The Rocking-Horse Winner Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Rocking-Horse Winner - Essay Example but that is not what happened, when Derrick reached age 6, just about when he was supposed to start his primary school, Alex made the worst gambling attempt in one of his games and bet on his entire house back then in town (Lawrence 44). It was a terrible time for the family as they were forced to live their rich furnished house and move to the countryside, the initial birth place for Alex. Life in the countryside was pretty rough for the growing kids as money was always issues and impeded them from enjoying their childhood (Greiff 56). When Derrick reached age 13, him being the first born, he saw he had the responsibility of taking care of his siblings as he had realized some problems in regard to care from both his parents (Lawrence 66). His father had lost hope in life and was permanently intoxicated day and night living his mother to feign for the family by working as a horse attendant in one of the ranches which held horsing occasionally. After a couple of times of accompanying her mother to the horse racing ranch, Derrick started to gather information and develop interest in the sport, despite several warnings from his mother regarding what happened to his dad. From a Latino horse attendant he had come to befriend at the ranch, Derrick started learning the art of betting from his friend (Stoltzfus 44). After seeing the condition at their home starting to get worse after some days passing without them taking night meal, due to lack of money, Derrick decided to venture into betting seriously. He approached his uncle, Sam and asked for a 100 dollars loan with an assurity of payment after 5 days. Derrick was lucky to be given despite his uncle knowing their financial status. Back in the ranch, on an on going betting game involving horse racing, Derrick managed to make his first bet and later won 2000 dollars. He later paid his uncle’s loan with a profit and the rest, used it as his capital to make more money from the game. Derrick was lucky in the game and

Landmark Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Landmark - Case Study Example The difficulty of this issue is illustrated in the aforementioned case where Article 3 of the HRA was invoked. According to Article 3 of the HRA, "[s]o far as possible to do so, primary legislations and secondary legislation should be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights" (HRA 1998, Art 3), referring to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. By virtue of this provision, the conventional manner that statutory interpretation under the act, is therefore challenged, such that instead of giving effect to the intention of the legislators, which enacted particular statutes; statutory interpretation must now proceed in a manner that gives effect to the original intent of those who crafted the HRA provision. This shift away from the conventional procedure, therefore leads judges to stray in the grey area between judicial interpretation and law making, which endangers them of judicial vandalism and usurpation Parliament's will. ... In Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004], the House of Lords dismissed an appeal by Ahmad Ghaidan to overturn a previous decision of the Court of Appeal; which named Juan Godin-Mendoza as successor to the tenancy of the flat Godin-Mendoza lived in until the death of his partner of the same sex by interpreting the words "as his or her wife or husband" under the Rent Act 1977 to mean "as if they were his wife or husband" by virtue of Art 3 of the HRA (Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004], para. 51). The decision to dismiss the appeal was arrived at, by virtue of the judges' interpretation of Article 3 of the HRA, which was deemed appropriate in this case, with one dissenting opinion from Lord Millet (para. 102). Based on the given case, Lord Nicholls (para. 4) identified the relevant statutory provisions as paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1977: 21. The surviving spouse (if any) of the original tenant, if residing in the dwelling-house immediately before the death of the original tenant, shall after the death be the statutory tenant if and so long as he or she occupies the dwelling-house as his or her residence. 22. For the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the spouse of the original tenant. 31. Where paragraph 2 above does not apply, but a person who was a member of the original tenant's family was residing with him in the dwelling-house at the time of and for the period of 2 years immediately before his death then, after his death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by

National Parks Research Record--yalung river Paper

National Parks Record--yalung river - Research Paper Example Based on the above perspective, this paper analyses the different types of plants, insects, and animals found in Yarlung Zangbo River. Yarlung Zangbo River is one of the world’s most beautiful sceneries as it has both the river and a mountain. Yarlung Zangbo River has its origin in Lake Tamlung Tso in the Chinese area of western Tibet. The river itself is considered the 5th longest in China, totaling to 2,057 kilometers in length. Plants are very essential in any ecosystem as they are the primary producers. Similarly, in national parks, plants remain the primary producers in ecosystems by their ability to produce biomass from the inorganic compounds found in the ecosystem. In most instances, these organisms are usually photosynthetic, a process by which they are to make their food and acquire energy. Yarlung Zangbo River has a number of primary producers