Posted on 02/07/2015 11:33:55 AM PST by Steve Newton
Ok. This is the final version of an Act to remove the tax exempt status from all Islamic organizations. Let's FReep this petition.
You are again making the assumption that the Supreme Court is the ultimate, final, arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional.
Ultimately that right rests with the several states—or to the people.
I understand what you are trying to say, but the SCOTUS should not even be in the business of deciding these cases.
The US Supreme Court is in the business of doing that ... BECAUSE ... of two reasons.
(1) There is a dispute between two parties, and one or both brings it to the Judicial Branch of government (one of the three branches of government) for a decision between the two parties. Now that shouldn’t be hard to comprehend, because it happens every day, with all sorts of disputes between parties.
(2) A decision is made in the dispute between the parties at odds with each other, and the losing side appeals to a “higher court”. Eventually, if one of the parties decides to keep appealing, it will end up being presented to the US Supreme Court to review, since they are at the “end of the line” and the highest court in the Judicial Branch of Government.
What I’ve described is a VERY NATURAL PROGRESSION in a court case where there is a dispute brought to the Judicial system by opposing parties.
NOW ... I would have thought you would have already known this, as to HOW THE US SUPREME COURT ends up being involved, but if you didn’t ... that’s how.
AND THEN ... as I said before ... if the people of the USA think that the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in adjudicating the matter between opposing parties is WRONG, the framers of the U.S. Constitution gave the “people” the ability to enact a Constitutional Amendment to override the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (and overriding the court has been done before).
ALSO ... one other thing to keep in mind here, is that the U.S. Constitution provides that one CANNOT HAVE property, rights, freedoms and/or a whole host of other things (like money, too) TAKEN AWAY without DUE PROCESS. That “due process” is handled by the Judicial Branch of Government. AND AGAIN ... “HOW” the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved.
You are making a regulatory issue into a federal case.
That’s up to the disputing parties ... not me and not you, and ... not anyone else.
If “one party” takes action against “another party” ... and there is a disagreement between the two parties ... THEN ... the party that feels they have had something taken away (or some wrong action) can (and most likely will) seek “due process” in the judicial system. THAT is the venue for “due process”.
Usually one side or the other side is not happy with the decision, so you can count on the court case being appealed every step of the way. That is very predictable.
THEREFORE that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with either you or me. That is totally up to the parties involved. “I” don’t make a “federal case” out of it ... but I’ll guarantee you that by appealing ... one of the sides involved will make a federal case out of it ... :-) ...
Maybe. UNLESS you can get both parties to agree.
ALSO ... you might want to review this Constitutional issue ...
Due Process Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause
I would guess that if Mosques were willing to agree to giving up their tax exempt status, then there would be no issue. And also, there would be no need for such a resolution as you present, either ... :-) ... Just ask them to voluntarily give it up.
I’m guessing why you’re presenting this resolution is that you’ve determined that the Mosques are not going to give up their tax exempt status willingly. If this is what you’ve determined ... I would agree with your assessment, regarding their “willingness” (or unwillingness).
AND ... just a “side note” here regarding Mosques being willing to give up their tax exempt status — and, mind you, I don’t think they are willing. BUT, if they were willing, then for them to give up their tax exempt status would give them a HUGE BENEFIT. That would enable Mosques to be operating as a POLITICAL ENTITY and to politically activate all their members “from the Mosque” — which they are prohibited from doing now (and for Mosques, that a good prohibition).
That move of giving up their tax exempt status might have the unintended consequences of making them highly organized political entities, right in every city and in many neighborhoods in the various citIes. That would not be a good thing.
I think all religious entities (i.e., churches, et al) should stay out of the business of being political organizing centers.
That’s the whole point Star Traveler. They ALREADY are operating as a political entity.
We might as well make them pay for it, don’t you think?
