|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 20 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Just as an aside, if you are a Catholic, than you must realize that by supporting gay marriage you are deliberately placing yourself at odds with the Church and the moral duty of the Catholic person, thus deliberately placing yourself at odds with God.
Also that by denying the inherent wrongness in homosexual marriage that you are dancing quite closely to crossing over into heresy.
A Catholic is not obligated to agree with the Church on all things; there is a rich history of dissent in Catholicism leading to change in both doctrine and morality. I agree with basically all Catholic fundamental doctrines, and I believe in the sacraments. The rest is just details.
The Catholic Church is not God, nor is it God's mouthpiece. It is fallible, like any other large body. I have faith that, as a whole, it is usually right about the fundamental things. But about various fleeting moral issues, it can and does change, and it is not infallible unless styled as such.
The Catholic Church holds that morality is accessible to reason, ergo it is based neither on appeal to authority of the Magisterium nor faith alone. In that regard, I have read the moral arguments offered by the Catholic Church to establish that homosexual sex is immoral and found them wanting, as they are based on an outmoded ontology which is no longer applicable to modern psychology, sexual identity, or philosophy, as well as a conception of teleology that doesn't make sense in the context of evolutionary science. In addition, I question the notion that a maximally good God would permit homosexuals to exist, give them a sexual orientation identical to that of a heterosexual except with swapped referents, and then demand they necessarily engage in self-denial of an important component of their identity for no obvious reason. When one considers that homosexuality isn't a choice, and that it's something that applies only to consenting adults, I fail to see what's so destructive or unnatural or evil about it.
Finally, if the Church wishes to excommunicate me, it may do so. That said, it hasn't, so I see no reason to fear heresy. As the great Cardinal Newmann said: "I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still to conscience first and to the Pope afterwards."
|
On July 20 2013 01:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Just as an aside, if you are a Catholic, than you must realize that by supporting gay marriage you are deliberately placing yourself at odds with the Church and the moral duty of the Catholic person, thus deliberately placing yourself at odds with God.
Also that by denying the inherent wrongness in homosexual marriage that you are dancing quite closely to crossing over into heresy. A Catholic is not obligated to agree with the Church on all things; there is a rich history of dissent in Catholicism leading to change in both doctrine and morality. I agree with basically all Catholic fundamental doctrines, and I believe in the sacraments. The rest is just details. The Catholic Church is not God, nor is it God's mouthpiece. It is fallible, like any other large body. I have faith that, as a whole, it is usually right about the fundamental things. But about various fleeting moral issues, it can and does change, and it is not infallible unless styled as such.
Unfortunately, almost none of that is true... 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that "the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her"; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals".
|
"where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals".
There have been two ex cathedra statements made to date, and neither of them have to do with homosexuality, or even morality.
Unless you mean to assert that all moral precepts the Catholic Church has ever held are infallibly correct (which is impossible, since some contradict each other) then you need to rethink what you're saying here.
I'm fairly skeptical of the validity of papal infallibility anyway, but since nobody ever uses it, I don't tend to argue about it much. When one looks at the context of its formalization, it's pretty clear that it had less to do with clarifying a widely held belief and more to do with asserting pontifical power in an era where the Vatican's temporal power was rapidly vanishing. Looked at in that context, it's no wonder that no pope dares use it anymore.
|
On July 20 2013 01:29 Shiori wrote:
"where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals".
There have been two ex cathedra statements made to date, and neither of them have to do with homosexuality, or even morality.
Unless you mean to assert that all moral precepts the Catholic Church has ever held are infallibly correct (which is impossible, since some contradict each other) then you need to rethink what you're saying here.
The infallibility of the Church is separate from the infallibility of the Pope.
It's a tricky situation, defining where the infallibility comes into play and where it doesn't. I haven't really studied the Church doctrines in a long time, but suffice it to say that the moral prohibition by Christ on sex outside of marriage, as well as the definition of marriage itself, are still in effect today as much as they were when Jesus uttered them.
|
On July 20 2013 01:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2013 01:29 Shiori wrote:
"where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals".
