ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® – News and Updates on Religious Liberty and Freedom

Category: Economics

Uneven Approach to Law is Threat to Survival of America’s Cities

“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, 1787

“A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

James Madison, Property, March 29, 1792

[dc]L[/dc]ast week, the city of San Francisco announced that it would begin “intense operations” to “start enforcing all the parking rules after being short-staffed following the pandemic.” ABC7 News noted that in 2023, over 500,000 tickets had been issued for drivers who parked illegally. “Sustainable Transportation” advocate Luke Bornheimer said, “We know that people who park on sidewalks or in bike lanes or in crosswalks or really close to intersections reduce safety for all people but especially for children and seniors and people with disabilities who walk, bike or use mobility devices to get around.” The increased revenue will also help with the SFMTA’s $12.7 million budget deficit.

Meanwhile, also in San Francisco, homeless encampment fires have doubled from 400 emergency responses in 2019 to more than 800 last year, leading to millions of dollars of property damage. The fires are caused by people burning trash, cooking food, or trying to keep warm in the winter. Some are also considered to be “malicious or reckless.”

A fire on October 13, 2023, damaged three vehicles for $47,628 in total damage. A local business owner said she had filed many complaints about outdoor fires to the city’s 311 phone line with no results.

So, what’s going on in a city that meticulously enforces parking violations but fails to respond to dangerous outdoor fires that cause large amounts of property damage?

Maybe it is because there’s an incentive to solve parking problems; after all, people who own cars can afford to pay fines for their infractions with a benefit to the city’s bottom line while, on the other hand, stopping people who start dangerous fires can cost the city even more when it comes to enforcement and does not directly benefit the city’s bottom line.

Whatever the rationale, San Francisco and many other cities in the United States are entering a period of “anarcho-tyranny.” (The term refers to a Hegelian synthesis when a government oppressively regulates the lives of otherwise law-abiding citizens yet lacks the ability or will to enforce laws to protect them.)

A clear example of this oxymoronic reality is the spate of recent squatters’ rights cases. In February 2024, a 47-year-old New York City homeowner, Adele Andaloro, was arrested after she changed the locks on her home that she had inherited and was trying to sell, which had been taken over by squatters. She went to the house with a locksmith and a local TV channel. It turns out that in New York City, a person can claim that they have “squatters rights” after being on the property for 30 days, including the time the actual homeowners are working their way through the courts. It is illegal for the homeowner to change locks, turn off utilities, or otherwise disrupt those who have taken up residence in their houses. The police arrested Andaloro because she had “illegally” changed the locks to her own house and had not given a new key to the squatter, and told her to address it in court because it had become a “landlord-tenant issue.”

San Francisco has become notorious for winking at crimes like shoplifting or drug dealing while ruthlessly enforcing fines. In some areas, a person leaving their car unattended will need to both fear thieves who break into cars without consequence and police officers who will ticket their vehicles for being parked in an area for 5 minutes over the time limit. As it currently stands, there’s a rule that requires people to prove that their car doors were locked to prosecute thieves, even if the thieves broke doors or windows. [perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]In some areas, a person leaving their car unattended will need to both fear thieves who break into cars without consequence and police officers who will ticket their vehicles for being parked in an area for 5 minutes over the time limit[/perfectpullquote]

Major city centers are becoming ghost towns. (For a tour of vacant streets, check out https://www.youtube.com/@LeoMetalTraveler ) There are several reasons for this, including withdrawal of law enforcement, overregulation of business, the Pandemic, and perhaps the contrasting safety and ease of online shopping. In San Francisco, the flagship Macy’s is closing, joining hundreds of other retailers that have decided it is better to leave the city than try to continue to do business there. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering an ordinance requiring the few remaining grocery stores to provide six months’ written notice that they are closing. Failure to do that could open the stores to lawsuits by community members.

In New York City, the government is suing a shopping mall management company for breaking its lease halfway through a 20-year term. Most of the retailers in the relatively new $1 billion facility located over the subway have abandoned their spaces and left due to unchecked crime. Westfield says the MTA has failed to fulfill its obligation of providing public safety, and multiple tenants have left due to “break-ins, theft, vandalism, harassment, and assault.” Meanwhile, New York City law enforcement is focused on high profile political cases.

Businesses need not remain in once-safe but increasingly dangerous communities, and individuals who can afford to leave will do so. Once a community is no longer considered a safe long-term investment, it will take decades to regain trust if it ever happens. Meanwhile, cities will turn to narrower and narrower revenue streams achieved through overwrought regulation and fiscal punishment of the remaining citizens who have the financial resources available to offset some of the lost revenue. This will lead law-abiding citizens to abandon them even faster.

Eventually, major cities failing to uphold property and security rights will descend into anarchy. As it now stands, with restaurants and shopping centers shuttering, the only reason to visit the once-beautiful downtown areas will be to attend required meetings at government offices and courts. This decline has happened in the Rust Belt portions of the United States and is about to reach previously affluent coastal cities.