that play a significant role in the production of energy that supplies the region. Yarlung Zangbo River has some of the most stunning scenery, made by the co-existence of different flowers and plants. Some of the plants fund in the region, both the endemic and the indigenous combined are usually of different kinds with some being big plants, flowering plants, and grasses as well. These different types includes Conifers scientifically known as Pinophyta, Toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) as the common trees in the Yarlung River, Amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus), Fi ddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), and Woolly Mullein (Verbascum thapsus) as the flowering plants, and Cheat Grass (Bromus tectorum) and Orchard Grass (actylis glomerata) as the grass species in Yarlung River. Of all these plant species, Orchard Grass remains one of the greatest endangered species. Such a case has been attributed to its use for medicinal purposes by humans who then sneak into the park in search for the plant and harvest it upon sight. This has made the plant one of the rarest plant species in

Summary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 152

Summary - Essay Example Apart from these challenges, college founders remains to be the founders of the American higher education in the history, especially the missionaries such as Baptists and Methodists (Rudolph and John 57). The main reasons why magnet schools are being established are to promoted ethnic diversity, provide several programs to aid in satisfying individuals’ interests and talents, and improve education standards. This article aids at exploring racial diversity and magnet schools (alternative schools). The author affirms that magnet schools are highly established in urban districts because they have large students’ enrollment (Goldring and Claire 18). Under the topic â€Å"Magnet Schools and Desegregation†, the author states that magnet programs point to vast success. He affirms that magnet programs highly helps to mix students’ bodies ranging from approximately 44%black to 50% white in elementary schools. After carrying out case studies on four alternative schools, it was concluded that magnet schools effectively helps to come up with racially balanced schools. Although integrating magnet schools is too costly, the benefits of such integrations are worth the ex pense (25). Magnet schools can be used as a tool for racial balance. In this article, Clark Kerr provides university leaders with five key points of guidance on the kind of attitudes that modern universities should adopt. The author argues that the biggest problem that will affect higher learning institutions is challenged in accommodating the vast growing number of students. Some directions of responding in the short run that are provided in this article include, more privatization, more federalization, more public support cultivation, effective use of available resources, more pluralistic leadership, and more attention to long-term movement directions. One of the uncertainties that can be clearly recognized is what will take place in the economic productivity. The

An Analysis on Alfred Hitchcock and His Film Psycho Essay Example for Free

An Analysis on Alfred Hitchcock and His Film Psycho Essay In the â€Å"shower scene† in Alfred Hitchcock’s movie, the amount of blood that flowed can be considered in contemporary times as nothing short of artistry or a sense of tastefulness in the viewer’s understanding. However, during the 1960’s, the â€Å"shower scene† is considered unreasonable or gratuitous, giving the scene the impression that it depicts too much unsolicited violence. For those who look upon the â€Å"shower scene† as one of Hitchcock’s attempt of revolutionizing films, the scene can be treated as one that reflects the perception of the time in which the film was conceived. Apparently, the â€Å"shower scene† amongst the number of hair-raising scenes in the film further reflects the 1960s social upheaval that grew in the west, including the United States. Another violent scene in the movie is the one that showed Detective Milton Arbogast being slashed to a bloody death after he was pushed off from the height of the stairs. The murder of the private detective in the movie Psycho, as well as the â€Å"shower scene†, can be taken to mean as two of the social upheavals that burst in the 1960s American society, revolutionizing the way in which movie scenes are crafted especially the way in which they portray violence, sexuality, and language. Hitchcock generally worked and directed movies that fall under the thriller genre by imprinting upon formulaic movies his famed idiosyncratic touches. The manner in which Hitchcock worked as a crucial part of the filmmaking process largely contributed in â€Å"propelling him to the status of an auteur†. Hitchcock even â€Å"ordered and manipulated the shade of blonde he was looking for in Grace Kellys hair† in one of the films (Martin Wikstrom, 2001, p. 20). What enabled Hitchcock to â€Å"cut in the camera† is his attitude of working out the details of the film in advance, which eventually corresponds to the unswervingly stumpy ratio of film really utilized in the finishing cut to the film shot during the entire shoot. Having worked out everything in advance, he worked quickly and economically. A minimal set of editing was the result of his working attitude, hence the term â€Å"cutting in the camera. † The fact that Hitchcock planned every detail in advance oftentimes led to bore him during the actual shooting of the film. To fend off languor in the course of the actual filming progression, he would customarily commence labor