Church forcing State involvement?

[madog]

If the dispute is non religious, merely a question of title or tennants rights on a purely secular basis then the courts are appropriate ...

however, all of their religious tripe should be barred from any proceedings ....

'separation of church and state'

[The Grand Nudger]

The same rights as any other renter.
(which aint much, here in the states)

Precisely.  Which is why the courts SHOULD be involved.  If it determined that the splitters have a right to stay put, fine.  It a court determines they should get out, also fine.

But the notion that religious groups can't avail themselves of law courts solely because they're religious groups (which is what was intimated) is simply nutty.

Boru

If the dispute is non religious, merely a question of title or tennants rights on a purely secular basis then the courts are appropriate ...

however, all of their religious tripe should be barred from any proceedings ....

'separation of church and state'

Madog hit it.  They shouldn't want Uncle Sam anywhere near resolving this dispute for them.  Either the title holder will rent the space, sell them the place....or they have to get out eventually.  

Our government forcibly depriving a religious organization of it's property in order to confer that property to a splinter sect after their breakup on ideological grounds is exactly the sort of shit the separation is meant to avoid.

Obviously IDK if biker has the details right, but if he does..it's not even remotely an issue of rights, or an issue of whether or not people should be able to go to court if they're religious, Boru. The building belongs to the entity on the title. If they've chosen not to be a part of that entity, suing in an attempt to deprive them of property over a religious disagreement between them is a no go. It was never their church, the larger entity was letting out the space. Hard pill to swallow, I'm sure.

The Watchtower Org ran a sort of reverse scheme on precisely this state of affairs for years and years. Where they'd hold the mortgage, supply the credit, and refer the contractors on a hall. At least in their case, once all the grifters had been paid through voluntary donations, the hall would transfer to the congregants - and they used the status quo being referred to by bikers anecdote as a selling point for this con.

[onlinebiker]

Precisely.  Which is why the courts SHOULD be involved.  If it determined that the splitters have a right to stay put, fine.  It a court determines they should get out, also fine.

But the notion that religious groups can't avail themselves of law courts solely because they're religious groups (which is what was intimated) is simply nutty.

Boru

If the dispute is non religious, merely a question of title or tennants rights on a purely secular basis then the courts are appropriate ...

however, all of their religious tripe should be barred from any proceedings ....

'separation of church and state'

Madog hit it.  They shouldn't want Uncle Sam anywhere near resolving this dispute for them.  Either the title holder will rent the space, sell them the place....or they have to get out eventually.  

Our government forcibly depriving a religious organization of it's property in order to confer that property to a splinter sect after their breakup on ideological grounds is exactly the sort of shit the separation is meant to avoid.

Obviously IDK if biker has the details right, but if he does..it's not even remotely an issue of rights, or an issue of whether or not people should be able to go to court if they're religious, Boru.  The building belongs to the entity on the title.  If they've chosen not to be a part of that entity, suing in an attempt to deprive them of property over a religious disagreement between them is a no go.  It was never their church, the larger entity was letting out the space.  Hard pill to swallow, I'm sure.

The Watchtower Org ran a sort of reverse scheme on precisely this state of affairs for years and years.  Where they'd hold the mortgage, supply the credit, and refer the contractors on a hall.  At least in their case, once all the grifters had been paid through voluntary donations, the hall would transfer to the congregants - and they used the status quo being referred to by bikers anecdote as a selling point for this con.

Considering my family was part of that church for over 50 years - I' m guessing I know what' s going on.....

[The Grand Nudger]

Just a standard caveat.  One would assume that they'd be satisfied by the UMA's reaffirmation of it's stance on the issue.  It's some next level shit to get pissy on account of how the UMA so much as considered it under immense pressure from it's congregants.

[Abaddon_ire]

How old are you?

A tax refund isn' t a gift. It' s you getting back what you overpaid in taxes.

So did you not know that or was that simply the worst comparrison you' ve ever made?

I'm 49.

Who said it was a gift?

I've made worse comparrisons [sic].

But you miss the point entirely.  Should access to justice be determined by how much or how little one pays in taxes?  You seemed to think it was a good idea when applied to churches, how about to people?  If we lived in the same country and I paid more tax than you, should I get better access to the court system?

Boru

No, but comparing a refugee, or a homeless person to a church that actively extracts vast wealth from the gullible as a matter of course is not remotely analogous.

Add to that the simple fact that said wealth is religiously defined as exempt from suit from crimes committed and you have a problem. You somehow want the refugee  or impoverished to be subject to the law when they have nothing. Somehow, you are proposing that the religious should be exempt from the very same rule of law, even though their obscene wealth is derived from a lie inflicted on the gullible because...who knows. 

You seem to be proposing that the religious should be exempt because...reasons.

The simple facts on the ground make the lie of such a position. The lowest in society have the law vigourously applied. Why do they get exempt? Mohammed Fugee is subject to tax laws. Joe Junkie is subject to tax laws. Religions are not. Religions get to apply a "stupidity tax" and keep the proceeds for themselves. Does this seem fair to you, somehow?