From CAIR’s own site:
In a 2013 update emailed to online Stylebook subscribers, AP modified the “Islamist” reference to:
“An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists. Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”
http://www.cair.com/cair-blog/categories/listings/american-muslims.html
Mr. Hooper goes on to decry the use of the term “Islamist” but does not apparently take exception with the definition the AP developed:
“An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam”
Humm
Sounds political to me
If you find a Mosque not doing strictly religious practices and matters ... BUT ... they are engaging in Political Activites, you need no resolution ... you only need the IRS which will revoke their tax exempt status for breaking the law.
Up above, I provided you with an example of one organization that broke the law, and IRS revoked their tax exempt status - until - they complied with the law. Once they complied with the LAW, the tax exemption was restored!
SO ... report the political activities that a Mosque is engaging in, to the IRS, and their tax exemption will be revoked ... just like it would be with ANY OTHER religious entity. That applies to them all.
As I noted up above, there are Islamists and Islamic Terrorists, around the world, who do insist on that. And I noted that I am against them. Everyone in the USA should be against those Islamists and Islamic Terrorists, without a doubt.
Here in the USA, the Mosques are required, under law, to not engage in Political Activities (actually, this applies to all churches of any religion) ... or else their tax exempt status will be revoked.
The Mosques here in the USA know they can have that tax exempt status revoked ... so all someone has to do is report them. You can go in there and pretend to be a Muslim (anyone can do that without any danger) and it’s easy to see if they are engaged in Political Activites, instead of prayer services and religious activities. There has been no Mosque that anyone has found them in violation of the IRS laws (or the rules and regulations).
HOWEVER, there have been Muslim “charitable organizations” that have had their tax exempt status revoked, and in fact, there was a famous trial where one was completely shut down and the ones running it were convicted and jailed! It does happen - with a very few - but not Mosques that I’ve seen reported.
But it could easily happen with any particular Mosque if they were violating the law. Even Christian churches and organizations have been shut down like that for violations of the law, so it’s not limited to Muslims. The law in the USA applies equally to all the religious entities.
And going to the term Islamist (and Islamic Terrorist) ... you’ll find that intelligence services put them at anywhere from 10-25% of the Muslim population in the world, depending on what intelligence service makes the estimate. I would probably put it at 15% ... so those guys are real and they are extremely dangerous and we certainly don’t want them.
And the U.S. is on the lookout for these guys inside the country and they have captured quite a few of them here. I’ve reported in many instances of these guys and their cases. We need to get rid if every one of those law-breakers and criminals, whenever we find them!
But all that really doesn’t affect the tax exempt status of a Mosque, unless that particular Mosque is emgaged in Political Activites.
Star I get your point.
Here is mine very simply: If found that we can indeed revoke Islams status, it will be a black eye for them. It will diminish their status.
They will loss face.
Think on this.
As a “follow up” to this, I read through the whole post from Cooper, and ... as is usual for CAIR ... they are providing “cover” for ISLAMISTS and in so doing that, they want reporters to cease using the term “Islamist” — which is nothing more than making it impossible to talk about the true issue in the news.
I could “deconstruct” the whole thing, as CAIR is good at confusing and clouding the issue - but I don’t want to waste my time with it.
The bottom line is that the term is valid and is a useful term ... and it should be defined and used by the press. I use “ISLAMIST” all the time, and it applies to certain figures here in the USA, too. I’ve always said that CAIR is an Islamist cover organization. In fact several of the founders were Muslim Brotherhood members and a few have been convicted and jailed. Now CAIR seems to be operating with “clean” figures with no baggage to carry forward ... which actually makes it worse.
That’s why ... by the way ... that CAIR is dead-set against the Muslim organization — “American Islamic Forum for Democracy” headed by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.
As noted above, AIFD is for America and the U.S. Comstitution.
— — —
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.
AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism). Founded by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD looks to build the future of Islam through the concepts of liberty and freedom.
