English communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has proposed that the government may want to withdraw tax breaks for the Church of Scientology — noting controversies over the Church’s activities and alluding to the general view in England that it is more of a cult than a religion.
Scientology is not treated as a religion in England but still receives financial benefits as a charity. In 1984, the organization was described as a cult by a high court judge.
Yet, the City of London Corporation has asked Scientology to pay only one-fifth of the tax rates for its London headquarters near St Paul’s cathedral.
Pickles questioned whether Scientology can be described as beneficial for society to justify the saving of millions in tax payments: “The Church of Scientology is not a registered charity, since the Charity Commission has ruled that it does not provide a public benefit. Nor are its premises a recognised place of worship.”
Indeed, in 1999, the Charity Commission ruled that the church did not pass the “public benefit” test required for advancing religion as a charitable purpose. He also cited the negative views of Scientology by a majority of English citizens.
I am not familiar with English law on the subject but such a basis for rescinding tax exemption would be rejected in the United States – particularly the unpopularity of the Church with the majority of citizens. Such a test would invite a dangerous level of subjectivity and majoritarian control in the denial of benefits.
Source: Guardian
Bouise,
Not to quibble, but…
Jesus was called “the Christ” before his death. If I remember correctly, Christ is from the Greek word for Messiah. The Jewish people of the time would have understood the Messiah to be a political and religious leader, but I can’t think of any prophecy off hand that would require his death and resurrection. Maybe someone more familiar with the Jewish Scriptures could say for sure.
Of course, that’s all just from the view of a disinterested outsider. I’m sure there are theological arguments to be made for the other side.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-questions-church-state-separation/?hp
O’Donnell: “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” Ms. O’Donnell asked him(Coons), according to audio posted on the Web site of WDEL 1150 AM radio, which co-sponsored the debate.
“But the reaction of the audience suggests that they thought Ms. O’Donnnell’s comments appeared to indicate that she did not know, or did not believe, that the separation of church and state — a bedrock principle in constitutional law — was derived from the First Amendment.”
Why can’t we just throw all these teabaggers in the Boston Harbor and be done with it?
Swarthmore mom: Sure they will… (Thanks for posting the link.)
We’re eating our own, now, in some quarters. Little relief, little mercy.
As I’ve said before, we know that Obama knows things that many of us don’t, and he’s walking a tightrope, IMO. I want to believe that he’s doing the best he can with the mess that he inherited. If we end up with another Republican president in 2012, may God help us.
Swarthmore Mom:
that article is the same as what the republicans believe about the democrats.
It’s almost funny to read.
Tony C.
Christ is the risen Jesus … the living man, Jesus, and his teachings are not Christ. One may think that is a small distinction but it isn’t. There are those who try to follow the teachings of the man Jesus but who do not believe that he was the son of god or that he resurrected … Christians believe in the resurrection and are Christians because they seek life after death. … a way to feel “special” and set apart from the rest of mankind.
Jesus has a great deal in common with other great teachers and when it comes down to it “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is the basic message of all great teachers … being a socialist or communist has nothing to do with it.
From what you have written it sounds as if you believe in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and would like the government to follow the same guideline … what separates you from Jesus is that you aren’t promising the government life everlasting. Thank god.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/15/AR2010101506541.html Speed equals money in the foreclosure process.
Don’t worry anon nurse. The republican tea party will fix it all when they take over in January.
Thanks, Elaine, for posting the Robert Scheer interview, as well as the links.
If I factor in the things that I’m witnessing, I don’t even know where to begin, except to take comfort in the fact that there are still good people who are fighting to keep our sinking republic afloat.
David Halberstam’s book is still on my “recommended reading” list — it’s one of my favorites. And what did Halberstam get for, what I believe was, his love of country — for his truth-telling? Years of FBI surveillance, it would seem.
The following, from Scheer’s interview, lingers in my mind:
“The Fed now holds $2 trillion worth of toxic assets taken off the books of the banks. The banks still hold a massive amount. And every time the housing market looks like it might get better, they dump this stuff. The Fed announced yesterday that the economy is not getting better. They’re very troubled.”
We should all be troubled. Or terrified, perhaps, because we seem to be getting closer to the edge of a cliff.
And China’s Central Bank is reportedly raising its interest rates…
From Democracy Now (9/7/2010)
Robert Scheer on The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/7/robert_scheer_on__the_great
I blame both Republicans and Democrats for our country’s financial woes. To be sure Greenspan was a big part of the problem–so were Larry Summer and Robert Rubin.