If cities wish to reverse this decline, leaders must be willing to do the hard work of once again enforcing the law in ways that encourage good behavior at all levels. Giving out parking tickets while fentanyl dealers operate with impunity just feet away is not the answer.[perfectpullquote align=”left” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]If cities wish to reverse this decline, leaders must be willing to do the hard work of once again enforcing the law in ways that encourage good behavior at all levels. [/perfectpullquote]

There is some hope that this could turn around. In 2020, Oregon voters accelerated the state’s decline when they approved a ballot measure, Measure 110, that decriminalized possession of hard drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Rather than facing criminal prosecution, drug offenders would get a $100 citation that would be waived if they called a drug treatment hotline. Four years later, after the state experienced a drug free-for-all, Oregon legislatures passed HB 4002, which made drug possession a misdemeanor. The first offense will be mandatory addiction treatment with no jail time or fines. If they break probation, they can face up to six months in jail, and records would be expunged within three years. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a step toward sanity.

However, given the scale of the issue in much larger communities, such steps are likely to fall short. As the exodus from states that stifle business and property owners but are lenient toward those who commit property crimes continues, the balance of power is likely to change dramatically. They cannot continue to operate on their dwindling tax base. Eventually, there will not be enough money to continue to provide essential services. The problems these permissive cities face today will be exponentially exacerbated as retailers and jobs leave the area. Cities cannot force people and businesses to operate without as much as a nod toward safety.

The decline of America’s cities has been rapid, but if it is to be reversed, community leaders must take decisive steps toward restoring order in society at all levels. The only question is whether they have the willpower to do so.

May 2, 2024
Pork Farm Supreme Court Decision May Allow State Legislatures to Regulate Moral Behavior In Other States

[dc]W[/dc]e start this week on the exciting topic of the “Dormant Commerce Clause.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”

While people tend to naturally think that the Federal government can override state regulations and make them do whatever Congress desires, it can only do so when controlling “interstate commerce” or commercial transaction that crosses state lines. Congress can also require states to abide by the Bill of Rights via the Fourteenth Amendment, but that’s another issue.

The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that applies the principles of the Commerce Clause to prevent states (at the state level) from enforcing laws that impede commerce in other states.

So now let’s talk about pork – not the “debt ceiling pork” that’s being debated now in Congress, but actual pigs. In 2018, California voters, in an act of compassion for animals, passed a ballot initiative (Proposition 12) that made it illegal to sell pork meat in the state that comes from farms where pigs are “confined in a cruel manner.” This was defined as conditions where pigs are prevented from “lying down, standing up, fully extending limbs, or turning around freely.”

The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation sued, claiming Proposition 12 violated the “dormant Commerce Clause” by raising the costs borne by out-of-state farmers since California already imports most of the pork used in the state.

On May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 12 is legitimate and does not violate the Commerce Clause. Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that the dormant Commerce Clause principle was typically used to prevent states from trying to gain an economic advantage over others. Still, California is not attempting to gain an advantage in this case since it does not produce much pork. The reason voters passed Proposition 12 had nothing to do with commerce and more to do with preventing cruelty to animals. Further, states have often banned items made in other states that they deem dangerous or violate “public morals.”

While this may seem to be an arcane issue best left to legal boffins, Justice Kavanaugh in his dissent that because California does not produce much pork, it represents a huge market for pork products and its voters passed a law intended to regulate what occurred in other states where farmers “have little choice but to comply with California’s regulatory dictates.” It isn’t about the safety of the final product itself, but about the morality of the behaviors associated with creating the product.

Kavanaugh ominously warns, “future state laws of this kind might not be confined to the pork industry.” He cites as an example, “what if a state laws prohibits the sale of fruit picked by noncitizens who are unlawfully in the country?” Or prohibits sale of goods made by people earning less than $20 an hour? Or “what if a state law prohibits ‘the retail sale of goods from producers that do not pay for employees’ birth control or abortions’ (or alternatively, that do pay for employees’ birth control or abortions)?”

Kavanaugh states, “California’s law thus may foreshadow a new era where States shutter their markets to goods produced in a way that offends their moral or policy preferences – and in doing so, effectively force other States to regulate in accordance with those idiosyncratic state demands.”

This decision may empower the legislatures of large consumer states to pass laws that force businesses in other states to comply with their social policies or face economic ruin.

Case: National Pork Producers Council et al v. Ross, 598 U.S. ____ (2023), decided 5/11/2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf

May 17, 2023
Exploring the Potential Risks of CBDC – Privacy, Freedom and Economy Impacts

The news of central bank digital currency (CBDC) has been gaining traction recently as countries around the world look for ways to streamline their financial systems. While the concept of CBDC has its advantages, privacy and freedom rights should be a major concern for all citizens.

CBDC is an electronic form of money created and backed by a central bank. It is designed to be an alternative to traditional physical currency and provides central banks with more control over the flow of money. The CBDC is also expected to provide more security and stability to the financial system by reducing the risk of counterfeiting, money laundering, and other financial crimes.

The idea of CBDC has been met with both enthusiasm and anxiety. Advocates of CBDC argue that it will be a significant step towards greater financial inclusion and economic freedom, while detractors worry that it could lead to an erosion of privacy rights and an increase in government control.

One of the key concerns that have been raised is the potential for CBDC to be used to monitor citizens’ financial activity. As the currency is digital, it will be easier for central banks to track and monitor where money is being spent and who is spending it. This could lead to an increase in government surveillance and could be used to target specific individuals or groups.

Another worry is that CBDC could lead to a loss of freedom and autonomy for citizens. For example, central banks could impose restrictions on how money is used or what it can be used for. This could limit citizens’ ability to make their own financial decisions and could lead to a decrease in economic freedom.

Finally, there are also concerns that CBDC could be used to manipulate the economy. Central banks could use the currency to influence interest rates and other economic factors, which could have a significant impact on citizens’ lives.