on the storyboards for his coming film project (Martin Wikstrom, 2001, p. 21). â€Å"When all the interesting film-makers—those who were referred to as auteurs by the Cahiers du Cinema in 1955, before the term was distorted—concealed themselves behind various characters in their movies. Alfred Hitchcock achieved a real tour de force† that established his status further as an auteur (Ray, 2001, p. 38). Hitchcock’s most popular films include Vertigo, Psycho, Rear Window, and The Birds which reflected his story telling methods and skills which were renowned for their witty plots, intelligent dialogues and the fusion of mystery and murder. With this respect, Hitchcock’s name became commonly attributed to the thriller genre as he created revolutions in that aspect of filmmaking. Part of the reason to this, apart from the fact that it was the genre he centrally focused on, is his skill which he exhibits during the course of the film which can be observed in his treatment of the subject in line with the shots he utilizes and on how he is able to fuse them altogether (Truffaut Scott, 2003, p. 346). One illustration to this is shown in one of his famed screen moments. The terrifying shower scene in the film Psycho featured 70 unique shots in just a matter of 1 minute. The numbers of shots were combined altogether in such a manner that one will find a difficult time seeking the distinction between the montage and the mise-en-scene (Nickens, 1995, p. 110). A considerable number of movies made by Hitchcock contained fleeting cameo appearances by the director himself such as a Hitchcock being seen for a brief period boarding a bus, standing in an apartment across the length of a courtyard, appearing in photographs in the scenes, or by simply crossing in front of an edifice. This seemingly playful act eventually became labeled as one of the Hitchcock signatures in films. Further, Hitchcock himself would carry a musical instrument in one of the scenes in the film as a recurring theme (Martin Wikstrom, 2001, p. 23). The fact that these varied elements are included in the movies of Hitchcock signifies the fact that Hitchcock had a very huge role in the filmmaking process and that this monumental role extends his personality right into the theme of the movie. Since film producers have a significant trust on Hitchcock, he was able to freely include these elements either in a subtle or in an obvious manner. The constant inclusion of these personal elements in the many movies of Hitchcock eventually molded an image uniquely his own. Hence, it became inevitable that the movies highlighting these elements were immediately attributed to Hitchcock thereby creating the director-image of Hitchcock as an auteur (Sarris, 2002, p. 29). Considering all of the characteristics of Hitchcock, his crucial role in the movies he created, the inclusion of the elements in the movies which reflect his personality and lifestyle as well as the role of the scholars in carefully assessing his impact of his personal touches in the movies, it can be said that Hitchcock indeed is an auteur in the strictest sense of the word. Although arguments can be raised against the role of the director as an auteur in the filming of the movies, it remains a fact that Hitchcock had an immense weight of participation prior to, during , and even after the filmmaking process. Part of the arguments against it is the claim that several other factors must also be considered and the merit should not solely belong to the director. As with the case of the seemingly lesser roles in the movies, the collective efforts of all the participants excluding the participation of the director when combined altogether essentially posits a substantial bearing in the creation of the film. In conclusion, the factors which are attributed to the delegation of the status of an auteur to Hitchcock should not be looked upon as a means to ignore the relative importance of the role of the rest of the crew involved in film production. Rather, the role of Hitchcock as an auteur should be noted as a form of a proper authority in guiding the direction of the film. On the other hand, the distinction between an auteur and the other roles in the film production should be taken as an informal relationship which defines the structure of the outcome of the movie. This is the point where Hitchcock himself leads the way not only as a director but also as the auteur. Not surprisingly, Alfred Hitchcock techniques are indeed innovative during his life where a considerable number of his films manifested his ingenuity in the film industry. Especially in his film Psycho, Hitchcock’s style in directing the film is manifested through his fitting use of musical scores and backgrounds in the proper timing and scene. His approach in Psycho manifest the fact that Hitchcock is only one of the few who was able to reshape the film industry and contribute significantly to its quality and style. References Martin, G. , Wikstrom, P. (2001). Alfred Hitchcock and the Golden Days of Radio. In The Alfred Hitchcock Presents Companion (1st ed. , pp. 20-23): O T R Pub. Nickens, C. (1995).Psycho: Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller (1st ed. ): Harmony. Ray, R. B. (2001). The Bordwell Regime and the Stakes of Knowledge. In How a Film Theory Got Lost and Other Mysteries in Cultural Studies (pp. 38-39). Indiana: Indiana University Press. Sarris, A. (2002). The Auteur Theory Revisited. In V. W. Wexman (Ed. ), Film and Authorship (pp. 27-29). New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Truffaut, F. , Scott, H. Hitchcocks Final Years. In 2003 (Ed. ), The Definitive Study of Alfred Hitchcock (Revised ed. , pp. 346). New York: Gallimard.

