|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Are you talking about what morally should be, or what actually is given current laws and caselaw? I can't tell, and you didn't cite any sources. I'm gonna need you to explain the way claiming a personal religion would give someone a significant advantage. That's the whole point of the establishment clause; the government can't favor any one religion, so they all get treated the same, as do the areligious. Like, if you want to set up your own OJ-worshiping 501c(3), go ahead, you can download the forms off the IRS' website and apply. If you meet the requirements, your tax exempt status will be granted and congratulations, you now need to audit yourself every year and submit proof that the funds you're putting into your non-profit are being used for the appropriate purposes. I, as an agnostic can claim discrimination if my (hypothetical) super religious boss is fires me for not going to his church, why shouldn't the OJ-tarians have the same protection?
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Define equal - size and shape? Population? If population, as long as it is contiguous and equal pop, how do you stop gerrymandering by political views? If size and shape, how is it fair? Seeing as this is the SCOTUS thread, I am going to go with the parameter mandated in Wesberry v. Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I'm gonna need you to explain the way claiming a personal religion would give someone a significant advantage. That's the whole point of the establishment clause; the government can't favor any one religion, so they all get treated the same, as do the areligious. No wonder jarmark called you an idiot. First, the government regularly considered what is and isn't a religion or a church. Look at https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/churches-defined to see how the Irs views it. Look at Scientology, which took 25 years to get tax exempt status as a religion Second, they get denied all the time. Here is the irs determining, in tax court, what is and isn't a religious organization https://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-003-cont01.html Finally, courts decide whether things qualify for religious protection all the time, because religious ministerial duties get protection from other labor laws. See headley v church of Scientology 687 f.3d 1173 As amusing as it is to parrot John Oliver, there is much more to it then he or you think. And you last claim is stupid because once again you are conflating situations and protections
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Scientology only got it's tax exemption because they infiltrated IRS ranks of all levels over 2 decades and had enough power inside the organization to ensure approval.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Look at Scientology, which took 25 years to get tax exempt status as a religion I thought they got exemption in exchange for not snowing the IRS with thousands of bullshit lawsuits, not through winning a real legal argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought they got exemption in exchange for not snowing the IRS with thousands of bullshit lawsuits, not through winning a real legal argument. See my post above. It wasn't just the pile of lawsuits. They conspired to essentially take over the IRS in order to get their exemption. The first actual insurrection was overt and people were jailed for it. After they actually just got many church members hired as IRS employees over time until they had enough internal sway. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I'm gonna need you to explain the way claiming a personal religion would give someone a significant advantage. That's the whole point of the establishment clause; the government can't favor any one religion, so they all get treated the same, as do the areligious. The classic example is inventing a religion to claim conscientious objector status to avoid the draft. Before the draft ended this happened all the time. It typically didn't work, because government officials aren't robots and can totally say "lol you just made that up." Even if it goes to court, judges can examine your lifestyle and see if it squares with the principles you claim to hold so dear. Even beyond that, though, the fact is that even legitimate, deeply-held beliefs can get stomped on of they're too uncommon to have a lobbying group and the people getting stomped don't have resources to sue. This is what I was getting at with the "how things should work" part of my question. Which you did not answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:No wonder jarmark called you an idiot. quote:"Churches" Defined Literally none of that constitutes explicit standards that a church or religion must absolutely meet in order to be considered as such. Edit: it was a mistake to dredge that up. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Even beyond that, though, the fact is that even legitimate, deeply-held beliefs can get stomped on of they're too uncommon to have a lobbying group and the people getting stomped don't have resources to sue. This is what I was getting at with the "how things should work" part of my question. Which you did not answer. Yes, sorry; I am talking specifically about how the laws are worded. I'm aware that it doesn't always work out that way in court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought they got exemption in exchange for not snowing the IRS with thousands of bullshit lawsuits, not through winning a real legal argument. Correct. That was their third attempt at gaining tax-exempt status. Their second attempt, Operation Snow White, was one of the largest infiltration operations in American history with up to 5,000 covert agents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Literally none of that constitutes explicit standards that a church or religion must absolutely meet in order to be considered as such. A) you obviously don't understand how factors work in a legal context B) nothing you said supports your dumbass contention that "If you declare yourself to be the sole follower of a weird-rear end religion, and you're not hurting anyone, your faith has exactly the same protections that the larger, more established ones do. No more, no less." C) you didn't even bother to challenge the idea that there are numerous court cases deciding what is and isn't a church D) why am I continuing to argue with an idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
