News-Record.com

I would think that activities and buildings that are meant to house them which are not directly involved in the profession and practice of the rituals of a religion sould be subject to taxation, without imposing undue restriction on the congregants' religious liberty.

i say, interpret the laws on the books and then proceed accordingly.

"i say, interpret the laws on the books and then proceed accordingly."

Well, that's where the problem starts, isn't it? The laws that are on the books are being changed, often through un-democratic processes such as "earmarks." And they are being changed in some very unwise ways. The very idea that daycare centers can go un-supervised by any state is just asking for some awful abuses. The rest of the article give numerous other examples. It's definitely out of whack.

john i don't disagree that unsupervised daycare centers are not a good idea and they are a receipe for disaster.....the'laws' are 'supposed' to be in the best interest of us all (not sure i fully believe that), so what i am suggesting is to somehow change the laws which allow these abuses. as long as there are laws on the books which favor this type of abuse, what can the average citizen do (aside from not sending our children there) ?

"What you are suggesting" seemed to change when John called you on it, buz. Your first post said to interpret the laws on the books, which implies the laws already in effect. Then, you say we should "somehow change the laws which allow such abuses".

Like maybe the First Amendment?

I think Buz recognizes that some laws, particularly those mentioned in Nancy's article, are over the line. And his question -- what to do until the imbalance can be corrected -- is an interesting one.

But let's not kid ourselves. Imbalance in this arena is going to last a long time, and laws probably will remain in force until obvious harm comes about. It's just like dangerous traffic intersections with stop signs. No one bothers about them until AFTER someone gets killed.

I see, John. You kindly ascribe to buz plenty of leeway in his secondary phrase "and proceed accordingly", from his first post. That could as easily mean "enforce the laws already on the books and damn the consequences", however. In addition, buz, in his caveat, then couches his previous apparent respect for the "laws" with dismissive quotation marks. But it is patently not possible for any law or set of regulations to be in the best interest of everyone. favoritism is inevitable. Churches often feel hamstrung by what they may see as unnecessary oversight into minutae. Hence, the "laws" do not, cannot, be set insuch a manner as to please and promote the desired "good" of all. All choices, including which laws to pass, enforce, obey and lobby for or against, with concommitant allocation of scarce resources, entail trade-offs. In these negotiations, some party is certain to get the shorter end of the stick.

john,
thank you for 'understanding' where i was coming from on my second response.

fn,
you are much too much intellectual for me ( and i suppose that gives you a boner, to receive the accolade you desperately seek ). it's as if you are more interested in picking apart each and every post word for word just looking to catch or criticize someone when you perceive to understand their every thought, get over yourself fella. when i want intellect with intelligence i listen to nikos speak.
i thank God that He does not require an overbearing intellect but rather a humble spirit to accept His Son as Savior. i openly confess that i am of AVERAGE intellect and AVERAGE education (fn this ought to make you feel really superior, i quit school in 9th grade and i suspect you'll comment that it shows, oh well) and i praise God for calling someone like me into His kingdom, Amen !
i am now prepared for my intellectual whipping.....
oh God, into thy hands do i commit my spirit....

"fn,
you are much too much intellectual for me ( and i suppose that gives you a boner, to receive the accolade you desperately seek ). it's as if you are more interested in picking apart each and every post word for word just looking to catch or criticize someone when you perceive to understand their every thought"

Time for an attempt at peace-making, if I may. I think we are all guilty of reading others' posts using a filter we devise based on prior posts. It certainly seemed to me that FN's accusations would make sense if he saw Buz as a dominionist, fundamentalist militant. Buz seems to view FN as a militant elitist intellectual snob. And I wouldn't be surprised if both people had given some reason for the impressions that others have developed.

But I think that conversing in this forum might make a little more sense if one were to have some hope of an exchange of ideas. If everyone does all give and no take, there's hardly any real point to this, I believe. So I'm hopeful that Buz and FN might look for acceptance of some point or other in each others' posts. And when such agreements do occur, that'd just be cool, not reason to do some sort of victory dance.

I'm not saying all of this as well as I'd like. But if we could agree that disagreement isn't such a terrible thing, maybe we can come to learn something from each other...?

john,
i appreciate the spirit in which you posted. i am all for peace. i have no problem moving on from here and i'll do better to become more civil in the future.
fn, i probably overreacted and i offer the olive branch.

:-)

Branch well-shook.

So, what is we might agree on before we tear into another argument? Should churches pay taxes on their non-sanctuary properties? Should they accord with all state mandates for daycares? Should they be subject to unannounced random inspections of daycare facilities?

fn,
i am not personally opposed to taxes on non sanctuary property, state mandates for daycares (excellent idea), or unannounced random inspection (another excellent idea) but it seems they (religious schools, daycares etc) are exempt by law, thus back to what i weakly tried to say originally....we are subject (at this point) to enforce what laws regulate these entities, until and if the laws are changed.

I think that all are agreed that the laws need to be enforced as written. But I would urge those who believe there are laws on the books that are wrong to do what they can to get them repealed or corrected. Write letters to the editor, write to their representitives (not always effective, but what are you gonna do?) or even run for office.

I would run myself, only I can't afford the frustration, certain rejection and loss of income.

Glad we have agreement here. Do you think pastors like Rick Warren should get the substantial write-offs they do for housing expenses (originally allowed for the clergy because they were paid so little)? He gets to write off $50,000+ every year for his housing. And pays no income tax. Granted, he gives away most of his earnings for his books (right back into to his church, I assume).
He is suing to retain the full write-off as opposed to "fair market rent" value. The Congress passed a law to grant him and others like him the fuill amount for past years, but to restrict the amount in years to come. Warren is still suing, I believe.