The Iron Man Of India: Vallabhbhai Patel

The Iron Man Of India: Vallabhbhai Patel As the first Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of India, Patel organised relief for refugees in Punjab and Delhi, and led efforts to restore peace across the nation. Patel took charge of the task to forge a united India from the British colonial provincesallocated to India and more than five hundred self-governing princely states, released from British suzerainty by the Indian Independence Act 1947. Using frank diplomacy, backed with the option and use of military force, Patels leadership persuaded almost every princely state which did not have a Muslim majority to accede to India. Hailed as the Iron Man of India, he is also remembered as the Patron Saint of Indias civil servants for establishing modern all-India services. Patel was also one of the earliest proponents of property rights and free enterprise in India. Patel traveled to attend schools in Nadiad, Petlad and Borsad, living self-sufficiently with other boys. He reputedly cultivated a stoic character-a popular anecdote recounts how he lanced his own painful boil without hesitation, even as the barber supposed to do it trembled. Patel passed his matriculation at the late age of 22; at this point, he was generally regarded by his elders as an unambitious man destined for a commonplace job. Patel himself harboured a plan-he would study to become a lawyer, work and save funds, travel to England and study to become a barrister. Patel spent years away from his family, studying on his own with books borrowed from other lawyers and passed examinations within two years. Fetching Jhaverba from her parents home, Patel set up his household in Godhra and was called to the bar. During the many years it took him to save money, Patel now an advocate earned a reputation as a fierce and skilled lawyer. His wife bore him a daughter, Manibehn, in 1904, and a son, Dahyabhai, in 1906. Patel also cared for a friend suffering from Bubonic plague when it swept across Gujarat. When Patel himself came down with the disease, he immediately sent his family to safety, left his home and moved into an isolated house in Nadiad (by other accounts, Patel spent this time in a dilapidated temple); there, he recovered slowly. In 1909, Patels wife Jhaverba was hospitalised in Bombay to undergo a major surgical operation for cancer. Her health suddenly worsened and despite successful emergency surgery, she died in the hospital. Patel was given a note informing him of his wifes demise as he was cross-examining a witness in court. According to others who witnessed, Patel read the note, pocketed it and continued to intensely cross-examine the witness and won the case. He broke the news to others only after the proceedings had ended. Patel himself decided against marrying again. He raised his children with the help of his family and sent them to English-medium schools in Mumbai. At the age of 36, he journeyed to England and enrolled at the Middle Temple Inn in London. Finishing a 36-month course in 30 months, Patel topped his class despite having no previous college background. Returning to India, Patel settled in the city of Ahmedabad and became one of the citys most successful barristers. Wearing European-sty le clothes and urbane mannerisms, he also became a skilled bridge player. Patel nurtured ambitions to expand his practise and accumulate great wealth and to provide his children with modern education. He had also made a pact with his brother Vithalbhai to support his entry into politics in the Bombay Presidency, while Patel himself would remain in Ahmedabad and provide for the family. He was a vegetarian. Fighting for independence At the urging of his friends, Patel won an election to become the sanitation commissioner of Ahmedabad in 1917. While often clashing with British officials on civic issues, he did not show any interest in politics. Upon hearing of Mohandas Gandhi, he joked to Mavlankar that Gandhi would ask you if you know how to sift pebbles from wheat. And that is supposed to bring independence. But Patel was deeply impressed when Gandhi defied the British in Champaran for the sake of the areas oppressed farmers. Against the grain of Indian politicians of the time, Gandhi wore Indian-style clothes and emphasised the use of ones mother tongue or any Indian language as opposed to English-the lingua franca of Indias intellectuals. Patel was particularly attracted to Gandhis inclination to action-apart from a resolution condemning the arrest of political leader Annie Besant, Gandhi proposed that volunteers march peacefully demanding to meet her. Patel gave a speech in Borsad in September 1917, encouraging Indians nationwide to sign Gandhis petition demanding Swaraj-independence-from the British. Meeting Gandhi a month later at the Gujarat Political Conference in Godhra, Patel became the secretary of the Gujarat Sabha-a public body which would become the Gujarati arm of the Indian National Congress-at Gandhis encouragement. Patel now energetically fought against veth-the forced servitude of Indians to Europeans-and organised relief efforts in wake of plague and famine in Kheda. The Kheda peasants plea for exemption from taxation had been turned down by British