For the record, it does protect animal sacrifice, although the municipality can normally still enforce the same requirements it would for any other animal slaughter. For context, kosher and halal butchering are forms of animal sacrifice.
There are actually pending court cases regarding the polygamy issue. I suspect that this will be more visible once gay marriages are universally recognized.
Kosher/halal butchering is not animal sacrifice. Jews used to sacrifice animals while the Temple still stood, and Muslims still do at Eid ul-Adha, but those sacrifices are not the same as ordinary everyday kosher or halal slaughter.
The fact that a prayer is recited while the animal is killed does not make it a sacrifice.
The Supreme Court has ruled that tax exemptions for churchs are constitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walz_v._Tax_Commission) although thereâs some language in there that suggests that taxing churches can be â itself â problematic. I donât think the Supreme Court has ruled that religious institutions that taxation per se is a violation of religious freedom. You certainly could have a system that taxes all entities â non-profit and profit â the same and youâd be fine.
That said, saying that non-religious non-profits are tax exempt â but religious non-profits have to pay up â would never survive Supreme Court challenge and probably by a vote of 9-0
Thatâs a nice way to parse it. It has the additional virtue of being correct.
While I donât disagree that the irreligious should not be subject to persecution, Iâd hold off playing that victim card for a bit. If recent Pew studies are reasonably correct, irreligious Americans, though few in number, probably still out number most actual minority religions by sheer force of demographics.
(edited for word mistake)
IANAL but based on reading some IRS documents on 501(3)(c) status organizations and the IRS Publication 1828, its not as if the tax exemptions are automagical by any means. I canât call my US tax lawyer friend since its still shabbos in North America but from what I recall the last time I spoke to him about this a few years ago, the basis for maintaining these exemptions is to protect the smaller religious organizations (I covered the cultural aspects of these above) even though it seems as though the larger houses of worship are getting âmore than a fair shakeâ out of their exemptions.
Note that the smaller and medium size religious establishments still have costs of maintaining their facilities, paying staff, utilities, etc. just like any other organization. The Holy One, Blessed Be He does not pay the heating bill or for roof repairs for any synagogue big or small.
Were life an even playing field that too would be the case. Personally Iâm all for getting the State entirely out of marriage and establishing a legal concept something like Family Corporations. That way the heterosexuals who want one or more mates, the homosexuals and those who believe their pet rat is their soul mate can all receive equal treatment under the lawyers.
Assume you are referring to my comment about minority religious groups in isolated communities, then its a shame that group is facing government harassment. While paganism is diametrically opposed to the system I adhere to, I would be a fool not to acknowledge that if their group doesnât receive equal protection then certainly mine wonât either.
To quibble here, many religious systems are not universalist and do not seek out new converts or outright deny the possibility of conversion entirely.
Here you are entirely wrong. Kosher means âfit to eatâ nothing more, nothing less. The kosher certified chocolate peanut butter balls Iâm currently snacking on are not any form of animal sacrifice, nor for that matter is kosher meat âsacrificedâ in any way. Kosher slaughter simply means that the animal is slaughtered according to Jewish Law. There is no figurative or literal sacrifice involved. Iâll leave it to you to look up Halal but it works along similar principles.
For clarityâs sake its a blessing on the commandment of ritual sacrifice in the case of kosher slaughter, not a prayer. For Jews there is a difference between blessings done before performing a commandment and prayer. Otherwise you are entirely correct in principle, it is not a sacrifice.
But Jefferson wasnât a member of any the committees which drafted the Bill of Rights.
Thomas Jefferson far from being the principle author of the Constitution wasnât even a member of the Constitutional Convention. He was in France at the time.
I would argue that it is in fact the distinguishing characteristic of an animal sacrifice: When the animal is slaughtered in a manner dictated by or in recognition of, a particular religious edict, tradition, or principle; as opposed to the manner suggested by practical, legal, or ethical concerns.
Mind you that those considerations are not mutually exclusive- A religious edict may be objectively ethical and a spiritually justified tradition may be entirely practical.
The point is that religious ideas (prayer, method) have a direct bearing on a secular activity (processing of livestock). The religious context makes the activity itself a religious exersize.
Whether we call a thing we do by a certain name or not, it doesnât make it not that thing. I donât intend any offense by that- But I come from a universlist perspective that is focused on understanding the underlying principles behind diverse traditions. If I were to describe how I sacrifice an animal, versus how that animal would be slaughtered in a kosher manner, they would be almost indistinguishable despite coming from extremely different religious traditions.
[quote=âMikeTheBard, post:57, topic:43240â]
And if you honestly, genuinely believe that you can have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, then Iâm sure youâd back my proposal to allow prayer in schools only as long as they are performed while kneeling towards Mecca.[/quote]
This freedom could not be exercised by having all of the children do the same thing. Freedom of religion/not-religion in a secular school means that each child can observe what they personally need to.
You can argue this till the cows come home but it doesnât make it correct in this case and others. In the Jewish case the Torah specifically limits the nature, place and methods associated with animal and vegetable sacrifices and the Talmud further elaborates the details and legal requirements. Furthermore, some sacrificial animals and produce may be consumed only by specific persons or not at all. This is quite separate from the issues of what foods have kosher status and can be consumed by Jew. Note again that the kosher certified snacks I eat have nothing to do with sacrifice.
