The Goat Pen

When I started as a property and casualty agent 30 years ago, every one of our commercial carriers would write coverage for a church (or temple, or mosque). Now less than half will...and the underwriting restrictions are brutal. Some rural churches go without insurance altogether.

I wonder who the beneficiaries are on the policies for the only three that were arson.

Is church burning so common that it is too big a risk for insurance companies? Or will increased underwriting restrictions for churches be on ideological grounds?

And if you think underwriting restrictions will be brutal on small rural churches, wait until you see what taking their tax exemptions does to them. Of course, that's precisely the purpose of taking away their tax exempt status.

Here in Alabama, there are many small, financially struggling rural black churches tend to be fiercely anti-gay marriage, and I doubt they will sacrifice their principles. So when they also lose their tax exemptions, they will shut down by the thousands. That will not be a pretty sight when the liberal government theology police show up with their firehoses and German shepherds to kick rural poor black people out of their churches for failure to pay taxes.

It will be Bull Conor with a multicolored flag.

Look for more churches to burn, even if Huma Abedin has to set them.....churches burning/msm enablers will keep the heat off Hill's lying.

"I agree that churches as a whole aren't guaranteed tax exempt status under the constitution, but you can't discriminate amongst them."

What if a church wouldn't allow, say, blacks or women to join or even participate in their services? Should a church like that be allowed to be tax exempt? On the flip side, I assume you support any church's right to include, say, peyote in their services, right?

Nice attempt to equate the millenia-old beliefs of billions of Christians, Muslims and Jews with a hypothetical church that doesn't allow blacks or women, which I doubt even exists.

PS I'm okay with Native Americans having peyote and Rastas their ganja. I'm pretty libertarian and I think the War on Drugs is a huge failure.

hedge wrote:"I agree that churches as a whole aren't guaranteed tax exempt status under the constitution, but you can't discriminate amongst them."

What if a church wouldn't allow, say, blacks or women to join or even participate in their services? Should a church like that be allowed to be tax exempt? On the flip side, I assume you support any church's right to include, say, peyote in their services, right?

Under our current constitution and in practice there are racist churches. Churches do not have to sign the discriminatory statement on the IRS filing like other nonprofits have to.

Professor Tiger wrote:Is church burning so common that it is too big a risk for insurance companies? Or will increased underwriting restrictions for churches be on ideological grounds?

Many places of worship by their nature are only in use maybe a day or two a week. Being unattended for long stretches is an obvious hazard. And rural churches often are many miles from proper fire protection. Then add the sinister angle..racism or an axe to grind with God, and the risk of property damage climbs further. THEN you have the liability issue involving clergy sexual molestation with the billions paid to settle those claims.

So if by ideological grounds you mean the ideology of priests diddling little boys...yeah, there has probably been some heightened underwriting in that regard.

Professor Tiger wrote:

Here in Alabama, there are many small, financially struggling rural black churches tend to be fiercely anti-gay marriage, and I doubt they will sacrifice their principles. So when they also lose their tax exemptions, they will shut down by the thousands. That will not be a pretty sight when the liberal government theology police show up with their firehoses and German shepherds to kick rural poor black people out of their churches for failure to pay taxes.

It will be Bull Conor with a multicolored flag.

A sad chapter in that region's history...odd that you would revisit it in such a way.

Your side is the one that hates Christians that won't do gay marriages. The idea of unleashing liberal goon squads on them elicits high fives in faculty lounges across the country. I'm just pointing out that the goon squads attacking peaceful black Christians and kicking them out of their churches for failing to pay the poll tax will be commanded by liberals. It will be ugly.

I can see why that scenario makes you uncomfortable.

"Nice attempt to equate the millenia-old beliefs of billions of Christians, Muslims and Jews with a hypothetical church that doesn't allow blacks or women, which I doubt even exists."

I thought the Mormons only recently allowed blacks to be members...