From Democracy Now (9/22/2010)
“A Departure to Be Welcomed”: Robert Scheer on Resignation of White House Economic Adviser and Deregulation Proponent Lawrence Summers
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/22/could_summers_departure_herald_a_new
Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: The makeup of President Obama’s economic team is being shaken up some more as Lawrence Summers has announced he’s resigning as director of the National Economic Council later this year to return to Harvard University. He is the third top economic official to leave the administration in recent months.
According to Bloomberg News, the White House is considering naming a “prominent corporate executive” to replace Summers in order to counter Wall Street criticism that the administration is “anti-business.” The Wall Street Journal reports former Xerox chief executive Anne Mulcahy has emerged as a leading candidate to replace Summers. During her time at Xerox, Mulcahy laid off 30 percent of the company’s workers. Mulcahy reportedly had dinner in Washington Friday evening with senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett.
On Tuesday, President Obama issued a statement praising Lawrence Summers for his contributions over the past two years. Obama said, quote, “We are on a better path thanks in no small measure to Larry’s wise counsel.”
Well, to talk more about Larry Summers, we’re joined from Los Angeles by the veteran journalist Robert Scheer. He is the editor-in-chief of Truthdig.com. He worked for the Los Angeles Times for more than three decades. His new book is called The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.
Bob, welcome back to Democracy Now!
ROBERT SCHEER: Hi.
AMY GOODMAN: So, President Obama has lost three of his four top economic advisers. Only left is Timothy Geithner.
ROBERT SCHEER: Well, I don’t think “lost” is the right word. I think “fired” is better. I think Summers—anyway, his departure is certainly to be welcome. My book is largely about the follies of Lawrence Summers, beginning in the Clinton administration, when he pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which opened the floodgates to all of these toxic derivatives that he, as much as anyone in the country, bears responsibility for the economic debacle. And then Obama brought him back. And I think what he has done is basically throw money at Wall Street, continue the Bush policy, and get nothing in return, particularly in the way of relief for homeowners—you know, mortgage foreclosure, a moratorium on foreclosures. And so, I think this is really good news. And, you know, I hope he’s not replaced with someone worse, but it’s hard to imagine someone worse.
AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece, among others, since you’ve written extensively about Larry Summers, Bob, called “Living Large and in Charge.” Give us the history of Larry Summers.
ROBERT SCHEER: Well, every—you know, once again, the New York Times today, Barack Obama, President Obama yesterday, referred to this guy as “brilliant.” And I don’t know how many times you have to fail before you’re considered to be something less than brilliant. And this guy has been a disaster at every position he has held. He was the Treasury Secretary under Clinton who presided over the radical deregulation of that administration, fulfilling the fantasy of the Reagan Revolution. The Republicans couldn’t pull it off. Summers and Robert Rubin, his mentor, did pull it off. And it’s been—this is the basic root cause of this meltdown. Then he goes to Harvard, where he was a disaster as president, divisive, mysogynist, demeaning of women and so forth.
And meanwhile, he’s being paid not only close to $600,000 by Harvard, but then he goes and consults on Wall Street. He was paid $4 million by D.E. Shaw, a hedge fund, and you’ll notice the Obama administration has not reined in hedge funds at all. And he received almost another $4 million in speaking fees. He got $135,000 from Goldman Sachs for one short speech. He got that much from Citigroup for two speeches. You know, so this guy, while he was advising Obama, he was raking it in, eight million bucks, while he’s an adviser to the candidate.
And then, for reasons that Obama will someday have to explain, he’s brought in as the key guy. It’s not Geithner. Geithner is a water carrier and was very much a subordinate in the Clinton administration to both Summers and Rubin. And they bring in Summers, and what he did is, again, follow that strategy, reassure Wall Street, don’t spook the markets, give them what they want, submit to their blackmail, and make them whole. And they continued the Bush policy with a vengeance, throwing money at Wall Street. The Fed now holds $2 trillion worth of toxic assets taken off the books of the banks. The banks still hold a massive amount. And every time the housing market looks like it might get better, they dump this stuff. The Fed announced yesterday that the economy is not getting better. They’re very troubled.