"I read a TL;DR on the subject on Reddit and didn't really have a clue how it actually works, so I would like to, after the fact, state that I was only concerned with the facts I read and not anything that has anything to do with reality." Dude, the practice of law is about the practice of law. The value of lawyers and subject matter experts is that they actually know the real function of a thing. It is absolutely fair to criticize a pedagogical approach that wants to focus only on "how the law is written." Stare decisis is critical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Correct. That was their third attempt at gaining tax-exempt status. They should just started a 501c3 because apparently that's all they needed to do!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Someone posted some recommended reading in this thread some time back (or maybe it was a USPOL OP?) and I've only gone through three of them so far and am presently halfway through The Oath, but I'd like to think I've touched on enough constitutional law literature so far to realize, "Holy poo poo this is an entire goddamn legal industry unto itself." I now try very hard to question myself when I read a ruling or ordinance/law, looking for ways in which I may be assuming too much on how it is enforced or executed. Speaking as someone with a lot of compliance experience in information security, I can say that the question of actual enforcement is critically important in IT, so it probably is a huge subject in constitutional law as well -- one of innumerable huge subjects. fake edit: I post this because I don't think you are questioning yourself in the same way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:C) you didn't even bother to challenge the idea that there are numerous court cases deciding what is and isn't a church What the gently caress are you talking about? Did you read any part of the IRS links you posted? None of those cases where an organization was stripped of it's 501c (3) status were because of the content of their beliefs. Even scientology didn't lose it's status the first time because the believe the earth is polluted with alien ghosts, they lost it because the higher ups were using the non-profit to enrich themselves. You know what:  If anyone in this thread can find even one case where a US court or government institution declared an organization or individual's religious beliefs were false (not that they'd violated the law in pursuing them, or that they were using them to commit fraud, not "your lifestyle doesn't reflect that, you clearly don't believe it," but that the actual beliefs were invalid,) and it was upheld on all appeals, I will donate $50 each to two charitable organizations of EwokEntourage's choice, for a total of $100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? Did you read any part of the IRS links you posted? None of those cases where an organization was stripped of it's 501c (3) status were because of the content of their beliefs. Of course truth or falsity of the beliefs is irrelevant. What matters is sincerity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? Did you read any part of the IRS links you posted? None of those cases where an organization was stripped of it's 501c (3) status were because of the content of their beliefs. Wasn't there a FSM case decided recently
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? Did you read any part of the IRS links you posted? None of those cases where an organization was stripped of it's 501c (3) status were because of the content of their beliefs. https://www.rt.com/usa/339519-judge-flying-spaghetti-god/ quote:The US District Court of Nebraska has denied a prisoner’s right to practice Pastafarianism by ruling the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or FSMism, is not a religion but a “parody.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
That's the one I was thinking of
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Cavanaugh v. Bartelt has been filed as an appeal to the 8th Circuit, so the case remains unresolved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:Wasn't there a FSM case decided recently They're planning to appeal, as I heard it, and they key part of the ruling for me was that the judge noted that the plaintiff hadn't actually declared a personal belief, just that he was being denied accomodatuons to practice as a pastafarian regardless of actual faith. Regardless, as a gesture of goodwill; EwokEntourage, do you want to PM me your charities, and how you want proof that they've received donations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I need a simple, very strong reason why cutting the map into equal districts for the presidential general election is a bad idea, and I need another very good reason why forcing states to use convex-optimized district maps is a bad idea before I release any credence or recognition of merit to gerrymandered status quo with incredibly odd shapes that are clearly designed with the express intent of loving with the legitimacy of democratic process. The split between urban and rural