There have been two ex cathedra statements made to date, and neither of them have to do with homosexuality, or even morality.
Unless you mean to assert that all moral precepts the Catholic Church has ever held are infallibly correct (which is impossible, since some contradict each other) then you need to rethink what you're saying here. The infallibility of the Church is separate from the infallibility of the Pope.
It is, but defining "the Church" is very difficult because, ultimately, the Church = the body of Christ, not the Vatican. Considering that at least half of Catholics (particularly in Western nations) believe that SSM should be legal, it's pretty difficult to say that "the Church" infallibly witnesses otherwise.
It's a tricky situation, defining where the infallibility comes into play and where it doesn't. I haven't really studied the Church doctrines in a long time, but suffice it to say that the moral prohibition by Christ on sex outside of marriage, as well as the definition of marriage itself, are still in effect today as much as they were when Jesus uttered them.
As far as I know, Jesus never said anything about sex outside of marriage. He never said anything about homosexuality at all, either. What's more, marriage in Jesus' era was a completely different concept than it was a few centuries later, or a few centuries after that, and so on. Jesus was not concerned with instituting dogmas and doctrines and writing catechisms. It is a massive historical error to presume that Jesus was any sort of systematic theologian, or that he was trying to create an institutional church like the one we have today. Indeed, until the Council of Nicaea, the Catholic Church scarcely resembled the structure it does today, and nor did it hold to many of the clearly explicated beliefs we have now. Natural law, for example, wasn't adopted until after St. Thomas Aquinas systematized it, which was over 1000 years after Christ.
|
Canada11368 Posts
I imagine this has already played itself out in this thread, but I've been reading a little on this so-called IRS Scandal over Tea Party applications.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/
I'm less interested in whether or not there was anti-Tea Party targetting or whether Obama had anything to do with it (doubtful imo.)
I'm more curious as to how what they are applying for works. I believe this is the 501c they using to apply
(c) List of exempt organizations
The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Now it seems strange to me that ANY political organization is able to apply under this paragraphy as it says "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..." Now I don't know too much about Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS, but it seems they also have been heavily engaged in politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/
But they’re not meant to be political. A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.”
I don't understand how any of these organizations whether or Tea Party, Republican, or Democrat fit under 501c4.
This organization was formed to help engage Americans in the Tea Party movement, people who think our society is headed in the wrong direction, who think we’re taxed too much, who think excessive debt is bad,” Backer told me. This seems a cop out to fit under the heading of "social welfare." Under this line of thinking, I could call any of my pet political views as being good for all America, that without it, America is heading in the wrong direction, and that promoting my pet political view is promoting social welfare.
Seems to me that there is a heavy distortion in IRS policy in interpreting 501c4 to allow any of these organizations tax exemptions. (And perhaps more importantly, by applying under 501c4, the donor list is kept anonymous instead of filing with the FEC.) Or am I reading this wrong?
|
The IRS scandal was connected this week not just to the Washington office—that had been established—but to the office of the chief counsel.
That is a bombshell—such a big one that it managed to emerge in spite of an unfocused, frequently off-point congressional hearing in which some members seemed to have accidentally woken up in the middle of a committee room, some seemed unaware of the implications of what their investigators had uncovered, one pretended that the investigation should end if IRS workers couldn't say the president had personally called and told them to harass his foes, and one seemed to be holding a filibuster on Pakistan.
Still, what landed was a bombshell. And Democrats know it. Which is why they are so desperate to make the investigation go away. They know, as Republicans do, that the chief counsel of the IRS is one of only two Obama political appointees in the entire agency.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578614220949743916.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
|
Looks like a normal Peggy Noonan Op-Ed; start out with something exciting like "this is a bombshell folks" and then end it with, "Those trying to get to the bottom of the scandal have to dig in, pay attention. The administration's defenders, and their friends in the press, have made some progress in confusing the issue through misdirection and misstatement." and "This is the moment things go forward or stall. Republicans need to find out how high the scandal went and why, exactly, it went there. To do that they'll have to up their game."