authorities. Gandhi endorsed waging a struggle there, but could not lead it himself due to his activities in Champaran. When Gandhi asked for a Gujarati activist to devote himself completely to the assignment, Patel volunteered, much to Gandhis personal delight. Though his decision was made on the spot, Patel later said that his desire and commitment came after intensiv e personal contemplation, as he realised he would have to abandon his career and material ambitions. Satyagraha in Gujarat Supported by Congress volunteers Narhari Parikh, Mohanlal Pandya and Abbas Tyabji, Vallabhbhai Patel began a village-to-village tour in the Kheda district, documenting grievances and asking villagers for their support for a statewide revolt by refusing the payment of taxes. Patel emphasised potential hardships with the need for complete unity and non-violence despite any provocation. He received enthusiastic responses from virtually every village. When the revolt was launched and revenue refused, the government sent police and intimidation squads to seize property, including confiscating barn animals and whole farms. Patel organised a network of volunteers to work with individual villages-helping them hide valuables and protect themselves during raids. Thousands of activists and farmers were arrested, but Patel was not. The revolt began evoking sympathy and admiration across India, including with pro-British Indian politicians. The government agreed to negotiate with Patel and decide d to suspend the payment of revenue for the year, even scaling back the rate. Patel emerged as a hero to Gujaratis and admired across India. In 1920, he was elected president of the newly formed Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee-he would serve as its president till 1945. Patel supported Gandhis Non-cooperation movement and toured the state to recruit more than 300,000 members and raise over Rs. 1.5 million in funds. Helping organise bonfires of British goods in Ahmedabad, Patel threw in all his English-style clothes. With his daughter Mani and son Dahya, he switched completely to wearing khadi. Patel also supported Gandhis controversial suspension of resistance in wake of the Chauri Chaura incident. He worked extensively in the following years in Gujarat against alcoholism,untouchability and caste discrimination, as well as for the empowerment of women. In the Congress, he was a resolute supporter of Gandhi against his Swarajist critics. Patel was elected Ahmedabads municipal president in 1922, 1924 and 1927-during his terms, Ahmedabad was extended a major supply of electricity and the school system underwent major reforms. Drainage and sanitation systems were extended over all the city. He fought for the recognition and payment of teachers employed in schools established by nationalists (out of British control) and even took on sensitive Hindu-Muslim Issues. Sardar Patel personally led relief efforts in the aftermath of the intense torrential rainfall in 1927, which had caused major floods in the city and in the Kheda district and great destruction of life and property. He established refuge centres across the district, raised volunteers, arranged for supply of food, medicines and clothing, as well as emergency funds from the government and public. When Gandhi was in prison, Sardar Patel was asked by Members of Congress to lead the satyagraha in Nagpur in 1923 against a law banning the raising of the Indian flag. He organised thousands of volunteers from all over the country in processions hoisting the flag. Patel negotiated a settlement that obtained the release of all prisoners and allowed nationalists to hoist the flag in public. Later that year, Patel and his allies uncovered evidence suggesting that the police were in league with local dacoits in the Borsad taluka even as the government prepared to levy a major tax for fighting dacoits in the area. More than 6,000 villagers assembled to hear Patel speak and supported the proposed agitation against the tax, which was deemed immoral and unnecessary. He organised hundreds of Congressmen, sent instructions and received information from across the district. Every village in the taluka resisted payment of the tax, and through cohesion, also prevented the seizure of property and lands. After a protracted struggle, the government withdrew the tax. Historians believe that one of Patels key achievements was the building of cohesion and trust amongst the different castes and communities, which were divided on socio-economic lines. In April 1928, Sardar Patel returned to the freedom struggle from his municipal duties in Ahmedabad when Bardoli suffered from a serious predicament of a famine and steep tax hike. The revenue hike was steeper than it had been in Kheda even though the famine covered a large portion of Gujarat. After cross-examining and talking to village representatives, emphasising the potential hardship and need for non-violence and cohesion, Patel initiated the struggle-complete denial of taxes. Sardar Patel organised volunteers, camps and an information network across affected areas. The revenue refusal was stronger than in Kheda and many sympathy satyagrahas were undertaken across Gujarat. Despite arrests, seizures of property and lands, the