Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Despite Claims, Anti-Gay Group in Maine More Depen...

электронная почта без регистрации

2010-03-02T22:35:03.742-05:00

Hey Nate, how come you don't have any stats on the...

2009-10-30T13:21:15.712-04:00

Hey Nate, how come you don't have any stats on the Washington State Referendum 71 that is coming up on Nov. 3rd as well? Two fundamentalists put that one on the ballot to rescind "everything but marriage" rights granted to LGBT couples by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gregoire. It is very important to LGBT couples like us who are Washingtonians. Help us out with some stats!
DansJuan

NOM is just a PAC for Mormons and Catholics to tra...

2009-10-26T14:52:06.022-04:00

NOM is just a PAC for Mormons and Catholics to transform their anti-gay theologies into the law of the land.

I'd be interested to know if the details of report...

2009-10-26T12:24:48.038-04:00

I'd be interested to know if the details of reported contributions highlighted here, such as the ratio to in-state to out-of-state donations, the number of unique donors and donation amount distribution works in any way as a leading indicator of the trend in polling results, or as a predictive modifier to the likely voter models used by pollsters.

Furthermore, could we use this kind of data more generally to better predict election day results?

GROG, I apologize if this post is redundant. I ...

2009-10-26T11:56:37.778-04:00

GROG,

I apologize if this post is redundant. I haven't actually gone through all the posts to see if anyone else has responded to your first amendment post. So for all I know this has been said already.

The part of the First Amendment you are missing is the establishment clause. You are right that this does not place any restrictions on churches, but it does restrict the government from supporting, endorsing, or legislating from a particular relgious view. It's certainly one of the easier Constitutional tests for a law to pass, but basically every law, regulation, ordinance, government action, etc. has to have at least some secular purpose to it.

Churches can try to have a law passed which mandates that everyone put a sign with John 3:16 on their front lawns. But said law would violate the constitution if it were actually passed. Not for limiting the practice of religion, though I suppose some might argue that it would. But rather such law would be a direct endorsement of a particular religious view by the government and as well there would be no secular purpose for doing it.

The problem has never been with school prayer in general. Some kid wants to pray in school he can, provided he doesn't disrupt class to do it. He can bow his head and pray at lunchtime, pray before tests, pray all he wants. What can't happen, what is the problem is when the school leads the prayer. It was especially a problem when teachers essentially demanded that every kid in class pray at the opening of the school day. But even if the kid can opt out and you essentially chastise the kid and place pressure on him to entere into a religious ritual, that is a problem.

A public school enforcing a particular religious view is atrocious, but one endorsing one is also a problem. The ten commandments on court house lawns are also problems for the same reason. Of course if it is something like what the Supreme Court has where you have the Code of Hammurabi and other ancient legal texts along with the ten commandments that's different. There is a secular purpose there, a display depicting the ancient evolutions and manifestations of the law.

So in short yes the establishment clause is essentially a mandate for a separation between church and state. The state should stay away from the church and the church should not have too much influence on the state's political decisions. Sure it focusses on the state in both instances but it has an effect on how much influence the church can have.

"First - did I say that the diocese collected DURI...

2009-10-26T10:35:08.527-04:00

"First - did I say that the diocese collected DURING mass? The diocese collected money for the anti-equal rights proposal in a special collection, after the usual and customary collection. If the collection of monies is considered part of mass, then yes, it was during mass. If the collection of monies is not considered part of mass, then no, it was not during mass. Since I'm not Catholic, I don't know."

Not sure if this has been answered yet, but Catholic collections (and second collections) do occur during Mass.

Thank you Jacob, for the press citation on Diocese...

2009-10-26T09:21:52.904-04:00

Thank you Jacob, for the press citation on Diocese of Portland fundraising re Maine Prop. 1.

Mike in Maryland, not a big deal, but this site has contained a lot of comments making unattributed or unsupported statements.
That's why I asked for your source citation.

Has anyone noticed that the acronym for "Group Sta...

2009-10-26T07:17:48.851-04:00

Has anyone noticed that the acronym for "Group Stand Marriage Maine" is gsmm? That doesn't sound like family values to me...

Mike in Maryland said: Would you rather that the ...

2009-10-26T06:59:59.354-04:00

Mike in Maryland said:

Would you rather that the US follow the German system, where people pay a per capita tax in support of religious institutions?

But, unlike Germany where the government can state which religion(s) get the money and which ones don't, the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that it is unConstitutional for any religion to be favored over another.

That means your tax money would go to Southern Baptists AND Quakers AND Amish AND Roman Catholics AND Seventh Day Adventists AND Christian Scientists AND Jewish Congregations AND Wiccans AND Muslims AND Mormans AND the Moonies AND Hindus AND Buddhists AND . . . .

Disagree as I may with Germany's church tax, I've got to say that you have the distribution system all wrong. The state collects the tax specifically on behalf of the church the tax-payer belongs to - for example if s/he happens to be Roman-Catholic, the church directly receives the church tax revenue from the state. If you don't belong to any religious group (or, as you point out, one not (yet) recognized as an organized religion) then you need not pay any church tax.

