Rights of Religion?

[Fenny the Fox]

Are there any basic rules that a non-profit company must follow to be considered non-profit? Both for-profit and non-profit companies have employees that get salaries, so individual workers are still making profit.

Are there salary caps or anything like that? Are televangelists and mega churches that get rich considered non-profits, or no?

-Lyn

Well, employees of non-profits are required to file income tax, therefore, the payment to employees is still taxed.

As for guidelines, there are a number. But I honestly am not sure what all of them are.

Also, the tax exempt status gets confusing. There is exemption at state level, and then at federal level. So, not all are exempt from federal income tax, but they may be exempt from state level property tax and the like. It is really a confusing business, at least to me.

And...sorry I can't really tell you more. I don't study law, let alone tax law, so I am not all that certain I would get it right if I said any more than what I have. But what I have said, I know for sure is right.

Anyone else know this stuff better?


As for the televangelists and mega-churches: most of the time, they get rich by not filing correct federal income tax information (give much lower figures than reality, etc). And/or by actually stealing from the church/ministry. It is, all around, just really bad.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Because saying "I say so" is not a good enough reason to ban things that you find objectionable? You know, the same problem you probably have with Christians protesting homosexual rights?

So can you give a complete reason why child rape is bad which does not depend on 'I say so'? Any application of bodily integrity (the quickest way to say any rape is wrong) would suggest against circumcision unless there was a strong medical need for it. In the end, that constitutes an 'I said so' because there is no way to prove a right to bodily integrity, yet I don't think that invalidates the reasoning, no?

 

[lawtonfogle]

LOL if you think I'm a fundamentalist, you are in for quite a shock when you meet real ones. I just see it as a pointless fight that will only cause turmoil, and basically, in the US at least, targets one specific religious group that has no interest in forcing those practices on other people.

Again, seems like there's plenty of better fights out there, right?

Here is a simple question. If a culture is found (I do not know if one exist currently or not) which practices female circumcision as a religious practice, should some family which moves to the US (or any other first world country) be allowed to continue the practice of female circumcision?

 

[b&wpac4]

Here is a simple question. If a culture is found (I do not know if one exist currently or not) which practices female circumcision as a religious practice, should some family which moves to the US (or any other first world country) be allowed to continue the practice of female circumcision?

It's a tough case, to be honest. Restricting religious freedom is bad, but female circumcision is also horrific. I suppose since the current US law prohibits the practice, it would need to go to the Supreme Court before people far more qualified than I to give an answer.

I just know that in the case of male circumcision in the Jewish faith, it will be practiced if it is illegal or not.

 

[lawtonfogle]

As for the actual OP. [Please forgive the multiplicative nature of my posting today. I'm a bit on the scatter-brained side...even more than usual]



The only example of this that I can think of, off the top of my head at any rate, is that certain religious institutions are allowed to serve alcohol to minors if part of ceremony. (Catholic churches are allowed, not sure about others really.)
I think the rationale behind this allowance is that the amount is so small per person it is generally negligible as far as medical effects go.

But I honestly don't think they should be allowed to. I think religious organizations should be required to follow the same guidelines as the general public as far as this goes.

Our laws regarding alcohol are a bit stupid as is. Why 21? We consider almost everything else allowable at 18. Either you are or are not an adult at 18, and can choose to harm yourself* or not.

*To certain extents anyways.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Male circumcision and female circumcision are the same in name, but not much else. They both are cutting something off, but the difference is like cutting off the webbing between digits that some children have, and cutting the finger off. Of course, I am not 100% certain as to what gets cut off on female circumcision, and doubt someone can fully describe it to me on this site and still stay in the PG range.

I doubt they could...and I really doubt you want to know...*shudders at the thought*

But the real reason for male circumcision is for cleanliness. As simple as that, it is easier to keep it clean than if it were uncircumcised.

As Robin Williams said one time:
-Moses: Hello? Lets not wait for the bread to rise - just take some crackers and the skin off your penis. We're leaving.
-Random person: Excuse me?! Why the skin off our penis?
-Moses: We're traveling people, you don't want sand in there!