Additionally, âpractical, legal or ethical concernsâ vary by time, place and society whereas religious slaughter, sacrificial or not, tends to be unchanging in its methodologies.
Finally Iâd add that in Judaism and other religious systems where animal sacrifice is performed, it tends to be confined to specific places (temples, alters, etc.) or occasions whereas slaughter for food, ritual or otherwise, does not.
In due respect of your universalist perspective, I come from a perspective that is functionally not universalist and living in yet another non universalist cultural context have had to explain to the locals about why I canât eat their food and surprisingly enough, people of very different (or no particular) religious traditions have no trouble understanding the difference here.
What specifically about my definition do you disagree with?
Because to me it sounds like someone arguing that a square is not a rectangle.
I outlined my disagreements quite clearly but let me try and put it in something that both of us as musicians might understand. Here are two things we as musicians and those who are not musicians can recognize:
You and I clearly see that they are not the same but someone with no familiarity might say âthey are both stringed instruments, there is no real difference!â Both of us might object at first but then realize that in the hands of a very talented player, they might be almost interchangeable.
However, neither you nor I nor the complete novice would be confused if the second picture were this
Clearly the guitar and the piano are both instruments but no one will confuse the two. Now lets consider context. To the average person, the electric guitar and bass are âcommonâ instruments, things of everyday life whereas the grand piano might be more often associated with formal places and circumstances. By this analogy, common kosher slaughter is the guitar or bass but the grand piano is sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem. Just as Joe & The Garagetones and Vladmir Horowitz both made music people understand them differently so here with ritual slaughter both involve killing an animal but the context is entirely different.
I hope Iâve made things more clear but I fear I have taken this discussion very far off topic so if you require further explanation please reply as a new topic.
Right-wing religious leaders want us to be subject to laws based on the Old Testament and they are actively engaged in making that happen. Any attempt to stop them from doing this is what THEY call a violation of their First Amendment rights.
There is only one way to make this happen.
Get rid of the 501©(3) group. That is what churches (and a whole lot of other organizations I might add) are filed under. You might even have to do away with all the numbered groups as well. From Wikipedia:
Iâm not too sure that a change in a state law is going to be enough. Itâs actually federal law that makes churches non-profits, and therefore not liable to pay tax.
[quote=âMelted_Crayons, post:73, topic:43240, full:trueâ]
Right-wing religious leaders want us to be subject to laws based on the Old Testament and they are actively engaged in making that happen. Any attempt to stop them from doing this is what THEY call a violation of their First Amendment rights.[/quote]
They might be able to con some Christians into thinking that these are âcommon senseâ, but good luck persuading anybody else. My âreligionâ is so different from this that it might as well be from another planet.
Not only that, but my experience is that most âright-wingersâ enjoy scripture more for authoritarian reasons, and that they are often extremely poor scholars of even their own professed religion. Itâs pretty funny when people try to argue against my very fringe outlook and I counter by knowing more about their religion than they do.
Most churches and church leaders only want to preach the supposed words of Jesus. They have no interest in actually following in his footsteps.
I know people who have worked with a local, high-profile jesuit priest, who oversaw a large local university until recently. They have some very entertaining tales of his extravagance, foul & abusive language, and the privileges he expects - demands actually - as a matter of course.
I like the idea of making them work for their tax-exempt status, just like the real non-profits do.
I can be on board with that. As long as the chairity isnât wasting its money on prostelytizing, or witholding its services to those unwilling to participate in the religious side of things.
If Iâm homeless for instance, I donât think itâs right that possibly the only shelters I could legally go to for the night requires that I sit through a sermon, and be called a dirty sinner all the time.
What youâre saying is that Judaism has a strict definition of âsacrificeâ that does not include mundane butchering of food. Iâm saying that outside of Judaism, there is a broader definition which includes your definition as well as other similar activities which you do not recognize as such.
So I will concede that you are correct within a narrow context, but again, I am looking at things in a comparative capacity, rather than a monocentric one.
Can you provide me with some examples of religions which involve animal sacrifice to fame your comparative capacity? Can you outline the details of occasion and place of sacrifice and if these religions also had ritual slaughter for daily food consumption? Iâm not trying to play argument games with you, Iâm just curious as to how you arrive at your concept.
As a side note I asked an imam I know here in Tokyo if Islam has sacrificial slaughter and his answer was that it does not, halal slaughter is only for animals to be eaten by observant muslims. In this respect, while the details differ, it is comparable to the outlines of kosher I have described above.
Rapscallionism. I just made it up. But under the law, itâs equally valid to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All sincere adherents must bathe their live food in lye as a basic offering to the god Rapscallion. They must thoroughly soak their food in lye until itâs dead by either corrosion or drowning, as part of their ceremonial sacrifice to the great and powerful Rapscallion. It is a good offering, a clean offering and a pleasing offering to the lord Rapscallion.
After the ceremony is over, they may carefully rinse and partake in the sacrificed meal. Thus sayeth the great prophet, and the great profit of Rapscallian, who is called LDoBe (blessed be his name) througout the land. May those who question or critisize the culture, ritual or belifes commanded by the great god Rapscallion, or his beloved prophet, as well as the beloved profit, be struck dead, instantly and with immense pain by total organ liquefaction.
Thus sayeth the beloved and incontrovertible and unquestionable and uncritisizable prophet and profit of the most high Rapscallion, LDoBe, the most awesome guy there is. And donât you dare say otherwise or else youâre a racist.