Should they not pay attention your writing, Ms. Noonan? Because you appear to be writing exactly what Darrell Issa is actually saying, that being nothing.
|
Pretty sure if it's a bomb shell, nobody will need Peggy Noonan to point it out.
On July 20 2013 02:36 Falling wrote:I imagine this has already played itself out in this thread, but I've been reading a little on this so-called IRS Scandal over Tea Party applications. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/I'm less interested in whether or not there was anti-Tea Party targetting or whether Obama had anything to do with it (doubtful imo.) I'm more curious as to how what they are applying for works. I believe this is the 501c they using to apply Show nested quote +
(c) List of exempt organizations
The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Now it seems strange to me that ANY political organization is able to apply under this paragraphy as it says "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..." Now I don't know too much about Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS, but it seems they also have been heavily engaged in politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/Show nested quote +But they’re not meant to be political. A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.” I don't understand how any of these organizations whether or Tea Party, Republican, or Democrat fit under 501c4. Show nested quote +This organization was formed to help engage Americans in the Tea Party movement, people who think our society is headed in the wrong direction, who think we’re taxed too much, who think excessive debt is bad,” Backer told me. This seems a cop out to fit under the heading of "social welfare." Under this line of thinking, I could call any of my pet political views as being good for all America, that without it, America is heading in the wrong direction, and that promoting my pet political view is promoting social welfare. Seems to me that there is a heavy distortion in IRS policy in interpreting 501c4 to allow any of these organizations tax exemptions. (And perhaps more importantly, by applying under 501c4, the donor list is kept anonymous instead of filing with the FEC.) Or am I reading this wrong?
Basically, the way the law is being enforced, you have to prove somebody is NOT a 501c(4), in that their message is primarily not about "social welfare." There are some red flags that will do that, like advertising for or against a specific candidate or party. Otherwise, they very well can take a position, like, "Gay marriage ruins society!" and focus on that message.
|
On July 20 2013 05:57 aksfjh wrote:
Pretty sure if it's a bomb shell, nobody will need Peggy Noonan to point it out.
Well they are looking for bombshells of any size in the IRS case. Even if they are only in their mind.
|
On July 20 2013 02:36 Falling wrote:I imagine this has already played itself out in this thread, but I've been reading a little on this so-called IRS Scandal over Tea Party applications. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/I'm less interested in whether or not there was anti-Tea Party targetting or whether Obama had anything to do with it (doubtful imo.) I'm more curious as to how what they are applying for works. I believe this is the 501c they using to apply Show nested quote +
(c) List of exempt organizations
The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Now it seems strange to me that ANY political organization is able to apply under this paragraphy as it says "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..." Now I don't know too much about Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS, but it seems they also have been heavily engaged in politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/Show nested quote +But they’re not meant to be political. A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.” I don't understand how any of these organizations whether or Tea Party, Republican, or Democrat fit under 501c4. Show nested quote +This organization was formed to help engage Americans in the Tea Party movement, people who think our society is headed in the wrong direction, who think we’re taxed too much, who think excessive debt is bad,” Backer told me. This seems a cop out to fit under the heading of "social welfare." Under this line of thinking, I could call any of my pet political views as being good for all America, that without it, America is heading in the wrong direction, and that promoting my pet political view is promoting social welfare. Seems to me that there is a heavy distortion in IRS policy in interpreting 501c4 to allow any of these organizations tax exemptions. (And perhaps more importantly, by applying under 501c4, the donor list is kept anonymous instead of filing with the FEC.) Or am I reading this wrong?
