Skip to main content

View Diary: Fed Court: Ministers now have to pay income tax on their "free housing" (323 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think the law knows this word "vocation" (0+ / 0-)

    That's a religious designation, not a legal one.

    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

    by Nowhere Man on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:48:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Vocation is english and will be treated as such. (0+ / 0-)

      It has nothing to do with religion.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:10:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you missed my point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority

        The use of the word "vocation" (from the Latin vocare, to call) to refer to a  religious calling -- that would be unknown to the law, because the law doesn't have a clue as to what a "religious calling" would be. (Or, if it does have a clue, it should promptly forget it.)

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:49:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You missed my point. English words not (0+ / 0-)

          clearly terms of art, where critical to the proper understanding of the matter at hand are assigned the english language meaning proper to the situation. If "vocation" a in calling is relevant, it will be used i that manner. I don't see how it would even come up, being outside the statute, but it if did, it would be used appropriately.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:08:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  all priests are ministers (0+ / 0-)

            not all ministers are priests

            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 10:25:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  In one sense, but under the law, not so much (0+ / 0-)

              for the purposes of section 107. In fact Rabbis and Cantors are ministers of the gospel for purposes of sectio 107.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:24:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  not so much? (0+ / 0-)

                your comment either has nothing to do with what I said

                or supports my comment

                i can't figure out which.

                "not all ministers are priests" clearly includes the fact that rabbis and cantors are ministers, but they are not priests

                Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:33:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  No, really and truly, you missed my point (0+ / 0-)

            You seem to have hyperfocused on the definitions of "religious calling" and "vocation". My reference to the dictionary definitions was a synecdoche -- "a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something, or vice-versa." When I said that the law wouldn't know the meaning of a "calling", that was a figure of speech meaning that (AFAIK) the law simply doesn't give a damn (so to speak) what a "calling" is. From the legal point of view, a "called" minister or priest is exactly the same as an "uncalled" minister or priest.

            In fact, you seem to share this point of view when you wrote:

            I don't see how it would even come up, being outside the statute
            Yes, exactly!

            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

            by Nowhere Man on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:48:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  THe court would take cognizance of the fact (0+ / 0-)

              that, throughout history, a minute percentage of preachers, ministers and other such whotnot claim to have been called to the extent necessary to interpret and apply the law.  I see no situatin where such a claim could be remotely relevant, but I am not all nowing.

              Calling, if it exists at all, other than an unverifiable assertion,  exists only in the mind ot the person called. Joan-of-Ac heard voices, as did Reagan and the Son of Sam as well as multitudes of others. I gues all of these felt called, but there is no way to know if any really were. I suspect not, because there is no evidence based reality construct that requires god and hence no caller and ergo no calling nor callees. The Supreme Court, however, is loaded with satuanch Catholics and may find otherwise, should it ever somehow become relevant than minister 687 claimed to have been called.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:37:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site