struggle intensified. The situation reached a head in August, when through sympathetic intermediaries, he negotiated a settlement repealing the tax hike, reinstating village officials who had resigned in protest and the return of seized property and lands. I t was during the struggle and after the victory in Bardoli that Patel was increasingly addressed by his colleagues and followers as Sardar. As Gandhi embarked on the Dandi Salt March, Patel was arrested in the village of Ras and tried without witnesses, with no lawyer or pressman allowed to attend. Patels arrest and Gandhis subsequent arrest caused the Salt Satyagraha to greatly intensify in Gujarat-districts across Gujarat launched an anti-tax rebellion until and unless Patel and Gandhi were released. Once released, Patel served as interim Congress president, but was re-arrested while leading a procession in Mumbai. After the signing of theGandhi-Irwin Pact, Patel was elected Congress president for its 1931 session in Karachi-here the Congress ratified the pact, committed itself to the defence of fundamental rights and human freedoms, and a vision of a secular nation, minimum wage and the abolition of untouchability and serfdom. Patel used his position as Congress president in organising the return of confiscated lands to farmers in Gujarat. Upon the failure of the Round Table Conference in London, Gandhi and Patel were arrested in January 1932 when the struggle re-opened, and imprisoned in the Yeravda Central Jail. During this term of imprisonment, Patel and Gandhi grew close to each other, and the two developed a close bond of affection, trust, and frankness. Their mutual relationship could be described as that of an elder brother (Gandhi) and his younger brother (Patel). Despite having arguments with Gandhi, Patel respected his instincts and leadership. During imprisonment, the two would discuss national and social issues, read Hindu epics and crack jokes. Gandhi also taught Patel Sanskrit language. Gandhis secretary Mahadev Desai kept detailed records of conversations between Gandhi and Patel. When Gandhi embarked on a fast-unto-death protesting the separate electorates allocated for untouchables, Patel looked after Gandhi closely and himself refrained from partaking of food. Patel was later moved to a jail in Nasik, and refused a British offer for a brief release to attend the cremation of hi s brother Vithalbhai, who had died in 1934. He was finally released in July of the same year. Patels position at the highest level in the Congress was largely connected with his role from 1934 onwards (when the Congress abandoned its boycott of elections) in the party organisation. Based at an apartment in Mumbai, he became the Congresss main fund-raiser and chairman of its Central Parliamentary Board, playing the leading role in selecting and financing candidates for the 1934 elections to the Central Legislative Assembly in New Delhi and also for the Provincial elections of 1936. As well as collecting funds and selecting candidates, he would also determine the Congress stance on issues and opponents. Not contesting a seat for himself, Patel nevertheless guided Congressmen elected in the provinces and at the national level. In 1935, Patel underwent surgery for haemorrhoids, yet guided efforts against plague in Bardoli and again when a drought struck Gujarat in 1939. Patel would guide the Congress ministries that had won power across India with the aim of preserving party disc ipline-Patel feared that the British would use opportunities to create conflicts among elected Congressmen, and he did not want the party to be distracted from the goal of complete independence. But Patel would clash with Nehru, opposing declarations of the adoption of socialism at the 1936 Congress session, which he believed was a diversion from the main goal of achieving independence. In 1938, Patel organised rank and file opposition to the attempts of then-Congress president Subhas Chandra Bose to move away from Gandhis principles of non-violent resistance. Patel considered Bose to want more power over the party. He led senior Congress leaders in a protest, which resulted in Boses resignation. But criticism arose from Boses supporters, socialists and other Congressmen that Patel himself was acting in an authoritarian manner in his defence of Gandhis authority. Quit India On the outbreak of World War II Patel supported Nehrus decision to withdraw the Congress from central and provincial legislatures, contrary to Gandhis advice, as well as an initiative by senior leader Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari to offer Congresss full support to Britain if it promised Indian independence at the end of the war and install a democratic government right away. Gandhi had refused to support Britain on the grounds of his moral opposition to war, while Subhas Chandra Bose was in militant opposition to the British. The British rejected Rajagopalacharis initiative, and Patel embraced Gandhis leadership again. He participated in Gandhis call for individual disobedience, and was arrested in 1940 and imprisoned for nine months. He also opposed the proposals of the Cripps mission in 1942. Patel lost more than twenty pounds during his period in jail. While Nehru, Rajagopalachari