 

[lawtonfogle]

It's a tough case, to be honest. Restricting religious freedom is bad, but female circumcision is also horrific. I suppose since the current US law prohibits the practice, it would need to go to the Supreme Court before people far more qualified than I to give an answer.

I just know that in the case of male circumcision in the Jewish faith, it will be practiced if it is illegal or not.

If it helps, lets say that a portion of the group will stop doing it, while another portion of the group will continue to perform female circumcision underground.

Also, does it matter if they are doing it to female children who are 8 days old or 8 years old?

And here is a description of it by a child who happened to be old enough to remember it when it happened, just so you know what you are dealing with.



[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, GENEVA] The History of Child Abuse[/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, GENEVA] by Lloyd deMause

The Journal of Psychohistory 25 (3) Winter 1998[/FONT]

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, GENEVA]
I was six years old that night when I lay in my bed, warm and peaceful...I felt something move under the blankets, something like a huge hand...another hand was clapped over my mouth to prevent me from screaming.

They carried me to the bathroom...I remember...a rasping metallic sound which reminded me of the butcher when he used to sharpen his knife...My blood was frozen in my veins...my thighs had been pulled wide apart...I felt that the rasping knife or blade was heading straight down towards my throat. Then suddenly the sharp metallic edge seemed to drop between my thighs and there cut off a piece of flesh from my body.

I screamed with pain despite the tight hand held over my mouth, for the pain was not just a pain, it was like a searing flame that went through my whole body. After a few moments, I saw a red pool of blood around my hips. I did not know what they had cut off from my body, and did not try to find out. I just wept, and called out to my mother for help. But the worst shock of all was when I looked around and found her standing by my side. Yes, it was her, I could not be mistaken, in flesh and blood, right in the midst of these strangers, talking to them and smiling at them.

A recent survey of Egyptian girls and women showed 97 percent of uneducated families and 66 percent of educated families still practiced clitoridectomy. Nor is the practice decreasing--UN reports estimate that more than 74 million females have been mutilated, with "more female children mutilated today than throughout history."

Ok, so scrap that culture being hypothetical, it seems quite real.

The History of Child Abuse

This is a peer-reviewed paper as well, though I do find it surprising he did not mention the source of the study, though he may have mentioned it elsewhere.
[/FONT]

 

[b&wpac4]

I think a stronger case can be made that female circumcision causes a great deal of harm where male circumcision does not cause the same degree of harm. I mean, there are differences between genders physically, so I'm shocked when people pretend like it is exactly the same thing.

We wouldn't allow human sacrifice, for example, under the law.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I doubt they could...and I really doubt you want to know...*shudders at the thought*

But the real reason for male circumcision is for cleanliness. As simple as that, it is easier to keep it clean than if it were uncircumcised.

As Robin Williams said one time:
-Moses: Hello? Lets not wait for the bread to rise - just take some crackers and the skin off your penis. We're leaving.
-Random person: Excuse me?! Why the skin off our penis?
-Moses: We're traveling people, you don't want sand in there!

But why are you killing flies with a SKUD missile? Would not a course in hygiene suffice?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

But why are you killing flies with a SKUD missile? Would not a course in hygiene suffice?

I don't make the news, I just report it...? Yeah, that suffices.

I honestly don't know why. Ask God. (in due time, I sincerely hope)

Maybe it was just a better alternative to mandate they remove the skin than try to clean under it, when they in the desert and lacking water and anything else they really needed to do so. That makes it a little harder to keep clean; and if the penis is not kept clean and healthy on most all of the men, the chances of the population surviving a 40 year trek through rough desert would be slim to none, I suppose. (All just my take on why)

 

[mpok1519]

religion doesnt have rights; people do.

And people should have the right to do drugs if they want to, not whether or not their religion dictates.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In some extreme cases (such as sacrifices, female circumcision or other harmful acts performed on unwilling participants or minors), legal restrictions are a necessity, although they cannot help to ultimately solve the problem.

You cannot change people's minds by just declaring their customs and traditions illegal - they will simply go underground and continue, possibly even with more fervour than before due to the whole "persecution complex"-thing. I think we ought to eliminate female circumcision by trusting to the strength of our arguments, and by educating people about what they're doing there. It may not be a quick fix, but I tend to think that quick fixes are rarely good long-term solutions, anyway.

