Posted on 02/07/2015 11:33:55 AM PST by Steve Newton
I don’t know what is so hard for you to understand about what I’m saying (and have said since this thread started).
I say that Mosques get a tax exemption and this can’t be taken away unless they break the law for receiving that exemption.
You say they are political and can therefore have the tax exemption removed.
It’s real easy to prove which is correct, by either seeing that Mosques keep their tax exemption from here forward, or they don’t keep it from here forward.
Show me the results ... of Mosques being declared political and having their tax exemption removed ... and I’ll know what you say is right. And if the tax exemption stays in place with the Mosques, then what I say about them being protected under law is right.
All I’m saying is show me the results, because “my results” (as I state and explain it here) is already “in place and active” as we speak.
Star that is what we are trying to do—show you. But we can’t do this alone. We need your help and everyones.
We have to start somewhere, I think even you would agree to that. Lets move this forward.
Again, it’s really easy ... you say these mosques are political and get no tax exemption under our Constitution ... while I say, these mosques are religious and get a tax exemption.
You’re saying it can easily be that way under our US Constitution ... and yet it isn’t.
You’re talking about what you “want it to be” under the US Constitution, while I am talking about “what it is” under our US Constitution.
I happen to agree with “what is” right now under the U.S. Constitution ... in that either all these entities that call themselves religious, get a tax exemption, or else none of them do, as long as that organization does not engage in political activities (in other words, the standard 501(c)(3) for a religious organization).
SO, I’m not going to be working to remove this tax exemption from any religious organization, whether it’s a Mosque, or a church to Satan, or a cult group “stake house” for Mormons, or a Catholic Church, or a Hindu, Buddhist or any other religious entity in the world.
IN FACT, I’ll be working diligently to make sure they ALL keep their tax exemption.
By the way ... did you get those resolutions off to Congress today? I’m interested in how that goes ... because I’m a guy that believes “the proof is in the pudding” ... :-) ...
I would like to know the feedback from any member of Congress on the merits of doing this, especially as they think it relates (or doesn’t relate) to the U.S. Constitution.
I will let you know first thing.
Again, it’s really easy ... you say these mosques are political and get no tax exemption under our Constitution ... while I say, these mosques are religious and get a tax exemption.Star Traveler, the problem here is that your "really easy" doesn't grasp the simplest of things.
You’re saying it can easily be that way under our US Constitution ... and yet it isn’t.
You’re talking about what you “want it to be” under the US Constitution, while I am talking about “what it is” under our US Constitution.
Let me know when all your words in your head match up in real life “out here” with these Mosques and the U.S. Constitution.
When someone says the sun “really should rise in the West”, according to their explanation of the laws of science, I believe them when the sun actually does start rising in the West ... LOL ...
HERE is where you need to “move it forward” ... and I DO SUPPORT THIS!
ALAC - American Laws for American Courts
http://publicpolicyalliance.org/support-american-laws/
Add your name to the letter of support for the American Laws for American Courts Act
We urge you to add your name– representing your community group, religious group, profession or organization– to the following Statement of Support for American Laws for American Courts. To add your name, complete the form in the right column or email Stephen M. Gele, American Public Policy Alliance, at admin@publicpolicyalliance.org and include your full name, organization, title, and zip code. Signatories are posted here and updated daily. Read the model American Laws for American Courts Act here.
“I support the principle of American Laws for American Courts, to ensure that no American citizen or resident is denied, as a result of the enforcement of foreign law, the liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed by state public polices and the U.S Constitution.”
Please share the letter below with leaders in your community
and your colleagues across America.
Dear Colleague:
We urge you to join us in adding your name to the statement in support of the American Laws for American Courts Act, which has been enacted in three states and has been introduced in over twenty other state legislatures. The American Laws for American Courts Act protects all American citizens and residents in state legal cases when the application of a foreign law would violate constitutional liberties.
The American Laws for American Courts Act is constitutional and “facially neutral.” It does not mention any specific religion, creed or legal doctrine, and in the two years since its introduction into state legislatures, it has never been challenged in court.