Professor Tiger wrote:PS I'm okay with Native Americans having peyote and Rastas their ganja. I'm pretty libertarian and I think the War on Drugs is a huge failure.

Why just native americans? If you believe the tenets of a church that uses peyote (or whatever), shouldn't anyone be allowed to be a member? But the main point I was making is, there are clearly some church related issues that would no doubt cause the government to not recognize that church's tax exempt status. I suspect using peyote (or whatever) in their rites would be amongst those issues. Is that really a far cry from not marrying certain couples for whatever reason?

I wonder if JD will volunteer to join the team assigned to dispossess worshipers from all the AME churches that refuse to comply with state-approved theology or pay the poll tax in an assigned sector of Mississippi or Alabama.

Liberals relish the thought of kicking Christian ass. Then they will have to kick black Christian ass because black Christians are by far the most hostile to gay marriage. They've survived oppression by the Klan and Jim Crowe. I'm sure they can survive oppression by their fellow Democrats.

hedge wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:PS I'm okay with Native Americans having peyote and Rastas their ganja. I'm pretty libertarian and I think the War on Drugs is a huge failure.

Why just native americans? If you believe the tenets of a church that uses peyote (or whatever), shouldn't anyone be allowed to be a member? But the main point I was making is, there are clearly some church related issues that would no doubt cause the government to not recognize that church's tax exempt status. I suspect using peyote (or whatever) in their rites would be amongst those issues. Is that really a far cry from not marrying certain couples for whatever reason?

Glad you brought up the Mormons. This is a golden opportunity for them to bring back polygamy. Now that SCOTUS has redefined marriage, why should polygamy be outlawed? How can we force husbands with more than one wife to live in the closet? And while we're at it, polyandry should be legalized too. The legal bigotry and discrimination against the multi-spoused must stop now!

The Mormons just need to get the media on their side and go on a decade long cultural campaign to validate poly-love. With any luck, in a few years, Justice Kennedy will be writing harlequin romance novels about polygamy and polyandry in his majority opinion. With Justice Roberts, the polygamy-polyandry lobby must figure out whether he is liberal on Mondays, Wednesday's and Fridays, and conservative on Tuesdays, Thursday's and Saturdays, or is it the other way around? Get him to vote on the liberal day and you win.

"I suspect using peyote (or whatever) in their rites would be amongst those issues. Is that really a far cry from not marrying certain couples for whatever reason?"

It is a far cry from the law's perspective. There are no religious exceptions to drug laws. There are exempt institutions when it comes to discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which include religious institutions, private clubs (think Augusta), and Native American organizations. Bob Jones University lost tax exempt status because they weren't part of any denomination or church so they were legally like any other secular private school which don't have the exemption.

My feet smell like pussy. Old wife pussy.

"Liberals relish the thought of kicking Christian ass."

You've let your vanity run wild. Just b/c certain people want to kick your ass is no reason for you to infer that they want to kick "christian" ass in general...

sardis wrote:"I suspect using peyote (or whatever) in their rites would be amongst those issues. Is that really a far cry from not marrying certain couples for whatever reason?"

....There are no religious exceptions to drug laws.

Peyote is pretty close; however, there is some conflicting legislation on that.

"The legal status in the United States of DMT-containing plants is somewhat questionable. Ayahuasca plants and preparations are legal, as they contain no scheduled chemicals. However, brews[49] made using DMT containing plants are illegal since DMT is a Schedule I drug. That said, some people are challenging this, using arguments similar to those used by peyotist religious sects, such as the Native American Church. A court case allowing the União do Vegetal to import and use the tea for religious purposes in the United States, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on November 1, 2005; the decision, released February 21, 2006, allows the UDV to use the tea in its ceremonies pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a similar case an Ashland, Oregon-based Santo Daime church sued for their right to import and consume ayahuasca tea. In March 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Panner ruled in favor of the Santo Daime, acknowledging its protection from prosecution under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."