— — —
“Political Islam” is another term that CAIR doesn’t like but which you’ll find AIFD using, and I use it, too ... along with many others critical of Islamists and Islamic Terrorists.
I think I’ve stated this before, but the reason why I would be against this as an “across the board action” (as opposed to a particular Mosque violating the law) ... is that anyone (or agency) that is tasked with doing that (revoking the tax exemption) can then do it with any religious entity in the future as that precedent will have been set.
With the way many in power are getting really antagonistic to Christians and Christianity, there can come a day when that same agency decides to do that with Christianity. I don’t want a precedent set, and I want the protections that are in place for all religions, right now ... as a means of protection for Christians and Christianity.
The winds of “politics” change really fast, as you can see how FAST things changed with Obama getting in office.
In any case, I don’t see that the legal authority is there to do it, and even if some agency tried to do it, there would definitely be a court case filed (namely “DUE PROCESS”) which would initially suspend the action ... and I’ll guarantee you, that case would be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ... and that’s the same court that has affirmed that the tax exemption is Constitutional ... :-) ...
I would hope you are correct about the AIFD. But I have my doubts.
Some want to cite the Founders and then disregard everything they inherently recognized religion and our country to be, even sequestering religion itself. That’s a typical distortion and a deliberate abuse of the Founders intent. The Founders are not theirs to manipulate in the grave.
In this country the 1st Amendment guarantees that religion not be established or limited by the state. The reason being is that religion can be used to dictate and coerce and should have no direct affiliation with our government. This is not to say that the individual members of government cannot be religious or are prohibited from personally referencing religion.
Islam is essentially and inherently incongruous with this country’s principles.
First, I will begin stating that Islam is not a bona fide religion. When I make this very un-”PC” statement I am using the phrase “bona fide” as its literal meaning, that being “good faith”. Islam is not a bona fide (good faith) religion because it does not allow the freedom of faith, even within its own religion, with apostasy often being viewed as a greater crime than even non-belief. Often religion is referenced to be synonymous with the term “faith”, but if one’s faith is not freely given and free to be withdrawn, then it can accurately be said to be no real “faith” at all, for it is merely both a tool and a result of coercion. Our founders were dead set against religion being used as a tool of coercion, as well as being coerced by the state, or even being the state itself (a Caliphate being the goal of Islamic society).
Beyond that, Islam’s primary text praises, extols, institutionalizes, and gives its highest honor (entry into heaven) to acts of terrorism and varying degrees of coercion. Unlike evidence of violence in the Bible where it is describing historic details and events, those admonitions and promotions in Islamic text are not temporally or situationally limited.
Given these and other considerations, I do believe it is a falsehood to extend to Islam the blind belief its benefice is on par with Judaism and Christianity, however it is still entitled to the same freedoms we extend all religion in this country. That we extend this freedom to Islam when Islamists and Islam’s most central texts themselves openly define themselves to be enemies of what this country stands for, shows we have no realistic sense of self preservation. Our founders clearly erred more toward giving more freedom rather than to elevating judgments of what is a threat.
Quite obviously not every Islamist has acted as a terrorist, indeed the vast majority are not, nor should they be condemned and held accountable for the actions of others in their religion. However it is unreasonable to hold blameless these non-terrorist pacifists when the religion they subscribe to so definitively commands acts of terrorism. The fact remains that the very fundamental tenets of Islam are not only just incongruous with our society, but an anathema, openly hostile to, and incompatible with, our every freedom and liberty
Sorry. Everything after the first sentence of my last post should be in ()
I wanted to say THANKS for your high standards in discussing this topic. It really is a joy to be able to discuss in this manner, even when disagreeing with someone. One doesn’t see this as often on Free Republic today as was true several years ago.
I do want to see how this progresses, with what you’re doing, because I’m also intellectually curious about these things ... besides the fact that it is an extremely important matter to many people and to our country.
Thanks again!
I has been my honor!
You are also exempt if you’re Amish. That would be a better way to go. Say you’re Amish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.