Overall, the concept of CBDC is still in its infancy, and more research will be needed before its true implications are known. However, it is clear that there are a number of potential risks that must be considered. Before CBDC is implemented, governments must ensure that citizens’ privacy and freedom rights are protected. Otherwise, the potential benefits of CBDC could be overshadowed by its potential harms.

December 29, 2022
Op-Ed: People need to help each other during COVID-19 crisis

[dc]M[/dc]y initial reaction to the news about this virus was that it was an overblown story. I was quite annoyed with the mainstream media reporting every new case and every death. The result seemed to be nothing other than mass hysteria. After all, imagine if they reported every case of the flu every year, and every one of the estimated yearly 20,000 to 60,000 deaths. Or, if they reported every injury from every auto accident, along with the 30,000 to 40,000 deaths per year. I still think it’s too much reporting. As of this post, the number of US cases is over 3000, and the number of deaths is 61. The CDC estimates 9.3 million to 45 million cases of the flu per year.

Notwithstanding my personal reaction, it appears that China was able to significantly reduce the number of cases by restricting movement. Shortly thereafter, but apparently not soon enough, Italian leaders essentially shut down the country. Since then, Spain, France and Israel have shuttered much of their countries. No restaurants, cafes, bars, gyms, theaters, museums. In the US, major sporting events have been cancelled – the NBA and NHL suspending play, MLB delaying the start of the baseball season, and the NCAA cancelling March Madness. Large events are being cancelled. Some states and communities are limiting gatherings to 250 or 500 people. In Israel, the limit is 10 people, the minimum number required for a “minyan” (quorum), the number of people required to engage in certain prayers. Many school districts have closed, as have a large number of colleges and universities.

I do not recall anything like this in my lifetime. As someone in the high-risk group, I certainly do not want to catch this virus, nor would I want to spread it to others. They tell us that this virus is far more easily transmitted to others than the flu. Hence, the need for “social distancing.” Since Friday, and notwithstanding my initial refusal to go along with the conventional wisdom, we have been practicing social distancing. We have not left the house over the weekend, with the exception of doing some grocery shopping.

Many of the experts also tell us that, aside from being spread more easily than the flu, the mortality rate is higher. I have seen numbers saying 3.4% higher to 10% higher. I am not buying that. Not yet anyway. After all, we are told that for most people who get the coronavirus, they are likely to get a mild to moderate case. If that is correct, then thousands (millions?) will never see a doctor or ER, and will simply self-medicate until they feel better. Those people will never enter the system as part of the reported or known cases. Therefore, if we do not know the total number of cases, we cannot possibly calculate the percentage of fatalities. What we can say is that the elderly, and those with underlying health problems or immune problems, are most at risk.

The economic consequences of society’s reaction to this virus have the potential to be devastating. It is estimated that the NCAA alone is losing one billion dollars from the cancellation of the college basketball playoffs (March Madness). The NBA anticipates similar losses. Then we have the vendors who operate at these sports arenas and stadiums, and their suppliers, and all the restaurants and bars in the vicinity of where the now canceled sporting events would have taken place. Then, you have the businesses shutting down completely for the time being, with others telling their employees to work remotely from home where feasible. Major stores (Walmart and Ralph’s, for example) have reduced the number of hours they are open to the public.

Frankly, I am somewhat reluctant to get into the politics surrounding this virus. Not because Trump was not at his best in his initial speech to the country. That was clear. He has done better since. Some of the attacks on the President by the Democrats and the mainstream media are completely unwarranted. As with natural disasters, there will be a need for financial aid to states and businesses. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said this: “If you’re providing liquidity to good businesses that just need liquidity for 3 to 6 months, that’s not a bailout.” That may be semantics. However, contrary to what one might expect from my conservative outlook, I see this as a time when we need to join together. That has been one of my concerns with this virus. After 9/11, the country was united. After the Northridge earthquake, Southern Californians helped one another.

This crisis seems different. People seemed to be more selfish, what with the hoarding of toilet paper and water. Then there was the young guy who purchased 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer, thinking he would cash in by selling them at a huge mark-up. I understand that Amazon and others prevented him from doing so. As a firm believer in capitalism, I admire his entrepreneurial spirit. I do not admire his timing, nor his desire to take advantage of a crisis situation. The same for people who are hoarding face masks, which affects the ability of doctors, nurses and hospital staff (those who need them the most) to get those masks. This morning, as I was thinking about what might be done to help people, rather than take advantage of people, I emailed one of my Rabbis at Chabad. I suggested that it would be nice for younger, healthy people to volunteer to do the grocery shopping for the elderly, sick and disabled, given the long lines at many markets and Costco and other places. He replied that he was in the process of sending out an email to the Chabad community announcing just that. I was also pleasantly surprised to learn that our son and his new bride, and our daughter, had announced on Facebook that they were ready to help pick up food and medications for those who could not or should not leave their homes. That is the spirit that I hope we will see more of – Americans reaching out to help their fellow Americans.

Reposted with permission from http://truth-uncensored.blogspot.com/

March 17, 2020
Pope’s Speech at U.N. coincides with launch of United Nations’ “new universal Agenda” for humanity

“The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda.”

United Nations – Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

On Friday, September 25, 2015, the World Summit opened at the United Nations in New York City with a keynote address delivered by Pope Francis in support of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which was adopted by the member states later in the day.