I certainly agree with your assessment, although in a certain sense it makes what the IRS did even more damning: selective enforcement of a regulation which essentially everyone is breaking is precisely the sort of favoritism we shouldn't want (though in this case it is not just partisan favoritism per se so much as favoritism of large, well-connected entities on both sides of the aisle).
|
On July 20 2013 06:06 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2013 02:36 Falling wrote:I imagine this has already played itself out in this thread, but I've been reading a little on this so-called IRS Scandal over Tea Party applications. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/I'm less interested in whether or not there was anti-Tea Party targetting or whether Obama had anything to do with it (doubtful imo.) I'm more curious as to how what they are applying for works. I believe this is the 501c they using to apply
(c) List of exempt organizations
The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Now it seems strange to me that ANY political organization is able to apply under this paragraphy as it says "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..." Now I don't know too much about Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS, but it seems they also have been heavily engaged in politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/But they’re not meant to be political. A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.” I don't understand how any of these organizations whether or Tea Party, Republican, or Democrat fit under 501c4. This organization was formed to help engage Americans in the Tea Party movement, people who think our society is headed in the wrong direction, who think we’re taxed too much, who think excessive debt is bad,” Backer told me. This seems a cop out to fit under the heading of "social welfare." Under this line of thinking, I could call any of my pet political views as being good for all America, that without it, America is heading in the wrong direction, and that promoting my pet political view is promoting social welfare. Seems to me that there is a heavy distortion in IRS policy in interpreting 501c4 to allow any of these organizations tax exemptions. (And perhaps more importantly, by applying under 501c4, the donor list is kept anonymous instead of filing with the FEC.) Or am I reading this wrong? I certainly agree with your assessment, although in a certain sense it makes what the IRS did even more damning: selective enforcement of a regulation which essentially everyone is breaking is precisely the sort of favoritism we shouldn't want (though in this case it is not just partisan favoritism per se so much as favoritism of large, well-connected entities on both sides of the aisle).
Actually, the lists that they used to “target” specific groups were aimed at both parties. They also used buzz words like “progressive” and “community”. The only reason Tea party groups noticed first was because there are more of them seeking 501c4 status. This wasn’t pointed out in the first inquiry because the investigator was only looking to see if conservative groups were being targeted and conservative groups were the first to complain.
At the end of the day though, it was a stupid policy to have any they never should have used lists like that. The rule 501c4 tax status is also a whole bunch of BS, but that is another discussion.
|
On July 20 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2013 06:06 HunterX11 wrote:On July 20 2013 02:36 Falling wrote:I imagine this has already played itself out in this thread, but I've been reading a little on this so-called IRS Scandal over Tea Party applications. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/I'm less interested in whether or not there was anti-Tea Party targetting or whether Obama had anything to do with it (doubtful imo.) I'm more curious as to how what they are applying for works. I believe this is the 501c they using to apply
(c) List of exempt organizations
The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Now it seems strange to me that ANY political organization is able to apply under this paragraphy as it says "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..." Now I don't know too much about Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS, but it seems they also have been heavily engaged in politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/But they’re not meant to be political. A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.” I don't understand how any of these organizations whether or Tea Party, Republican, or Democrat fit under 501c4. This organization was formed to help engage Americans in the Tea Party movement, people who think our society is headed in the wrong direction, who think we’re taxed too much, who think excessive debt is bad,” Backer told me. This seems a cop out to fit under the heading of "social welfare." Under this line of thinking, I could call any of my pet political views as being good for all America, that without it, America is heading in the wrong direction, and that promoting my pet political view is promoting social welfare. Seems to me that there is a heavy distortion in IRS policy in interpreting 501c4 to allow any of these organizations tax exemptions. (And perhaps more importantly, by applying under 501c4, the donor list is kept anonymous instead of filing with the FEC.) Or am I reading this wrong? I certainly agree with your assessment, although in a certain sense it makes what the IRS did even more damning: selective enforcement of a regulation which essentially everyone is breaking is precisely the sort of favoritism we shouldn't want (though in this case it is not just partisan favoritism per se so much as favoritism of large, well-connected entities on both sides of the aisle). Actually, the lists that they used to “target” specific groups were aimed at both parties. They also used buzz words like “progressive” and “community”. The only reason Tea party groups noticed first was because there are more of them seeking 501c4 status. This wasn’t pointed out in the first inquiry because the investigator was only looking to see if conservative groups were being targeted and conservative groups were the first to complain. At the end of the day though, it was a stupid policy to have any they never should have used lists like that. The rule 501c4 tax status is also a whole bunch of BS, but that is another discussion.