 

[Isambard]

I don't make the news, I just report it...? Yeah, that suffices.

I honestly don't know why. Ask God. (in due time, I sincerely hope)

Maybe it was just a better alternative to mandate they remove the skin than try to clean under it, when they in the desert and lacking water and anything else they really needed to do so. That makes it a little harder to keep clean; and if the penis is not kept clean and healthy on most all of the men, the chances of the population surviving a 40 year trek through rough desert would be slim to none, I suppose. (All just my take on why)

Why would God prescibe this method specifically?

Metzitzah b'peh ("suction by mouth") is a practice in certain Haredi and Hasidic circles in which, after removing the foreskin, the mohel sucks out the blood from the wound to clean it. The mohel spits the blood into a receptacle provided. Afterwards the circumcised penis is bandaged, and the brit is considered complete. Because the practice may spread diseases to the babies from the mohel's mouth (such as herpes), most mohelim ensure that their mouths are sanitized and washed out by rinsing with alcohol to disinfect the mouth.[10] However, because alcohol may not kill a virus such as herpes, washing the mouth with alcohol alone is not regarded as a sufficient protective measure. Today, if it is performed, the mohel generally uses a sterilized glass tube.[11][12] However, the practice has become a controversy in both secular and Jewish medical ethics.
Brit milah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aside from being disgusting (as it involves giving a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to an infant), it also spreads disease, which sorta goes against the logic of doing it to avoid disease.

 

[b&wpac4]

Why would God prescibe this method specifically?

Metzitzah b'peh ("suction by mouth") is a practice in certain Haredi and Hasidic circles in which, after removing the foreskin, the mohel sucks out the blood from the wound to clean it. The mohel spits the blood into a receptacle provided. Afterwards the circumcised penis is bandaged, and the brit is considered complete. Because the practice may spread diseases to the babies from the mohel's mouth (such as herpes), most mohelim ensure that their mouths are sanitized and washed out by rinsing with alcohol to disinfect the mouth.[10] However, because alcohol may not kill a virus such as herpes, washing the mouth with alcohol alone is not regarded as a sufficient protective measure. Today, if it is performed, the mohel generally uses a sterilized glass tube.[11][12] However, the practice has become a controversy in both secular and Jewish medical ethics.
Brit milah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aside from being disgusting (as it involves giving a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to an infant), it also spreads disease, which sorta goes against the logic of doing it to avoid disease.

That specific method is not practiced much, as it says only within certain circles, and the article clearly goes on to say that it is a controversial method that isn't highly regarded by most rabbis. There a reason you left that part out and only copy/pasted the parts that make the whole thing look bad?

 

[Isambard]

That specific method is not practiced much, as it says only within certain circles, and the article clearly goes on to say that it is a controversial method that isn't highly regarded by most rabbis. There a reason you left that part out and only copy/pasted the parts that make the whole thing look bad?

What I quoted specifically said that. Read what I'm responding to. Context is a wonderful thing.

 

[b&wpac4]

Never mind.

 

[b&wpac4]

Actually, this is pulling the thread off topic. I'm done discussing it on this thread.

 

[Isambard]

You asked why God would prescribe that method. If you read the article you'll see that God didn't. Reading is a wonderful thing.

The foundation for the ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists metzitzah as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. Rabbi Moses Sofer (known as the "Chasam Sofer") observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic — i.e., to protect the health of the child. As a result of these texts, the Chasam Sofer contended that Jewish tradition instituted metzitzeh solely to prevent danger to the infant and stated that metzitzah was not required to be applied orally, but nevertheless made the leniency conditional upon doctors testifying that the metzitzah with a sponge would accomplish the same purpose as oral suction. His letter was published in Kochvei Yitzchok.[13]

This is getting hilarious.

 

[b&wpac4]

This is getting hilarious.

If you want to discuss this, start a new thread, I won't derail this one any more.

 

[Isambard]

If you want to discuss this, start a new thread, I won't derail this one any more.

Non-christians arn't allowed to debate theology.