I agree it's a questionable system at best, but it's nothing like the way you depict it. Other churches are still free to raise funds directly from their member who are unencumbered by the church tax. The German state just acts as an intermediary to collect church membership fees. It doesn't take everyone's money and give it to its favorite churches.

Grog: It's a fundamental issue of fairness. If A...

2009-10-26T00:54:44.219-04:00

Grog: It's a fundamental issue of fairness. If Alex and Bob want to donate to opposing campaigns on the passage of the "Mandatory Nose Rings" Act, and Alex donates directly to, say, the "Campaign against making people wear nose rings", while Bob donates to the "Church of Nose Rings", there's no reason Bob's political contributions should go farther than Alex's. Bob being able to deduct the donation from his taxes in addition to the "Church" not having to pay taxes itself is fundamentally not right.

Er—make that “…even when one of their functionarie...

2009-10-26T00:38:04.593-04:00

Er—make that “…even when one of their functionaries is recorded on videotape as verifying that the money was going to support Prop 8.”

Piddlesworth… I entirely agree. Political corru...

2009-10-26T00:36:18.304-04:00

Piddlesworth…

I entirely agree. Political corruption is political corruption, and the worst comes from religious organizations. The Mormons pulled strings in CA after they were exposed as having given well over a million $ to the Prop 8 campaign, even when one of their functionaries is recorded on videotape as verifying that the money was going to fight Prop 8. Suddenly however the scuffle over their tax-exempt status just evaporated. Gee, let’s see—we have a Republican governor, whose office is in charge of looking into such things. I wonder what happened…

Retrying that last sentence again: This is all ign...

2009-10-26T00:26:06.813-04:00

Retrying that last sentence again: This is all ignoring that the mormon church gave way over a million dollars to Yes On 8, so they're in violation even with the exception. That they aren't being prosecuted is no better than any other corruption that goes unprosecuted.

To expand on what Joey said: Quoting the relevant...

2009-10-26T00:20:24.207-04:00

To expand on what Joey said:

Quoting the relevant parts of subsection (h):

(h) Expenditures by public charities to influence legislation
...
(2) Definitions
(A) Lobbying expenditures
The term “lobbying expenditures” means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911 (d)).
...
(3) Organizations to which this subsection applies
This subsection shall apply to any organization which...
(B) is not a disqualified organization under paragraph (5).
...
(5) Disqualified organizations
For purposes of paragraph (3) an organization is a disqualified organization if it is—
(A) described in section 170 (b)(1)(A)(i) (relating to churches),
(B) an integrated auxiliary of a church or of a convention or association of churches...

So churches are excluded from the exception provided by subsection (h). What exactly does "subsantial part" mean? Well, that's up to the judges in most cases, but even if churches were granted the exception of section (h) (to reiterate, they can't be), then their collection of money for a cause would be limited by the language of 4911(c)(2), the relevant parts of which state:

(2) Lobbying nontaxable amount
The lobbying nontaxable amount for any organization for any taxable year is the lesser of
(A) $1,000,000 or
(B) the amount determined under the following table:

If the exempt purposeexpenditures are— Over $1,500,000

The lobbying nontaxableamount is— $225,000 plus 5 percent of the excess of the exempt purpose expenditures over $1,500,000.

So even with this exception they would have to be pulling in over $7M this year to be able to give so much to Yes on 1. This seems unlikely, and for the threepeat, even if they did they don't enjoy this exception.

This is all ignoring that the morman church gave way over a million dollar, so they're in violation even with the exception.

Grog: Persuter gave the full text of the code abo...

2009-10-25T23:48:39.477-04:00

Grog:

Persuter gave the full text of the code above, complete with link. Meanwhile, you have the general definition of a 501(c)(3) that you got from somewhere on the IRS website.

In case you missed it, it read:

Here's the relevant statute.

Corporations ... organized and operated exclusively for religious ... purposes ... no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Subsection h explicitly says it does not apply to churches.

@Pragmatus: The issue that you are failing to gra...

2009-10-25T23:15:11.480-04:00

@Pragmatus:

The issue that you are failing to grasp is tax-exempt status.

Nope. Not failing to grasp that.

The problem is that churches enjoy a status regarding taxes that comes with a price, and that is that they keep their noses (and money) out of politics.

Not true.

The church could lose it's tax exempt status if supports or opposes a canditate. This particular topic deals with an issue. The church is free to support or oppose issues or causes and keep it's tax exempt status.

This is from that far right wingnut website called irs.gov.

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Nate, this is one of the most difficult posts to r...

2009-10-25T23:12:43.084-04:00

Nate, this is one of the most difficult posts to read I've ever seen from you, and they're not usually difficult at all. You need quotes around the names of the groups involved, at a minimum. Without that it all runs together and is pretty much incomprehensible.

the point should be continued that the real grassr...