Most people are not familiar with the 2030 Agenda (Read it here in its entirety), but beginning on January 1, 2016, if all goes according to plan, the Agenda will become the centerpiece for the next fifteen years of international diplomacy, economics, and based on the language in the proposal will affect almost every area of human endeavor in every corner of the globe.

Typical of his gentle pastoral style the Pope’s speech (Transcript) was not so much a set of practical marching orders as it an attempt at encouraging the adoption and implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

According to the Pope, “[T]he the simplest and best measure and indicator of the implementation of the new Agenda for development will be effective, practical and immediate access, on the part of all, to essential material and spiritual goods: housing, dignified and properly remunerated employment, adequate food and drinking water; religious freedom and, more generally, spiritual freedom and education.”

He further referenced what it will take to fully participate in the Agenda, stating, “The present time invites us to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society, so as to bear fruit in significant and positive historical events (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 223). We cannot permit ourselves to postpone ‘certain agendas’ for the future. The future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of world-wide conflicts which increase the number of the excluded and those in need.”

Near the end of his speech, the Pope stated, “The praiseworthy international juridical framework of the United Nations Organization and of all its activities, like any other human endeavour, can be improved, yet it remains necessary; at the same time it can be the pledge of a secure and happy future for future generations. And so it will, if the representatives of the States can set aside partisan and ideological interests, and sincerely strive to serve the common good.”

So what exactly is the 2030 Agenda? The United Nations describes it brieflyas “a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity.”

Briefly, the 17 goals that the member states adopted on September 25, 2015 include the following, which are described in specific detail on the site:

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, with the goal of informing people about the importance of using edr1rxd1 water filters at home.

Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries

Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

The U.N. website states that, “all countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.”

This may sound like a utopian pipedream, but the U.N. hopes to achieve these goals by the year 2030, and as a matter of necessity it requires each member state to take steps to comply with Agenda goals

The goals will be achieved through “revitalized Global Partnership,” mobilization of financial resources and transfer of technologies to developing countries, support for durable peace and sustainable development in countries in conflict and post-conflict, using international public finance to provide public and private finances to developing countries, and various commissions and dialogues between the nations of the world.

According to the U.N., “Our journey will involve Governments as well as Parliaments, the U.N. system and other international institutions, local authorities, indigenous peoples, civil society, business and the private sector, the scientific and academic community – and all people. Millions have already engaged with, and will own, this Agenda. It is an Agenda of the people, by the people, and for the people – and this, we believe, will ensure its success.”

The U.N. is depending on Pope Francis, the world’s most visible religious leader, to endorse and promote the agenda to those who might otherwise be reluctant to accept it. The U.N. will also be relying on a variety of artists, singers, and others to influence popular culture.

Martin Sajdik, of the Economic and Social Council describes how the Agenda will be marketed in a July 13, 2015 letter (PDF):

“Communication should aim to make people understand how they personally contribute to the global agenda and to feel proud of this. It will be important to project that this is a universal agenda, with a much greater level of ambition than one could have imagined a few years ago. The motto to ‘Leave no one behind’ is also a powerful vehicle for mobilizing people. It can be a two-way street, and be used to collect data on what people want and to create feed-back loop.

“The agenda should be communicated through social media, traditional media and traditional civil society mobilization techniques as well as art, music and culture. Communication will have to happen in all countries and at all levels, down to the local grass roots level where implementation takes place. It needs to reach all groups and to be tailored to various countries and groups. It is also good to identify and target trend-setters in various communities.”

Although the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.N., Archbishop Bernardito Auza, previously endorsed the goals “verbatim” in a June 22 statement, in a subsequent statement on September 3, the Vatican was supportive of the 2030 Agenda, but expressed concerns about language which could endorse global access to abortion and population control.

According to the Vatican statement, “This Agenda is a clear sign that, in spite of differences in some areas, the international community has come together and affirmed its commitment to eradicate poverty in all its forms and dimensions and to ensure that all children, women and men throughout the world will have the conditions necessary to live in both freedom and dignity.”

Speaking to reporters in February, Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s top climate change official said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”

The term “New World Order,” as it referenced a combination of international economic and governmental policies, first reached the public consciousness in the late 1980s and early 1990s but soon faded from consciousness. But its goals may finally become reality with the 2030 Agenda.

Using innocuous language such as “saving the planet” and “international cooperation”, the Agenda will likely require the UN to subject all people to international regulatory forces, with strong tendencies toward socialism, that will make inroads into the sovereign structures of the nations of the world. This would have serious implications for economically successful capitalist nations and for individual freedoms and liberties.

Even though the Agenda contains terms like “voluntary,” by necessity it will ultimately be politically required that all nations that wish to conduct international trade to participate and advance its goals.

It may well be that the recent unexpected actions of the United States involving easing sanctions on Iran and Cuba were within the directional vectors of the 2030 Agenda.

At the outset, the goals of the 2030 Agenda may seem positive or benign at worst, and those who approach it critically may seem selfish, fear-mongering, or as nothing more than conspiracy theorists, the mechanisms required to bring the 2030 Agenda as it is currently described in the U.N.’s own documentation to fruition demand a reshuffling of national priorities and subjection to international regulatory forces. These may dramatically shake the current foundations of national sovereignty and freedoms previously believed to be beyond the reach of government.

While developing nations may have much to gain, first world nations will have the most to lose, not only economically, but in terms of core freedoms and inalienable rights.