voters (strongly democratic vs more weak republican) means cities act as a natural gerrymander and many mathematical models will aggravate that gerrymander such that the selection of criteria for the formula actually is just the same issue once removed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The split between urban and rural voters (strongly democratic vs more weak republican) means cities act as a natural gerrymander and many mathematical models will aggravate that gerrymander such that the selection of criteria for the formula actually is just the same issue once removed. Would it still be as bad, however, as "this fish-hook-attached-to-a-firetruck-with-the-ladder-extended is my district" gerrymandering? Cities kinda lumping together liberal voters and large swaths of countryside lumping together conservative voters still sounds very representative as there isn't an intentionally, precisely-tuned border that puts safe-but-close wins in some districts and large losses in others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Rephrased: we see lots of fish-hook-shapes gerrymanders as red states and blue states try to put wealthy white suburban doughnuts around cities into districts, and we see large pizza slices or meandering rivers where someone's trying to negate the blue weight of a city itself. Having the areas simply lumped separately without intentional, far-reaching blending borders seems more representative as it wouldn't be artificially imposing blended suburbanite/urbanite near-contest-but-safe districts that are the foundation of rigging by gerrymandering. e: I am using lots of hyphens because I don't know what you actually call these things and am an amateur / outsider on this poo poo double edit: am I being clear with my experimental vision? A state with a big city in the center and lots of conservative environs (let's take my state, Georgia) would have some very strong blue urban districts in the city area and lots of strong red districts elsewhere. The representatives in this situation would more precisely match the actual balance of blue and red voters as opposed to the VERY out-of-balance 10 red versus 4 blue status quo in federal House reps and two red senators. The state, by population, is much closer to 50-50 these days. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Why don't we just say gently caress districts all together? Take the number of seats and if the split is 50% D 50% R give half to the Democratic party to assign and half to the Republican party to assign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:the key part of the ruling for me was that the judge noted that the plaintiff hadn't actually declared a personal belief not sure what you mean by that, but there's this in the ruling: quote:Cavanaugh alleges that he is a Pastafarian: that he has "openly declared his beliefs for many years" and "has several tattoos proclaiming his faith." He began requesting that prison officials afford his "faith" the same rights and privileges as religious groups, including "the ability to order and wear religious clothing and pendants, the right to meet for weekly worship services and classes and the right to receive communion." His requests were rejected, because prison officials determined that FSMism was a parody religion. There's also a lot of hints at further court decisions that look to be topical here. quote:But that principle must have a limit, as courts have found when confronted with cultural beliefs; secular philosophies such as scientism, evolutionism, and objectivism; and institutions like the "Church of Cognizance" or "Church of Marijuana."" quote:"Because RLUIPA is a guarantor of sincerely held religious beliefs, it may not be invoked simply to protect any 'way of life, however virtuous and admirable, if it is based on purely secular considerations.'" Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 797 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972)). quote:Courts have taken different approaches to such inquiries. However, the Court can start with these indicia: First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs. All of these sound exactly like courts deciding what is or is not a religion, despite your original claims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Some substance: Metro Atanta and congressional districts: http://northgapolitics.com/pdf/2012congressiona-metro.pdf Districts 5 and 13, as an fyi, are pretty loving brazenly blatantly designed to put the undesirables into one big lump while 11 neutralizes the blue weight of the central corridor of Cobb (Marietta) that's become steadily more black in the last half century with whites moving eastward toward East Cobb, producing a red win. This an other awkward nonconvex peninsulas appear to artificially bridge economic/color zones (I don't know what else to call it) if you have an eye for property values and the boroughs of Atlanta. Thing about Atlanta is that you don't need very large spatial juts to have a massive change in home value / race composition. I know other states have much longer, thinner racially-gerrymandered districts; 11 isn't the only obvious problem on this map. Favoring county lines, for example, instead of going for a maximally-convex oval or circle may look innocent. When you consider the history of counties like Gwinnett (lower half of 7) and the largely-successful spectrum of efforts to maintain a white-only community from Driving While Black effects (if you are black, you avoid Gwinnett, I'm not overstating this) to HOA harassment to, cripes, everything you can imagine, however, it looses its appearance of innocence fast. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/GA Note that all four DNC reps are black. Where I would qualify the red zones as somewhat mixed in the above map, the blue ones are strictly segregated and heavily black and poor. Its actually making me feel queasy to see this and realize it isn't a thought experiment, but real life. Someone made these districts for real, and that person/entity is getting away with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
