<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Religious Discrimination Lawsuits</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theallegator.com/law/religious-discrimination-lawsuits/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theallegator.com/law/religious-discrimination-lawsuits/</link>
	<description>&#34;I do not deny the allegation, I deny the allegator.&#34; – Jesse Jackson</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:19:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Wicklander</title>
		<link>http://www.theallegator.com/law/religious-discrimination-lawsuits/comment-page-1/#comment-1325</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Wicklander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:20:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theallegator.com/?p=428#comment-1325</guid>
		<description>Tax exemption was the reason L. Ron Hubbard wanted to classify Scientology as a church.  He called its classification as religion &quot;a practical business move.&quot;  So it&#039;s clearly abused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tax exemption was the reason L. Ron Hubbard wanted to classify Scientology as a church.  He called its classification as religion &#8220;a practical business move.&#8221;  So it&#8217;s clearly abused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steel Phoenix</title>
		<link>http://www.theallegator.com/law/religious-discrimination-lawsuits/comment-page-1/#comment-1322</link>
		<dc:creator>Steel Phoenix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theallegator.com/?p=428#comment-1322</guid>
		<description>The question then becomes, what constitutes a church? Groups like the Pastafarians have brought into question the legal definition of religion, and with it, churches.

Churches are trying to sneak by under the same concept as the Jews with their motion light. They are claiming that it would violate their First Amendment freedom of religion for the government to tax the church. If my religion requires me to worship in the privacy of my own home, should that exempt me from property taxes? They are trying to turn a property tax issue into a religious issue and demand that we discriminate in their favor because they choose to subscribe to a religion that restricts them to worshiping inside a certain building.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question then becomes, what constitutes a church? Groups like the Pastafarians have brought into question the legal definition of religion, and with it, churches.</p>
<p>Churches are trying to sneak by under the same concept as the Jews with their motion light. They are claiming that it would violate their First Amendment freedom of religion for the government to tax the church. If my religion requires me to worship in the privacy of my own home, should that exempt me from property taxes? They are trying to turn a property tax issue into a religious issue and demand that we discriminate in their favor because they choose to subscribe to a religion that restricts them to worshiping inside a certain building.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Wicklander</title>
		<link>http://www.theallegator.com/law/religious-discrimination-lawsuits/comment-page-1/#comment-1321</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Wicklander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theallegator.com/?p=428#comment-1321</guid>
		<description>We don&#039;t seem to be too far apart on this.  I&#039;m against &quot;hate crimes&quot; in general because they are an effort to control thoughts.  A crime is a crime regardless of the aggressor&#039;s motive.  

I also think it&#039;s silly to have &quot;In God We Trust&quot; on the money.  I&#039;ve been put off the last few years by that sort of stuff.  It&#039;s like saying God is either a Republican or Democrat.  Of course every country thinks God (or whatever deity they have) is on their side, if for no other reason than to justify their atrocities and sucker people of good faith.  

But I am still in favor of tax exemption for churches only as long as they are just places of worship.  If they become organs for either of the major parties, then they should be taxed, be it a Jerry Falwell-type church or Obama&#039;s old church.  

In short, a hands off approach by the government is what I favor because the less the government has a hand in churches, the more freedom people will have to practice their faith, or lackthereof.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We don&#8217;t seem to be too far apart on this.  I&#8217;m against &#8220;hate crimes&#8221; in general because they are an effort to control thoughts.  A crime is a crime regardless of the aggressor&#8217;s motive.  </p>
<p>I also think it&#8217;s silly to have &#8220;In God We Trust&#8221; on the money.  I&#8217;ve been put off the last few years by that sort of stuff.  It&#8217;s like saying God is either a Republican or Democrat.  Of course every country thinks God (or whatever deity they have) is on their side, if for no other reason than to justify their atrocities and sucker people of good faith.  </p>
<p>But I am still in favor of tax exemption for churches only as long as they are just places of worship.  If they become organs for either of the major parties, then they should be taxed, be it a Jerry Falwell-type church or Obama&#8217;s old church.  </p>
<p>In short, a hands off approach by the government is what I favor because the less the government has a hand in churches, the more freedom people will have to practice their faith, or lackthereof.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steel Phoenix</title>
		<link>http://www.theallegator.com/law/religious-discrimination-lawsuits/comment-page-1/#comment-1319</link>
		<dc:creator>Steel Phoenix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theallegator.com/?p=428#comment-1319</guid>
		<description>Agreed. 

&#039;Tolerating&#039; beliefs and &#039;preventing worship&#039; are essentially meaningless though, since if government makes any concessions to them it is guilty of discrimination.  People should simply be treated by government as if religion doesn&#039;t exist. Do you take exception to that concept? I know you aren&#039;t among the ranks of the faithless. It would mean no more God on the money, no more tax free churches, and hate crimes would just be regular crimes,

&#039;Someone else&#039;s property&#039; also gets interesting, since by that reasoning it might be ok for your local store to simply say that there are no Muslims allowed. Going to absolutes in either direction has lead to some of the more horrible mistakes of history, while finding a grey area in the middle leads to endless litigation wherever the front lines currently lie. I would tend to move towards a hands off approach by government and just hope that society is now sufficiently enlightened to ostracize those who won&#039;t play fair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed. </p>
<p>&#8216;Tolerating&#8217; beliefs and &#8216;preventing worship&#8217; are essentially meaningless though, since if government makes any concessions to them it is guilty of discrimination.  People should simply be treated by government as if religion doesn&#8217;t exist. Do you take exception to that concept? I know you aren&#8217;t among the ranks of the faithless. It would mean no more God on the money, no more tax free churches, and hate crimes would just be regular crimes,</p>
<p>&#8216;Someone else&#8217;s property&#8217; also gets interesting, since by that reasoning it might be ok for your local store to simply say that there are no Muslims allowed. Going to absolutes in either direction has lead to some of the more horrible mistakes of history, while finding a grey area in the middle leads to endless litigation wherever the front lines currently lie. I would tend to move towards a hands off approach by government and just hope that society is now sufficiently enlightened to ostracize those who won&#8217;t play fair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Wicklander</title>
		<link>http://www.theallegator.com/law/religious-discrimination-lawsuits/comment-page-1/#comment-1318</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Wicklander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theallegator.com/?p=428#comment-1318</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think this would even be an issue if the government stayed within its constitutional bounds.  The government&#039;s only involvement should be to tolerate the varying beliefs of its people while not forcing anyone to adhere to any particular one.  The Jewish couple is not being prevented from worshiping freely.  They have an issue with something on somebody else&#039;s property.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think this would even be an issue if the government stayed within its constitutional bounds.  The government&#8217;s only involvement should be to tolerate the varying beliefs of its people while not forcing anyone to adhere to any particular one.  The Jewish couple is not being prevented from worshiping freely.  They have an issue with something on somebody else&#8217;s property.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