My info could be outdated but I had heard that Tea Party groups were the ones actually getting audited.
As for rule 501c4... welcome to the US tax code where "wtf is this nonsense?!?!?!" is par for the course 
|
On July 20 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2013 06:06 HunterX11 wrote:On July 20 2013 02:36 Falling wrote:I imagine this has already played itself out in this thread, but I've been reading a little on this so-called IRS Scandal over Tea Party applications. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/I'm less interested in whether or not there was anti-Tea Party targetting or whether Obama had anything to do with it (doubtful imo.) I'm more curious as to how what they are applying for works. I believe this is the 501c they using to apply
(c) List of exempt organizations
The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Now it seems strange to me that ANY political organization is able to apply under this paragraphy as it says "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..." Now I don't know too much about Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS, but it seems they also have been heavily engaged in politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/But they’re not meant to be political. A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.” I don't understand how any of these organizations whether or Tea Party, Republican, or Democrat fit under 501c4. This organization was formed to help engage Americans in the Tea Party movement, people who think our society is headed in the wrong direction, who think we’re taxed too much, who think excessive debt is bad,” Backer told me. This seems a cop out to fit under the heading of "social welfare." Under this line of thinking, I could call any of my pet political views as being good for all America, that without it, America is heading in the wrong direction, and that promoting my pet political view is promoting social welfare. Seems to me that there is a heavy distortion in IRS policy in interpreting 501c4 to allow any of these organizations tax exemptions. (And perhaps more importantly, by applying under 501c4, the donor list is kept anonymous instead of filing with the FEC.) Or am I reading this wrong? I certainly agree with your assessment, although in a certain sense it makes what the IRS did even more damning: selective enforcement of a regulation which essentially everyone is breaking is precisely the sort of favoritism we shouldn't want (though in this case it is not just partisan favoritism per se so much as favoritism of large, well-connected entities on both sides of the aisle). Actually, the lists that they used to “target” specific groups were aimed at both parties. They also used buzz words like “progressive” and “community”. The only reason Tea party groups noticed first was because there are more of them seeking 501c4 status. This wasn’t pointed out in the first inquiry because the investigator was only looking to see if conservative groups were being targeted and conservative groups were the first to complain. At the end of the day though, it was a stupid policy to have any they never should have used lists like that. The rule 501c4 tax status is also a whole bunch of BS, but that is another discussion. My info could be outdated but I had heard that Tea Party groups were the ones actually getting audited. As for rule 501c4... welcome to the US tax code where "wtf is this nonsense?!?!?!" is par for the course
They didn't get audited, but were required to provide more details than other groups due to their name. They were required to do extra work that other groups were not. This lead to congress finding out that the IRS had "trigger words" like Tea Party that would cause them to demand more proof from that group. The initial report showed that conservative groups were being targeted by these words. But later on, when the full list was reviewed, it was found that both parties has "trigger words" targeted at them. Its just that the tea party was the first to complain.
|
Didn't the Catholic Church have a doctrine of Jewish Deicide that they eliminated during Vatican II? So isn't calling the Church infallible impossible? It's kind of like God changing his mind about some of the laws in the Old Testament for New Testament. It doesn't actually make any sense.
But hey, it's not my religion. I don't have to work out for my mental gymnastics like you do.
|
On July 20 2013 07:12 DoubleReed wrote:
Didn't the Catholic Church have a doctrine of Jewish Deicide that they eliminated during Vatican II? So isn't calling the Church infallible impossible? It's kind of like God changing his mind about some of the laws in the Old Testament for New Testament. It doesn't actually make any sense.
No, the CC has never had any such doctrine. It was a popular view among Christians throughout history, but it was not doctrinal in any way.
|
From A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman:
The doctrine that Jews were doomed to perpetual servitude as Christ-killers was announced by Pope Innocent III in 1205 and led Thomas Aquinas to conclude with relentless logic that "since Jews are the slaves of the Church, she can dispose of their possessions." Legally, politically, and physically, they were totally vulnerable.