and Maulana Azad initially criticised Gandhis proposal for an all-out campaign of civil disobedience to force the British to Quit India, Patel was its most fervent supporter. Arguing that the British would retreat from India as they had from Singapore and Burma, Patel stressed that the campaign start without any delay. Though feeling that the British would not quit immediately, Patel favoured an all-out rebellion which would galvanise Indian people, who had been divided in their response to the war, In Patels view, an all-out rebellion would force the British to concede that continuation of colonial rule had no support in India, and thus speed power transfer to Indians. Believing strongly in the need for revolt, Patel stated his intention to resign from the Congress if the revolt was not approved. Gandhi strongly pressured the All India Congress Committee to approve of an all-out campaign of civil disobedience, and the AICC approved the campaign on 7 Augu st 1942. Though Patels health had suffered during his stint in jail, Patel gave emotional speeches to large crowds across India, asking people to refuse paying taxes and participate in civil disobedience, mass protests and a shutdown of all civil services. He raised funds and prepared a second-tier of command as a precaution against the arrest of national leaders. Historians believe that Patels speech was instrumental in electrifying nationalists, who had been sceptical of the proposed rebellion. Patels organising work in this period is credited by historians for ensuring the success of the rebellion across India. Patel was arrested on 9 August and was imprisoned with the entire Congress Working Committee from 1942 to 1945 at the fort in Ahmednagar. Here he spun cloth, played bridge, read a large number of books, took long walks, practised gardening. He also provided emotional support to his colleagues while awaiting news and developments of the outside. Patel was deeply pained at the news of the deaths of Mahadev Desai and Kasturba Gandhi later in the year. But Patel wrote in a letter to his daughter that he and his colleagues were experiencing fullest peace for having done their duty. Even though other political parties had opposed the struggle and the British had employed ruthless means of suppression, the Quit India movement was by far the most serious rebellion since that of 1857, as the viceroy cabled to Winston Churchill. More than one hundred thousand people were arrested and thousands killed in police firings. Strikes, protests and other revolutionary activities had broken out across India. When Patel was released on 15 June 1945 he realised that the British were preparing proposals to transfer power to Indian hands. Death On 29 March 1949, authorities lost radio contact with a plane carrying Patel, his daughter Maniben and the Maharaja of Patiala. Engine failure caused the pilot to make an emergency landing in a desert area in Rajasthan. With all passengers safe, Patel and others tracked down a nearby village and local officials. When Patel returned to Delhi, thousands of Congressmen gave him a resounding welcome. In Parliament, MPs gave a long, standing ovation to Patel, stopping proceedings for half an hour. In his twilight years, Patel was honoured by members of Parliament and awarded honorary doctorates of law by the Punjab University and Osmania University. Patels health declined rapidly through the summer of 1950. He later began coughing blood, whereupon Maniben began limiting his meetings and working hours and arranged for a personalised medical staff to begin attending to Patel. The Chief Minister of West Bengal and doctor Bidhan Roy heard Patel make jokes about his impending end, and in a private meeting Patel frankly admitted to his ministerial colleague N. V. Gadgil that he was not going to live much longer. Patels health worsened after 2 November, when he began losing consciousness frequently and was confined to his bed. He was flown to Mumbai on 12 December on advice from Dr Roy, to recuperate as his condition deemed critical. Nehru, Rajagopalchari, Rajendra Prasad and Menon all came to see him off at the airport in Delhi. Patel was extremely weak and had to be carried onto the aircraft in a chair. In Bombay, large crowds gathered at Santacruz Airport to greet him, to spare him from this stress, the aircraft landed at Juhu Aerod rome, where Chief Minister B.G. Kher and Morarji Desai were present to receive him with a car belonging to the Governor of Bombay, that took Vallabhbhai to Birla House. After suffering a massive heart attack (his second), he died on 15 December 1950 at Birla House in Bombay. In an unprecedented and unrepeated gesture, on the day after his death more than 1,500 officers of Indias civil and police services congregated to mourn at Patels residence in Delhi and pledged complete loyalty and unremitting zeal in Indias service. His cremation was planned at Girgaum Chowpatty, however this was changed to Sonapur when his daughter conveyed that it was his wish to be cremated like a common man in the same place as his wife and brother were earlier cremated. His cremation in Sonapur in Bombay, was attended by a one million strong crowd including Prime Minister Nehru, Rajagopalachari, President Prasad.