2009-10-25T23:11:40.950-04:00

the point should be continued that the real grassroots in this referendum battle is on the No side.

the people of maine are clearly (if voting by pocketbook) in favor of equality. about three times more in favor.

this is good for the issue as a whole. its only a matter of time before we think back on this like we do banned interracial marriage. when the DENIAL of a marriage license to any loving adult couple will be considered outrageous ie: the louisiana judge.

I'm from Southern Illinois (or central Illinois, d...

2009-10-25T21:49:54.044-04:00

I'm from Southern Illinois (or central Illinois, depending on how you define the cultural geography), but have lived my life in the St. Louis suburbs in both states. Basically, I'm from the Midwest, but am pretty close, geographically, to the South. Living where I live, in a Missouri St. Louis suburb, I see mostly Midwestern--but also some Southern--influences. Same-sex unions may happen in Illinois, but I won't get into IL politics.

When you make a prediction like Same-sex marriage has a 60% chance of winning in Maine, I take notice.

I think those of really interested or have a stake in this issue would LOVE a win for marriage equality in Maine.

Ben

What I find so ironic about Christian churches sup...

2009-10-25T20:41:52.370-04:00

What I find so ironic about Christian churches supporting such causes as Yes on 1 is that Jesus himself expressed tolerance for homosexual behavior. See Matthew 15:11.

Might I note that scholarly publications always in...

2009-10-25T20:08:29.171-04:00

Might I note that scholarly publications always include references to their claims? So does Wikipedia, for that matter. Making claims and then expecting others to look them up seems wrong to me -- if only as a matter of efficiency. Better for one person to research it than for ten to.

@Mike in Maryland I assume you were referring to ...

2009-10-25T19:46:22.398-04:00

@Mike in Maryland

I assume you were referring to me in your last comment since in my last comment I said "So where exactly are they getting this ½$M?" First, thank you for acknowledging that I am a non-Troll. However, I wasn't fishing for somebody else to do my research for me so much as making a rhetorical point. In hindsight, my comment was very poorly phrased and should have been more along the lines of "They can't afford to maintain nearly half of the churches in their diocese, but they can raise ½$M to perpetuate discrimination? How convenient."

Having said that, I did assume that a significant chunk of that money was raised out of state. So I am partially guilty of what you accused me of. I should have done a bit more research before making my last comment, but I stand by my above stated intention of that comment. I think that an institution that is downsizing due to financial straights, but can manage to raise ½$M to support (what I consider to be) hate legislation, is an immoral entity that is hurting not only those potentially affected by that question, but their own parishioners as well.

So it still smells fishy to me, but it may tomalley after all. ;-)

Mike: I'm no expert on the German system, but wha...

2009-10-25T19:33:37.053-04:00

Mike: I'm no expert on the German system, but what you're saying directly contradicts the font of all knowledge (Wikipedia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany

It claims that the state collects additional income taxes from people who list any of a number of religions (From a limited list) alongside their taxes, which is then given to the religious institution they listed. Not saying the practice sounds like a good idea to me, but sounds much more logical and equitable than what you're suggestion.

The one who drinks watered-down wine? Would you r...

2009-10-25T19:25:05.307-04:00

The one who drinks watered-down wine?

Would you rather that the US follow the German system, where people pay a per capita tax in support of religious institutions?

But, unlike Germany where the government can state which religion(s) get the money and which ones don't, the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that it is unConstitutional for any religion to be favored over another.

That means your tax money would go to Southern Baptists AND Quakers AND Amish AND Roman Catholics AND Seventh Day Adventists AND Christian Scientists AND Jewish Congregations AND Wiccans AND Muslims AND Mormans AND the Moonies AND Hindus AND Buddhists AND . . . .

Then, since, under the Constitution, no religion can be shown favortism, how is the money distributed?

By need? Who determines if it is an actual need, or a 'wish-list' need? A congregation needs a new worship center? But the one they are in is only 20 years old, and the capacity is 20% more than the usual attendance, although overcrowded on the high holy day(s) for that congregation? How about the congregation that worships in a facility that has a leaking roof? Do they deserve more than the congregation down the street?

Per capita? Members or those who attend on an average worship day? Who determines how many people belong to which religion or congregation?

But then, the government would be discriminating against those who follow NO religion. Do they get a direct payment?

Any of the above sound feasible to you?

Mike in Maryland

Jacob, I expect the TROLLs to not know how to do ...

2009-10-25T19:07:16.837-04:00

Jacob,

I expect the TROLLs to not know how to do research, let alone be able to do it at all. When non-TROLLs expect everyone else to be their research monkeys, that's when I get fed up with some of them, and let loose of my temper.

The news about the Bangor diocese having money problems, shutting parishes, cutting back expenses, etc., has been in the news, yet in the posting by Nate, he posted ". . . the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (ME), from which it has received $529,666." The diocese is having money problems, yet it is able to give more than $500,000? How and why?

A little bit in intellectual curiosity (something lacking in the TROLLs) about the statement written by Nate, or statements that I made, should have caused those with questions about the source of the money to do their own research. The information is not classified as a state secret.

Instead of imitating the TROLLs, I would expect non-TROLLs to do at least some basic research on their own, and not rely on others to be their research monkeys.

Mike in Maryland