So what is the legacy? You know, it’s like Vietnam. Vietnam, as David Halberstam once wrote, was brought to us by the best and brightest, people who presumably have the best education and, you know, are sincere and smart and so forth. And the economic meltdown reminds one of that and Vietnam. I mean, if this is what brilliance means, let’s have a sort of ordinary common sense for a while. And common sense will tell you, help the homeowners now. You’ve done enough for the banks. Get something back from the banks. Make them, you know, readjust those mortgages. Don’t have it be voluntary. Empower the bankruptcy courts to help the people who are struggling, the 40 to 50 million people who are already underwater on their mortgages, but everybody else. And if you don’t do that, you’re not going to fix this economy. And I don’t care whether he brings in a businessman or a labor leader or brings in Stiglitz or makes Paul Krugman his adviser, whoever he brings in has got to tell him that, or we’re not going to see progress.
*****
From The Nation (8/11/2010)
The Rubin Con Goes On
Robert Scheer
August 11, 2010
http://www.thenation.com/article/153974/rubin-con-goes
Excerpt:
The corruptions of journalism were on full display when CNN’s Fareed Zakaria turned to Robert Rubin this past Sunday for advice on how to fix the financial crisis that he, as much as anyone, caused. I was trapped on a treadmill in front of an overhead television and unable to turn the thing off in time to avoid this assault on my mental and physical health.
As a result I was forced to hear Rubin, Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary, insist that he always favored regulating toxic derivatives and is therefore not at all responsible for the ensuing economic meltdown. He was responding to the sole critical question from the CNN host, who quoted a question by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “Did all the senior members of the [Obama] economics team have to be protégés of Robert Rubin, the apostle of financial deregulation?” Unfortunately, Zakaria just rolled over when his guest simply lied in response:
“First of all, I am not the apostle of financial deregulation. Quite the contrary. On derivatives…I developed a deep concern about the systemic problem that was created. When I was back at Goldman Sachs, it was a concern I had…a concern I had when I was in government. And in fact, when I wrote my book in 2003, I was so concerned about it that I actually included that discussion in there.”
Zakaria ended the show recommending it as his book of the week: “He wrote a great memoir that covered his two distinguished careers, both…on Wall Street and in Washington.… It was written with Jacob Weisberg, a great writer, the editor of Slate, and the two men weave a compelling tale that has many lessons for today.”
To be charitable, I will assume that Zakaria has not actually read that book, which omits any discussion of the radical deregulation legislation that Rubin ushered through Congress and got the president to sign. Bill Clinton is on record stating that he got bad advice from Rubin and his handpicked successor, Lawrence Summers, on derivatives regulation: “On derivatives, yeah, I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take it,” Clinton told ABC News last April 10.
Rubin and Summers were responsible for forcing Brooksley Born out of the Clinton administration because as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission she had the temerity to suggest regulating the mortgage-backed securities that eventually proved to be so toxic. Instead, Rubin and Summers pushed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Clinton signed into law in his last month in office, categorically exempting those suspect derivatives from any government regulation.
@Swarthmore: Thanks. I read it. Very depressing, and it confirms my suspicion that we’ve been ruled by thieves since at least JFK died.
I agree with you, it doesn’t bode well for my hopes at all. I will commment more with time. (sigh).
Blocked by Spyware Doctor
Information
Your request to visit website consortiumnews.com has been blocked. The website was denied because it has been placed on the banned sites list
Just noticed this as I was reading today’s LA Times online:
“Crystal Cathedral files for bankruptcy protection
The glass megachurch in Garden Grove decides to file for Chapter 11 after some of its creditors sued for payment.
Church officials said the ‘ministry will continue as usual.'”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-crystal-cathedral-20101019,0,2990606.story
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/101510.html Here is an article for you, Tony. It is an article about the “myth” of punishing the democrats over the last 40 years.
And thats fine there’s plenty of it to go around, however Bush tried to warn them about it but Barney said they were solid.
Anyways, Are you familiar with Cloward Piven and the strategy.
If not look them up then ask yourself why Bill and Hill would want to associate with these people.
@Swarthmore: There is a point where we agree completely; I mainly blame deregulation in general and Gramm and Greenspan in particular.
I mainly blame the Bush administration because they chose not to regulate, Phil Gramm and Greenspan.
Are you familiar with Cloward Piven and the strategy behind them?
Thats part of it. If you look at the main players of Country Wide, Fannie and Freddie who do you see.