September 26, 2015
The Theology of the Tax Exemption

Photo: DepositPhotos.com @Hriani

By Jason Hines, PhD, JD –

[dc]C[/dc]onservative Christians reacted predictably in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell that ruled same-sex marriage constitutional. There was hand-wringing about the pseudo-persecution of Christians and faux outrage in response to fake articles that confirmed Evangelicals’ worst fears. Many conservative critics of the decision opine that this decision will lead to the curtailing of the freedom of religion in this country. It is true that the advent of nationwide same-sex marriage creates flashpoints between religion and the government where none existed before. It is true that Christian universities may have to deal with housing issues and that churches that hold out their space to the public for weddings may have to amend their policies. However, very few if any are asking the question exactly how these flashpoints actually effect the constitutional right to the free exercise of your faith. It seems that the conversation jumps from mentioning these thorny issues to the conclusion that the right of free exercise is being curtailed.[pullquote align=”left” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Has Christianity in America become so materialistic that we conflate our freedom to worship with our ability to save a dollar?[/pullquote]

The reason why the argument skips steps is because there is a logical, legal and theological fallacy occurring in the ether around this issue. To state it bluntly – the free exercise of religious institutions (churches, schools, etc.) will not be affected by the allowance of secular same-sex marriage. The government forces no minister or pastor to perform a ceremony that violates their conscience. No church will be forced to hold a wedding on their premises that violates their beliefs.[1] What frightens many who raise this objection is the loss of the charitable tax exemption. Currently, those who are deemed charitable organizations (and most churches fall under this designation) are not taxed. In return, those institutions cannot do things like discriminate in terms of their services, nor can they advocate for particular candidates in elections.[2] Advocates of “traditional” marriage believe that religiously affiliated organizations could lose their tax exemptions or lose the access to government funding now that the Court found in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

From a legal perspective those who hold this view are correct. It is quite likely that courts will rule against churches who attempt to have their cake and eat it too by attempting to receive a government subsidy while shirking the terms by which the government grants that subsidy. In 1983 the Supreme Court ruled that the tax exemption is a subsidy to charitable organizations in the amount of the tax itself and then stated that there is no argument, “that First Amendment (Free Exercise) rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.”[3]Although this case was in reference to political advocacy, it is not a stretch to believe that the Court would extend this principle to religious institutions that seek to discriminate against unions that the state has deemed constitutional. According to the Supreme Court, it is not the responsibility of the state to donate financial resources to those who do not share the state’s principles.

I believe the Court is correct in its constitutional understanding on this issue. What bothers me more, however, is the lack of a spiritual consideration among Christians who weep and gnash their teeth over the potential loss of a tax exemption. Has Christianity in America become so materialistic that we conflate our freedom to worship with our ability to save a dollar? I was under the impression that Christians are people of faith, and yet we show so little faith in the ability to continue to function without the benefit of a charitable tax exemption. We serve a God that we claim is omnipotent and omniscient. If that’s true then it seems mighty silly to complain about a lost tax exemption on the one hand and claim that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills on the other. That does not mean that there are not legitimate financial concerns. Unfortunately some of our ministries in some areas of the country could not function without government funding. It is true that some churches would have to close their doors without the money they save in the tax exemption. It is also true that giving itself might decrease when members are no longer able to claim their tithe and offering on their tax returns. I just think that says so much more about us then it does about America, the courts, or the free exercise of religion. We should ask ourselves where we are as Christians when we no longer believe that God can provide for our charities and keep our church doors open. [pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]We should ask ourselves where we are as Christians when we no longer believe that God can provide for our charities and keep our church doors open. [/pullquote]

As an institution we should be questioning our worth when the financial support of our members is dependent on the government benefits they receive instead of the blessings of a covenant with God.

Those who react like Chicken Little in the face of changing social mores of society on the question of same-sex marriage are wrong on both counts. As a constitutional matter, there is very little effect on religion as a result of this decision, and no right to a charitable tax exemption or government grants. As a spiritual matter, there is no theology of the tax exemption. What we do have is a commission to introduce the world to a Savior who longs for a relationship with each of us. Maybe we should focus on that and growing our measure of faith instead.

[1] Unless, of course, that church holds itself out to the public as a place where anyone can come and conduct a wedding.

[2] The prohibition on candidate advocacy is the Johnson Amendment passed in 1954. Liberty Magazine recently held an online roundtable on the constitutionality of the amendment. For more on the removal of tax exempt status because of discrimination see this discussion of the Bob Jones case.

[3] Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 544, 546 (1983).

July 22, 2015
7th Cir. to Decide Whether Ministerial Housing Exemption is Constitutional

By Michael Peabody –

[dc]L[/dc]ast November, a federal judge stuck a stick in a beehive when she found that a long-standing tax-exemption for clergy housing was unconstitutional. The case, Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) vs. Lew, is currently on appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and religious organizations are out in force defending the exemption.

Currently, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC § 107) allows religious congregations to provide a “minister of the gospel” with a tax-free housing allowance that is additional to, and not reported as, income. Additionally, members of the clergy are allowed to deduct real estate taxes and mortgage interest from their taxable income even if it was already covered by the tax-free housing allowance, they can get further info on TheAdvisory house selling guide.

