could object to any insurance policy that pays male doctors for treating women. Religious Muslims do not allow male doctors to treat women, so why should they be forced to pay for other women to be treated by male doctors when such a thing is against their religion? It’s the same rationale behind Catholics refusing to pay for other people’s birth control. As far as I know, Muslims have not spoken up about it and Jehovah’s Witnesses have not demanded that blood transfusions be excluded. They apparently have more sense than certain Catholics (not a difficult category to inhabit).
Lois
Ah, some good news on that front. I doubt that the "average" middle class worker would agree that a minister deserves to be tax-exempt whereas they are not. Why make an exception for "modest" income?I'm willing to give those guys the benefit of the doubt and say that the majority of them spend their time selflessly helping others (you know, checking up on the lonely old people, giving money to the poor, etc.). While I doubt have any objections to the credit being removed altogether, I think that leaving it in place for moderate income pastors would blunt the impact of the inevitable cries of "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" that are no doubt being heard in response to this ruling. I selflessly dedicate myself to playing good music for people's enjoyment, and depend on their willingness to come out to whatever establishments I happen to be performing at for income derived from such gigs. I get taxed.
Ah, some good news on that front. I doubt that the "average" middle class worker would agree that a minister deserves to be tax-exempt whereas they are not. Why make an exception for "modest" income?I'm willing to give those guys the benefit of the doubt and say that the majority of them spend their time selflessly helping others (you know, checking up on the lonely old people, giving money to the poor, etc.). While I doubt have any objections to the credit being removed altogether, I think that leaving it in place for moderate income pastors would blunt the impact of the inevitable cries of "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" that are no doubt being heard in response to this ruling. I selflessly dedicate myself to playing good music for people's enjoyment, and depend on their willingness to come out to whatever establishments I happen to be performing at for income derived from such gigs. I get taxed.But you're not doing it for Jebus! Sun Tzu's sage advice is to pick your battles carefully. We might have history on our side, but there's a risk of delaying the effort by going after everything all at once. If you attack both the fat cat preachers and the little guys, the media will focus on the little guys, and pull out the tear jerker stories. Go after the guys with the gold plated toilets and air conditioned dog houses alone, and the media can't devote air time to the humble preacher who spends his money on things like soup kitchens.
Ah, some good news on that front. I doubt that the "average" middle class worker would agree that a minister deserves to be tax-exempt whereas they are not. Why make an exception for "modest" income?I'm willing to give those guys the benefit of the doubt and say that the majority of them spend their time selflessly helping others (you know, checking up on the lonely old people, giving money to the poor, etc.). While I doubt have any objections to the credit being removed altogether, I think that leaving it in place for moderate income pastors would blunt the impact of the inevitable cries of "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" that are no doubt being heard in response to this ruling. I selflessly dedicate myself to playing good music for people's enjoyment, and depend on their willingness to come out to whatever establishments I happen to be performing at for income derived from such gigs. I get taxed.But you're not doing it for Jebus! Sun Tzu's sage advice is to pick your battles carefully. We might have history on our side, but there's a risk of delaying the effort by going after everything all at once. If you attack both the fat cat preachers and the little guys, the media will focus on the little guys, and pull out the tear jerker stories. Go after the guys with the gold plated toilets and air conditioned dog houses alone, and the media can't devote air time to the humble preacher who spends his money on things like soup kitchens. Hpwever, if there is a law that no one gets exemptions for housing (the only way such a law could pass constitutional muster) it will have to affect the humble preacher who spends his money on things like soup kitchens as well as the mega-church preachers who live in luxury, and journalists will choose to illustrate their stories by showing how oppressive such a law is to the humble preacher. They are less likely to write about the ones shamelessly exploiting the system. Lois
That particular Judge has made secular friendly common sense rulings before, backed by pages upon pages of documentation, only to be overturned by the SCOTUS in favor of religion.
Hpwever, if there is a law that no one gets exemptions for housing (the only way such a law could pass constitutional muster) it will have to affect the humble preacher who spends his money on things like soup kitchens as well as the mega-church preachers who live in luxury, and journalists will choose to illustrate their stories by showing how oppressive such a law is to the humble preacher. They are less likely to write about the ones shamelessly exploiting the system. LoisI get the good reasons for picking the battles. But, if a preacher really is *selflessly* giving their all, they will be living the life of a saint by example: in squalor, giving everything resource they come across to promoting their God message and leaving nothing for themselves. Such a person would scoff at the need for a tax break for unneeded housing.