The Act‘s sole objective is to protect all U.S. citizens and residents from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation, in the specific matter at issue, of a liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the public policies of the state in question. Such violations would include but not be limited to infringements on due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, equal protection, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.
Reviews of state laws provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines are introduced into US state court cases, including, notably, Islamic law known as Shariah, which is used in family courts and other courts in dozens of foreign Muslim-majority nations .
These foreign laws, frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, typically enter the American court system through:
-Comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system)
-Choice of law issues and
-Choice of forum or venue
Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.
Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.
The American Laws for American Courts Act is carefully limited in scope, recognizing the need to balance the protection of individual liberties with other legal principles:
The American Laws For American Courts Act does not apply to a business that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than the state or the United States.
The American Laws for American Courts Act is carefully defined so as not to interfere with the right of any individual or entity to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by the constitution of this state. For example, it would not affect the decisions of Jewish, Christian, Muslim or other ecclesiastical courts, or their enforcement, as long as those decisions did not result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.
The American Laws for American Courts Act would not conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party.
The goal of the American Laws for American Courts Act is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic. American Laws for American Courts is needed especially to protect women and children, identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.
Please join our fellow Americans from across the country in signing this statement of support for American Laws for American Courts, the 21st Century civil rights initiative to ensure constitutional liberties for all Americans.
AND ... another one to “move it forward” is ACT! For America ... with Brigitte Gabriel ...
https://www.actforamerica.org/Brigitte-Gabriel
I have worked with ACT! for America in Tulsa, OK with certain things they have done here. This is another one I FULLY SUPPORT!
— — —
BRIGITTE GABRIEL
Brigitte Gabriel is the Founder and President of Act for America. Ms. Gabriel is one of the leading national security experts in the world, providing information and analysis on the rise of Islamic terrorism. Ms. Gabriel lectures nationally and internationally about national security and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders. Ms. Gabriel has addressed the United Nations, the Australian Prime Minister, members of the British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, the Pentagon, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others. In addition, Ms. Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America. She serves on the board of advisers of the Intelligence Summit.
Ms. Gabriel is the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, BECAUSE THEY HATE and THEY MUST BE STOPPED. Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America. She speaks Arabic, French, English and Hebrew.
Another one I support for good information (as those other two prior ones were about taking action) is “Olive Tree Ministries” with Jan Markell. She interviews a lot of good people here on her radio ministry.
Brigitte Gabriel was one of them, and you can hear her on the following program, where she also talks about ALAC - American Laws for American Courts ...
They Must Be Stopped
Published on 07 February 2015
http://www.olivetreeviews.org/radio/complete-archives/909-they-must-be-stopped
Jan’s first guest is Brigitte Gabriel who has been sounding a warning as to the Islamic threat in the world – and specifically America – for a decade. She is the author of “They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam” and “Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America” found in any bookstore. Compelling sound bites are played that support her case. Then Jan talks to Pastor Ray Bentley about his book, “The Holy Land Key: Unlocking End-Times Prophecy Through the Lives of God’s People in Israel” found here.
Move it forward by supporting ALAC - American Laws for American Courts ...
Shariah Law And American Courts
http://publicpolicyalliance.org/shariah-law-cases/
In June 2011, the Center for Security Policy issued a report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The report evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. From the introduction:
These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.
The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.
Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of several cases in which the court’s application of Shariah law appears to be in direct conflict with Constitutional liberties and the public policies of the state.
Another one for “moving forward” is the “Center for Security Policy” ... at http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/
For twenty-five years, the Center for Security Policy has pioneered the organization, management and direction of public policy coalitions to promote U.S. national security. Even more importantly, the Center’s mission has been to secure the adoption of the products of such efforts by skillfully enlisting support from executive branch officials, key legislators, other public policy organizations, opinion-shapers in the media and the public at large.
The philosophy of “Peace through Strength” is not a slogan for military might but a belief that America’s national power must be preserved and properly used for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability.
The process the Center has repeatedly demonstrated is the unique ability that makes the Center the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas”: forging teams to get things done that would otherwise be impossible for a small and relatively low-budget organization. In this way, we are able to offer maximum “bang for the buck” for the donors who make our work possible. This approach has enabled the Center to have an outsized impact.
