Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[The Grand Nudger]

You misunderstand, I'm telling you that it wouldn't....and that even if there were a compliance issue, there is already a process to remedy compliance.

If it's a credible concern, then it can receive exactly the sorts of consideration already in place, and wouldn't it be expected to? A legitimate entity will be more than capable of remedying any hypothetical compliance issue. A criminal entity - the kind of entity that greater restrictions on federal funding and tax status are explicitly meant to address, will not.

[Angrboda]

You misunderstand, I'm telling you that it wouldn't....and that even if there were a compliance issue, there is already a process to remedy compliance.

If it's a credible concern, then it can receive exactly the sorts of consideration already in place, and wouldn't it be expected to?  A legitimate entity will be more than capable of remedying any hypothetical compliance issue.  A criminal entity - the kind of entity that greater restrictions on federal funding and tax status are explicitly meant to address, will not.

What in God's name are you babbling about? That Greatest I Am's argument that things he doesn't value shouldn't be subsidized wouldn't affect these 501c3's? It would. You need to pull your head out of your ass. You don't know what you're talking about and your experience with 501c3's isn't relevant. You have no relevant experience. What the hell do criminal entities have to do with it? That is your ball gamer and has nothing to do with our discussion. You're just engaged in your usual slipshod and sloppy argumentation.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that GIA makes a competent argument for the position that something should be done about tax exempt status and particularly with respect to any religion which could be credibly described as harmful, dangerous, or in a meaningful sense traitors to their country or to the ideals of their country.

GIA doesn't make one, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one to be had. Greater scrutiny on c3s doesn't help me in any way. If it could do anything to me, it could only harm me. I, however, like the vast majority of c3s, am compliant...and doing none of those sorts of things we're discussing as a cause for reform. Those sorts of things are already either criminal, or advocates insist that their factual character is such that they should be and seek to make it so.

If it somehow improbably came to be that I and that vast majority of others had an issue - there is already a process for remedying compliance.

This is not an argument for why GIA is correct, if that's what you'd thought. It is the explanation for why your comments about harm to desired services are in error. There are certainly issues surrounding reform. This isn't one of them, and, honestly, if it is, that's just the mob extorting us as usual - and why would that matter to our laws? If we're being extorted by a group we subsidize, those funds are better used directly providing the service.

---

-and if I've misunderstood those comments, ofc, I apologize.

[Angrboda]

I don't think that GIA makes a competent argument for the position that something should be done about tax exempt status and particularly with respect to any religion which could be credibly described as harmful, dangerous, or in a meaningful sense traitors to their country or to the ideals of their country.

GIA doesn't make one, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one to be had.  Greater scrutiny on c3s doesn't help me in any way.  If it could do anything to me, it could only harm me.  I, however, like the vast majority of c3s, am compliant...and doing none of those sorts of things we're discussing as a cause for reform.  Those sorts of things are already either criminal, or advocates insist that their factual character is such that they should be and seek to make it so.

I wasn't arguing that a successful argument for termination of the church's subsidy that wouldn't impact other organizations could not be made, so your complaint is irrelevant. I also wasn't saying anything about greater scrutiny and 501c3 compliance either, so that, too, is irrelevant. And I wasn't even remotely discussing behaviors inside or outside the church which can be considered criminal. That, too, is irrelevant. Your entire response is irrelevant to our discussion.

However, if posting irrelevant red herrings and digressions meets some emotional need you have, I'm certainly willing to support that in the interest of bonhomie and esprit de corps.

[The Grand Nudger]

As to taxes, I haven't dived very deeply into it, but I suspect many of the objections to church exemption, if generally applied, would harm a great many beneficial organizations.  

Let's begin again.  What have I misunderstood here?

[Angrboda]

As to taxes, I haven't dived very deeply into it, but I suspect many of the objections to church exemption, if generally applied, would harm a great many beneficial organizations.  

Let's begin again.  What have I misunderstood here?

I don't know. What I do know is that you've completely misconstrued what I said and gone off the rails with irrelevancies.

Why don't you restate my argument as you understand it and I might be able to see what your difficulty is.

[The Grand Nudger]

The quote above is what I've been responding to. I don't think that many of the objections to church exemptions would harm a great many beneficial organizations, and I note that if it were an issue there is already a process to appeal and remedy compliance.

I don't think that it would significantly impact the operations of churches providing those services, even - as the entities are already legally dissociated. The majority of c3s are not religious in any way, and not using their c3 status to do anything even remotely like what the subjects of such reforms focuses on. There's a credible concern for rare occasions when a service is only being provided by an offending organization - but given dissociation or the availability of recapturing subsidies to attend to that service - in addition to the mentioned process above for an organization to appeal and remedy their compliance - we have the tools required to scrutinize this at whatever level is appropriate to a given claimant.

The situation, with respect to c3s, simply isn't as bad as the current institutional use of c3 status by some religious organizations would make it seem.

[Angrboda]

The quote above is what I've been responding to.  I don't think that many of the objections to church exemptions would harm a great many beneficial organizations, and I note that if it were an issue there is already a process to appeal and remedy compliance.  

I don't think that it would significantly impact the operations of churches providing those services, even - as the entities are already legally dissociated.  The majority of c3s are not religious in any way, and not using their c3 status to do anything even remotely like what the subjects of such reforms focuses on.  There's a credible concern for rare occasions when a service is only being provided by an offending organization - but given dissociation or the availability of recapturing subsidies to attend to that service - in addition to the mentioned process above for an organization to appeal and remedy their compliance - we have the tools required to scrutinize this at whatever level is appropriate to a given claimant.  

The situation, with respect to c3s, simply isn't as bad as the current institutional use of c3 status by some religious organizations would make it seem.

The compliance procedures in place do not say anything one way or the other about what the arguments in favor of eliminating the tax exemption for churches would do. That you continue to inanely insist that you think it's relevant shows that you've not understood what I said. And since you're only interested in repeating your irrelevant objections, and show no interest in actually identifying the source of your misunderstanding, there's nothing more I can do here. I'd tell you to have a nice day, but I know that I wouldn't mean it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Apologies for the misunderstanding, then, whatever it is.

[Greatest I am]

Change is a constant in nature, and, additionally, there's no natural rule (changing or unchanging) that man is bound to respect.  Adapting to new situations that require new tools is kindof our bag.  Our religions traditions reflect that.

I agree that things are in constant change.

Not the laws that govern them. Changing laws were at issue, not change.

Regards
DL