2012 general was 53% red and 45% blue. 10-4 representation in the House is horseshit. Creating most-convex districts by population would eliminate the edge cases created by the GOP in Georgia to weaken the effect of Atlanta and possibly Savannah as well. Maybe we'd see something closer to 8-6. Who knows?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Districts 5 and 13, as an fyi, are pretty loving brazenly blatantly designed to put the undesirables into one big lump Also to get some heavily Jewish neighborhoods out of the neighboring 4th district (which used to be represented by Cynthia McKinney, whose father at least would make anti Semitic remarks every year or so; now represented by Hank Johnson of termite comparison fame). Potato Salad posted:Note that all four DNC reps are black. The DNC is the Democratic National Committee governing body of the Democratic Party, and in Georgia has white members. You mean the Democratic members of the US House.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
botany posted:not sure what you mean by that, but there's this in the ruling: The line I was thinking of is at the bottom of page 9, but I'm leaving the previous paragraph in for context: quote:This case is difficult because FSMism, as a parody, is designed to look very much like a religion. Candidly, propositions from existing caselaw are not particularly well-suited for such a situation, because they developed to address more ad hoc creeds, not a comprehensive but plainly satirical doctrine. Nonetheless, it is evident to the Court that FSMism is not a belief system addressing "deep and imponderable" matters: it is, as explained Which raises the almost more worrying idea that not only can the government decide what is and is not a religion, but that it can govern whether or not you are practicing it appropriately. So, yeah. Can't wait to see where the appeal goes. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:The line I was thinking of is at the bottom of page 9, but I'm leaving the previous paragraph in for context: That's not remotely a new idea nor is it worrying. It should be brain dead obvious that the government has to be able to draw a line somewhere because it's a functional requirement of extending those protections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
First Liberty (formerly the Liberty institute) American center for law & justice Prove it however you want, I got my smug satisfaction to keep me warm at night
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:The line I was thinking of is at the bottom of page 9, but I'm leaving the previous paragraph in for context: quote:Which raises the almost more worrying idea that not only can the government decide what is and is not a religion, but that it can govern whether or not you are practicing it appropriately. But that has been on the books forever? "Sincerely held belief" is a core concept in a lot of different scenarios, from tax exemption to draft dodging. Actual religious practice has always been used by the courts to check whether somebody has sincerely held beliefs or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Would it still be as bad, however, as "this fish-hook-attached-to-a-firetruck-with-the-ladder-extended is my district" gerrymandering? Cities kinda lumping together liberal voters and large swaths of countryside lumping together conservative voters still sounds very representative as there isn't an intentionally, precisely-tuned border that puts safe-but-close wins in some districts and large losses in others. Creating compact districts that only skew towards including a community is a good thing. Districts that are strongly or even over moderately for one party or another are 100% of if it's due to everyone living in the same general area possessing similar political beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The DNC is the Democratic National Committee governing body of the Democratic Party, and in Georgia has white members. You mean the Democratic members of the US House. I need to learn where I am using improper names --- yes. I know GOP is thrown around as kinda a catch-all for RNC, its members, and its voters. Is there a catchall for DNC, its members, and voters? Just "Democrats" is too much effort to type quickly, and saying "democrats" out loud isn't as fun as the codfish yawn that is pronouncing the sound of conservative party acronym "gop."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I need to learn where I am using improper names --- yes. I know GOP is thrown around as kinda a catch-all for RNC, its members, and its voters. Is there a catchall for DNC, its members, and voters? Just "Democrats" is too much effort to type quickly, and saying "democrats" out loud isn't as fun as the codfish yawn that is pronouncing the sound of conservative party acronym "gop." The newspaper-headline term is "Dems," as in "Dems Nix Trade Pact."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
democrats isn't even the proper name. It's the Democratic Party. For short, though, just use dem just like you use gop and people will get the meaning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Don't cite to Russia Today.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Don't cite to Russia Today. Can I cite Russia tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:07 |
|
Dirk the Average posted:Can I cite Russia tomorrow? If it's not a Russian propaganda entity, then sure.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:00
|
|