Yes. And make them comply to Obamacare even if no one else ultimately has to comply. Right now Obamacare does not apply to Muslims.
HEY! There’s an idea for everyone in the USA ... just say you’re Muslim and you can get out of Obamacare! What a great idea!
You know, you don’t really have to believe all the junk they say to be a Muslim ... just go through a few steps (I think you just have to mumble a few words, cross your fingers ... :-) ...), then show up at a Mosque nearby and say you’re a new Muslim, get your name on a list and just don’t show up or do anything. You don’t have to change anything! You vote the same, you can even go to a Christian church (just say you’re doing “undercover work).
The Muslim religion is FAKE anyway, just like ALL OTHER RELIGIONS in the world are fake, except for the one from Jesus Christ ... so there’s NO MUSLIM GOD that’s going to strike you down for FAKING IT ... LOL ...
I really like that idea for getting a LARGE SEGMENT of of the U.S. population OUT OF OBAMACARE!
Star my friend you confuse me. You act like your against something but say something else:
The Muslim religion is FAKE anyway, just like ALL OTHER RELIGIONS in the world are fake, except for the one from Jesus Christ ... so there’s NO MUSLIM GOD that’s going to strike you down for FAKING IT ... LOL ...
I agree.
It shouldn’t be confusing. We’ve always known since the beginning of this country that all OTHER RELIGIONS in this world are FALSE ... all Christians have known anyway. Nothing has changed there in the entire history of this world, AND in spite of ALL OTHER RELIGIONS being false, the U.S. Constitution has protected all those other false religions just the same as CHRISTIANITY.
That is because we don’t have a theocracy, but a Constitutional Republic where people are allowed to CHOOSE A FALSE RELIGION under this Republic and that false religion is protected for all the people who want to follow those false religious practices. That’s ALWAYS been the case for the entire history of this country.
There will be a theocracy when Jesus, the Messiah of Israel comes to earth and RIPS THE US CONSTITUTION TO SHREDS and dispenses with it, along with all the other governing documents of all the other nations in the world, and sets up his ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT in Israel, ruling over the entire world in the same manner as a dictator would (but we know he’s a benevolent dictator).
That ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT of the Jewish Messiah is not here yet, so ALL THE FALSE RELIGIONS are protected in our present political system of government.
The 1st Amendment only provides for freedom of religion, prohibiting laws that establish religion, or ‘Congress; writing laws that deny the free exercise thereof.
Nothing in the 1st Amendment compels a religious enterprise to be tax exempt, or prohibits that organization from being newly denied tax exempt status. Even Christian organizations and churches have had their tax exempt status threatened for political involvement, or even something such as the Boy Scouts not allowing openly gay members has led to their tax exempt status being threatened, and these threats were made by this same current administration.
The Supremacy Clause is irrelevant to this consideration, given the fact that the Constitution itself does not command tax exempt status for organizations, and denial of tax exempt status neither constitutes “establishing”, nor dis-establishing a religion.
It’s per the U.S. Supreme Court. If you want to “undo” the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, you’ll need a Constitutional Amendment, to override those decisions.
Per this article (link following) ...
Then, in 1970, a nearly unanimous Court sustained a state exemption from real or personal property taxation of “property used exclusively for religious, educational or charitable purposes’’ owned by a corporation or association which was conducted exclusively for one or more of these purposes and did not operate for profit.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation04.html
AND ACTUALLY, they wouldn’t have to be a religion or a church, they could simply be a non-profit. However, in this case we are talking about churches (i.e., religious entities).
There’s another one from the U.S. Supreme Court that I posted before, if I remember right. Taxation, basically would be the power to destroy, and government cannot have that kind of interaction (i.e., control or impact) over a religious entity/organization.
AND AGAIN ... The framers of the U.S. Constitution did provide a way to override the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is a Constitutional Amendment. So you have that route open. However, I don’t think many people will want to fiddle with the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights ... :-) ...
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.