This was the same guy that originated the idea of giving Jews special badges to wear.
|
It's incredibly difficult to take the Catholic church's position on the infallibility of itself when its long history shows rather clearly when surprisingly different things became accepted and made canonical within its own doctrine. Look at how Aquinas was received, for example, during his own life and the years after his death. There was a period when the Catholic theologian's thought was considered heretical. Also see, for example, how divisive the theological thinking within the Catholic church has been during the 20th century (the Thomistic orthodoxy vs. the heavily phenomenology influenced thinkers such as Rahner and the early Pope John Paul II) which culminated in Vatican II where Rahner's influence clearly won over the conservatives, and Benedict's recent moves to retrieve some of the pre-Vatican II elements. This idea of some overarching, unchanging Catholic centrality in doctrine is historically fantastical and conceptually ignorant, and it does an incredible disservice to just how diverse the Catholic church is and has been (and thus despite my general anti-Catholicism I can't really disparage the entirety of the organization because I'm aware of its internal diversity). Yelling out "heresy!" when talking about doctrine is mostly just a sham, given how so many great theologians were called heretics or heterodox by their ideological opponents.
On July 20 2013 07:47 Leporello wrote:From A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman: Show nested quote +The doctrine that Jews were doomed to perpetual servitude as Christ-killers was announced by Pope Innocent III in 1205 and led Thomas Aquinas to conclude with relentless logic that "since Jews are the slaves of the Church, she can dispose of their possessions." Legally, politically, and physically, they were totally vulnerable. This was the same guy that originated the idea of giving Jews special badges to wear.
But this also has to be nuanced with how Aquinas was one of the major theological figures that argued that Jewish children should not be forcefully converted as that impinges on 1. the natural rights of the Jewish parents over their children (a typical Thomistic "natural law" argument) and 2. God's covenant with the Jews. Aquinas' Aristotelian emphasis on natural law led him to argue for (rather interestingly to me anyway) the allowance of prostitution despite how morally repugnant it was to him.
|
WASHINGTON — A secret U.S. intelligence court renewed an order Friday to continue forcing Verizon Communications to turn over hundreds of millions of telephone records to the government each day in its search for foreign terror or espionage suspects.
The order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has been in place for years but must be renewed every three months. It was exposed in June after former National Security Agency systems analyst Edward Snowden leaked details of two top secret U.S. surveillance programs that critics say violate privacy rights.
The order was set to expire Friday, and its renewal shows that the Obama administration and the court of 11 federal judges stand behind its legality.
In a statement, the office of National Intelligence Director James Clapper said it was confirming the Verizon renewal as part of an ongoing effort to make more information about the recently declassified programs as public as possible.
Clapper "has decided to declassify and disclose publicly that the government filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and that the court renewed that authority," the statement said.
Source
|
On July 20 2013 07:47 Leporello wrote:From A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman: Show nested quote +The doctrine that Jews were doomed to perpetual servitude as Christ-killers was announced by Pope Innocent III in 1205 and led Thomas Aquinas to conclude with relentless logic that "since Jews are the slaves of the Church, she can dispose of their possessions." Legally, politically, and physically, they were totally vulnerable. This was the same guy that originated the idea of giving Jews special badges to wear.
Papal bulls aren't really "doctrines," per se; they're letters from the pope to someone or other. Whatever the case, they certainly aren't considered infallible. Also, the bull in question, while certainly extremely anti-Semitic, wasn't exactly as hyperbolic as your quote makes it sound. Interestingly, Innocent III forbade converting Jews forcibly or appropriating their property. He also wished for Muslims to wear special clothing; in that respect, it was more about identifying heretics (whom he hated even more than Jews, it seems ).
Also, there was no doctrine affirming Jews as "doomed to perpetual servitude" struck down in Vatican II. The only thing I can recall is the removal of an offensive phrase from the Liturgy when they made the new Ordo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