This allowance has been provided since the 1950s when it was promoted as an ideological bulwark against communism, and it is believed that clergy receive over half a billion dollars in tax benefits resulting from § 107 each year. At the time of its inception, Congressman Peter Mack described the purpose when he said, “Certainly, in these times when we are being threatened by a godless and antireligious world movement we should correct this discrimination against certain ministers of the gospel who are carrying on such a courageous fight against this foe. Certainly this is not too much to do for these people who are caring for our spiritual welfare.”

Although the term “minister of the gospel” is indisputably Christian in nature, the IRS has not barred clergy from other faiths from participating. All a minister needs in order to participate is some sort of ordination, licensing, or commission and he or she must actually be performing ministerial functions, rites, or ceremonies.

In contrast to their clerical brethren, employees of secular non-profit organizations are not eligible for the tax-free housing allowance.

In 2003, then University of Southern California Law Professor Erwin Chermerinsky, analyzed the issue in response to a request from the Ninth Circuit and concluded that the parsonage exemption violated the Establishment Clause and should be declared unconstitutional. (Professor Chermerinsky’s article can be found in its entirety at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1652&context=faculty_scholarship)

At the time, the Ninth Circuit was studying a situation involving Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren, who also was a local pastor at Saddleback Church. Warren had claimed the entire payment from the church of approximately $80,000 was a tax-free housing allowance. The IRS claimed this was unreasonably generous. For instance, in 1994, Warren’s entire income of $86,175 was a housing allowance but the records showed that the actual housing expenses were $76,309. That year Warren also deducted $27,107 for mortgage interest paid with tax-free money.

In his paper, Chermerinsky argued that the housing allowance (aka parsonage exemption) failed to pass the Lemon test because it does not advance a secular purpose but instead advances religion, even if the religion advanced conceivably solves a secular problem.

Chermerinsky also argued that the parsonage exemption failed to pass the neutrality test that some of the U.S. Supreme Court justices advanced in Mitchell v. Helms which prohibits the government from favoring religion or particular religion. In that case, a plurality of four justices, writing for the dissent, argued that providing instructional equipment for parochial schools was permissible because it was “allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion, and is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.” Applying this reasoning to the clergy housing exemption, Chermerinsky concluded that it was not neutral because it specifically only applies to “ministers of the gospel.”

He finally argues that the exemption is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it only provides a benefit for clergy and religion and excludes all others, including others involved in charitable work.

Understandably, members of the clergy who have been allowed to pay less in income taxes because they are “ministers of the gospel,” are unhappy with Wisconsin federal Judge Crabb’s decision that the tax-free housing allowance is unconstitutional. Even those clergy who are typically in the church-state separation camp might be upset as this would be their money.

Not surprisingly, churches, synagogues, and mosques, are marching down to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals amicus brief in hand (38 have signed onto the Church Alliance brief – http://www.church-alliance.org/sites/default/files/images/u2/housing-allowance-amicus-brief-4-9-14.pdf) , arguing that the tax exemption is not special treatment for religion, but rather is “merely lifting government-imposed burdens so as to allow those organizations to exercise their religious mission more freely.” In their view, the clergy allowance doesn’t violate the Lemon test by advancing religion – instead the government is staying out of the business of religion when “it honors, rather than transgresses, this nation’s long tradition of separation between church and state.”

Given that requiring members of the clergy to pay taxes means that the government is involved in their affairs, perhaps those writers of the amicus could also demand their Free Exercise rights to be free of government-imposed sales taxes and car registration fees and the U.S. Postal Service could stop deliveries.

The Church Alliance claims that the statute does not advance religion because it is not promoting “a particular point of view in religious matters.” It continues this line of argument, but ultimately reaches the real crux of the issue which is addresses as a “reliance interest.” In other words, overturning the ministerial exemption would present a financial hardship for churches and ministers. It would be very difficult to build parsonages on the church premises and would adversely affect retirement plans of ministers. Perhaps for this reason enough, the Seventh Circuit may be inclined to find a way to make the ministerial exemption work, although it will most likely seek another way to reach this same result.

In the event that the ministerial exemption is overturned by the Seventh Circuit, a legislative fix might be in order. it seems that there is a clear distinction between having a member of the clergy live in a church-owned property, often adjacent to the church property and regularly used for ministerial purposes, as opposed to providing a “minister of the gospel” with an allowance to purchase a home of his or her own in which the church has no ownership rights, and where the pastor can also deduct mortgage interest from the taxable portion of his or her income and accrue the benefits of home equity.

In short, if the church owns the home and reaps the benefits from equity, the pastor could conceivably use it tax-free to the extent that anybody else can use an employer-owned home tax-free. In other words, the employer’s needs for a particular living space would be the dominant interest.

At present, Judge Crabb in her ruling in FFRF v. Lew has exposed a shaky foundation that undergirds many ministries in North America and it would not be inappropriate to consider contingency plans should the Seventh Circuit uphold her opinion.

April 15, 2014
The New Benjamin Still Trusts in God

By Loren Seibold –

[dc]P[/dc]erhaps you’ve seen reports of the new United States $100 bill, with new and improved anti-counterfeiting features. I like it. I’ve been surprised at the number of people who’ve objected to it’s colorfulness. “It looks too much like the Euro” many comment. Anything having to do with US currency brings out our paranoia, and the theory that we’re going to be forced into a regional currency like the Euro has been floating around for awhile among the gold-hoarding crowd.

(In fact, our bills are amateurs in the currency color-and-design competition. Take a look at Kazahkstan’s amazing bills, which look like something you’d see on a canvas in MOMA.)

The other question was whether it would still say “In God We Trust”. It does. In spite of constitutional challenges, that phrase or a variation of it has been on currency since the Civil War, and in fact a bill making “In God We Trust” our national motto (replacing E pluribus unum, favored by the nation’s founders) was signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1956. Since then any rumor of its removal from money has been met with objections, although atheists and constitutional church-state separationists continue to challenge it, as late as last month. Screen Shot 2013-10-08 at 9.13.38 AM

77% of US currency is held in $100 bills, much of it outside the US. Perhaps some think this is a way to advertise our faith overseas. ($100 bills are often unusable here because of the number of stores that refuse to take them.)

As a religious libertarian, I would gladly dispense with “In God We Trust” from the currency, as I would anything having to do with my God or any other, from civil life. I’ve seen nothing but bigotry, shallow thinking, misinformation and general stupidity emerge from those that want to see the United States return to what they claim (falsely) is its roots as a Christian nation. I much prefer living in a secular nation that gives me complete freedom to be a Christian.

Beyond the constitutional questions, I don’t see the need to advertise God on our money. God should be advertised by the lives of his followers. Promoting God on the item that most competes with God for our worship strikes me as too ironic to be taken seriously.

[box]Loren Seibold attended Walla Walla College, Andrews University Theological Seminary, and in 1999 earned a D.Min. from the San Francisco Theological Seminary. He has served churches in North Dakota, South Dakota, California, and is currently a pastor in the Ohio Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He has written for several magazines, including Signs of the Times, Ministry and the Adventist Review, and is also the editor of Best Practices for Adventist Ministry – a resource newsletter for pastors.

He blogs at LorenSeibold.com and Faith In Context where this article first appeared. [/box]

November 11, 2013
Opinion: Social Justice – Popular Piety or Modern Mania?

[fblike style=”standard” showfaces=”false” verb=”like” font=”arial”]

Editor’s Note: ReligiousLiberty.TV publishes articles from a variety of perspectives and welcomes informed debate on current issues. We have featured differing views on the issue of social justice, some supportive and some skeptical like this article. WDo you agree? Disagree? Let us know in the comments section. If you would like to submit an article on this subject or others, please Contact Us.

By Gerry Wagoner

[dc]I[/dc]’m going to take a risk in this article. You see, there is a danger in talking about social justice-if you aren’t blatantly for it you are branded as being against justice. That is the power of the position.

“Social Justice” is currently becoming the soup du jour of our progressive millennial world. The problem is there has not been enough critical reflection on it. And, some folks are pursuing it in a way that promotes a utopian collectivism. More about that later?

It is also an ill-defined term. There have been whole books written about it that never defined it. All that some people know is that it is a “moral imperative” to promote it but they are helpless to explain why it is a moral imperative.

I would like to look at three aspects of this growing phenomenon called social justice. They are: Helping the Poor, Utopian Social Justice, and Religious Liberty Implications. Let’s look first at a positive aspect of social justice.

Helping the Poor

Outreach in the Christian life is not optional. It is not saying, “Hey I have some extra time, let’s do something nice for someone. It’ll make God feel good.” No.

Helping the poor is not only a legitimate part of being a Believer; it can be a barometer of compassion for us individually. Let us have compassion on the poor/oppressed and let us demonstrate that compassion through action. But who are the poor that we should help?

Right here I need to make a distinction. God does not look favorably on all the poor. That could sound blasphemous to a modern social-justice devotee. Yet it is true. God does not look favorably upon the lazy poor. God does not look favorably upon the disobedient poor. God looks favorably upon the humble poor. Helping them is something we should be about individually. And that is different from the utopian pseudo-political social justice phenomenon that is currently sweeping the earth. Very different.

Utopian Social Justice

The utopian tendency in man’s mind is very strong. After all, the original temptation was a utopian one. By eating the forbidden fruit Eve thought to attain a higher level of divine enlightenment. She could be as God. Problem is, she was already in Paradise and had nowhere to go but down.

Since then, mankind has often sought to create a wonder-world where people’s needs are few, their desires limited, and there is no motive for war or oppression. In such a fairy world there would be instinctive harmony between man and nature (basis for environmentalism). To social justice zealots, the highest goal, indeed the Babel Tower of their socialist dreamland is the egalitarian redistribution of all goods and wealth. This is code language for Communism, friends. And one-ism.

Modern social justice is a rallying cause for one-ist ideologies. What do I mean by that? One-ism is the belief that all distinctions must be eliminated, including creation and Creator. One-ism worships and serves creation as divine. Through enlightenment we discover that we are also divine. I repeat-you radically redefine yourself — you become divine through enlightenment. And if you are divine-you have to be just. Are you starting to see the connection? Since everyone shares in the “divine power,” if we unite we can bring the world to a new level of happiness and peace. That is the utopian vision. Think you haven’t rubbed elbows with one-ism? Let me give you its oft-cited mantra-“I’m spiritual, but not religious.”

True to this vision, activists (even in the church) want us to correct every problem out there. In their determination to create a utopian world, utopian one-ists say we have to apply their brand of justice to:

Health care
Abortion
Tax Increases
Gun Control
Feminism
Racism
Carbon emissions
Homosexuality
Welfare
and others?

Liberal Protestantism has largely embraced this agenda as its central message. But the Bible doesn’t say this. The Bible does not say it is our duty to fix every problem out there. In fact, some problems that we experience are consequences-tied to choices we have made. God allows these consequences and gives us the Gospel that we might experience freedom from sin, and rest in the hope of His promise to “make all things new” on That Day (Rev. 21:5). The church’s main message must be the Everlasting Gospel, accompanied by the pragmatic warning of His imminent return. As believers we look forward to a better city and a better country, “in the renewal of all things” (Matthew 19:28). The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ, planted Christian churches and took care of their own. Our task is to follow Christ’s command and the example of the apostles.

Justice in the Bible is s lot less sexy than what we hear today. It manifests itself as concern for the poor, primarily the poor in spirit. It quite often refers to the people of God oppressed by their enemies.

And that brings us to the fact that the Bible is absolutely clear that injustice will not exist forever. There is a perfect social order coming, but it is not of this world. The Second Coming of Jesus Christ in its fullness spells the end of injustice and every cause and consequence of human sin. We have much work to do in this world, but true justice will be achieved only by the consummation of God’s purposes and the perfection of God’s own judgment on That Day.

Religious Liberty Implications

In the wake of communism’s history and collapse, the terms “Marxism, socialism, and collectivism” became unsellable and a “new and improved” substitute was needed. Enter the term “social justice” which is socialism in Skinny Jeans™.

The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is the belief that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of “social justice”-a “classless” society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and “power.”

It is thus concluded that it is the choices of the masses (“the market”) that create the inequalities of fortune and fame – and the only way to correct those “injustices” is to control those choices (restrict liberty).

To further the illusions of social justice, it cannot be conceded that the “haves” are responsible for what they have or that the “have nots” are responsible for what they have not. When I was young, men of achievement were admired for their ambition, risk taking, and work ethic. Today, the class-envy ideas coming from Washington causes successful individuals to be regarded as “privileged” at best and dishonorable at worst. The flip side of this is the insistence that the “have nots” are in fact, “the underprivileged” who have been denied their due by an unjust society. The intrusion of this thinking opens the door for state redistribution as the logical adjudicator of resources. Two ominous things happen at this point. Social justice assumes a façade of religious authority and the role of the state is elevated to oppressor. It is the point at which theory ends and history begins.

The goal above is the project of a growing number of leftist legal theorists including Cass Sunstein and Catherine MacKinnon, the latter opining that the “law of [substantive] equality and the law of freedom of expression [for all] are on a collision course in this country.” Wow. Such statements rightly energize a lot of opposition, for they are tied to a diminished God and acceleration of state power. Make no mistake “freedom of expression for all” includes religious freedom. When you kill off God and elevate the role of the state, social justice is born and the result is an enforced love of one-ism. What is “socialized” is state-controlled.

0

In summary, the term social justice is not Biblical. Having compassion on the humble poor and the poor in spirit is very much Biblical. God’s justice does not require a forced redistribution of wealth through auto developed temporal social justice. It is communism in code, and socialism in Skinny Jeans ®. Because of that, I believe the risk I took in writing this article is worth it.

[box]

Gerry Wagoner is the president of WRI Applications LLC, a commercial & industrial roofing company. He is also the founder and director of One Achord, a counseling ministry operated by him and his wife, Nancy. The Wagoners have two grown sons and live in Piqua, Ohio. [/box]

March 3, 2013
Black Friday and Blue Laws: Renewed Calls for Uniform Rest Days

[dc]T[/dc]his Thanksgiving, many Americans were dismayed that large retailers were calling their employers in to work before midnight on Thursday to assist with Black Friday sales. Thanksgiving is a day of family, fun, and food and many did not like the fact that this precious, uniform day of rest was being cut short by encroaching work requirements.

In Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, centuries-old blue laws prevented retailers from opening on Thanksgiving day. The statutes, originally meant to prevent commerce, entertainment, and the sale of alcohol on Sundays were extended to Thanksgiving and Christmas.

While it is difficult to find a reason not to require that commerce shut down in celebration of annual holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas, the re-emergence of labor and religious calls for a uniform weekly day of rest in North America and Europe is troubling. On October 27, 2012, The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation released a statement entitled “The Importance of Sunday,” which call s for Orthodox and Catholic Christians to recover the theological significance of Sunday as “fundamental to rebalancing our lives.” The document decries the current non-stop worklife and describes Sunday as a unique Christian festival that should be a day of worship and family and less like an ordinary work day. According to the document, “Shopping, sports, and work squeeze out the chance for a day of worship or rest in the Christian sense. By abandoning Sunday worship we lose out on the regenerative powers that flow out of the liturgical assembly.”

At present, the European Sunday Alliance is working with a variety of religious and labor organizations to make a work-free Sunday standard across Europe.

Seventh-day Adventists, observant Jews, and many others have long experienced the benefits of a weekly rest day devoted to God and family and know first-hand how difficult it is to make the necessary employment and family arrangements to maintain a weekly day of rest from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. From a pragmatic perspective, it would be much easier if everybody celebrated the same day of rest, but those who are religiously mandated to celebrate a different day of the week could be significantly disadvantaged.

While each person should be able to observe a weekly rest day in accordance with his or her religious convictions, the rights of those who keep other rest days should also be respected. In a world of religious diversity coupled with a common system of of commerce, the institution of a common day of rest and its enforcement would necessarily require coercive methods to prevent individuals from carrying out interpersonal business activities, and place greater pressure on observers of other days of rest to violate their conscience by working on their rest days.

Respect each person’s weekly day of rest. But don’t legislate it.

###

November 29, 2012