Churches Tax Exempt A Matter Of Constitutional Right Religion Essay

Churches Tax Exempt A Matter Of Constitutional Right Religion Essay The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 that non-taxation of churches is undergirded by more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded in our colonial experience and continuing into the present.   Here is why:   There is a distinction between constitutionally separate sovereigns.   For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority.   This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party.   So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government.   The District of Columbia does not tax the property owned by foreign governments, and New York does not tax the property owned by the United Nations. While the church is not subservient to the government, neither is the government subservient to the church.   Although government can aid or support virtually all types of social or educational institutions which have a public purpose with the use of tax money, the Supreme Court stated in 1948 that no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.   Thomas Jefferson coined the highly referenced wall of separation between church and state (but not in the Constitution, as many people assume).   The separation he referred to must be bilateral and reciprocal.   Whatever the degree of separation required by the Constitution, it is surely this:   the government may not make the church subservient by taxing its existence. In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the churchs uninterrupted freedom from taxation has operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.   The much misunderstood separation between church and state is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other.   That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other.   Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity.   Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full.   Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, the power to tax involves the power to destroy. The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed. Historically, Tax Exempt Churches Have Benefited American Society Even before the IRS (Internal Revenue System) ever existed, churches were tax exempt.   In fact, as the U.S.Supreme Court acknowledged in 1970 in the Walz v. Tax Commission case, exempting churches from taxation is an unbroken history that covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it.   Because of this unbroken history, churches have been included and recognized as tax exempt in every income tax code passed by Congress since the very first attempt to pass an income tax code in 1894.   In fact, the federal tax code recognizes this special exemption for churches because churches are the only organization not required to seek advance approval of tax exemption.   They are considered automatically tax exempt simply because of their status as a church.   This unbroken history of tax exemption for churches that predates our national existence is not something that is lightly cast aside.   And, as history demonstrates, churches have thrived and have benefitted soci ety in many ways as a result of the freedom that flows from tax exemption.   It is a mythical caricature that most churches want to be tax exempt simply so they can unfairly hold on to more money than anyone else.   This is a falsehood promoted by those who simply do not understand the facts. Churches have been at the forefront of many of the beneficial social movements throughout American history.   Historians agree that America owes its independence, in great degree, to churches and pastors who spoke freely and passionately from their pulpits in favor of independence.   Pastors during the revolutionary time period became known as the Black Regiment due to their black clerical robes and the fervor with which they supported independence. Churches also led the fight to end child labor, promote womens suffrage, and were instrumental in ending slavery.   Lets not forget pastors like Henry Ward Beecher who spoke with great influence against slavery from his pulpit at Plymouth Church in Brooklyn.   And, of course, it was a pastor, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., with the support of churches, who helped to end segregation.   A concurring opinion handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as recently as February 25, 2009, cites such examples and concluded: An unregulated, unregistered press is important to our democracy.   So are unregulated, unregistered churches.   Churches have played an important-no, an essential-part in the democratic life of the United States.   Is it necessary to evoke these historic struggles and the great constitutional benefits won for the country by its churches in order to decide this case of petty bureaucratic harassment?   It is necessary.   The memory of the memorable battles grows cold.   The liberals who applaud their outcomes and live in their light forget the motivation that drove the champions of freedom.   They approve religious intervention in the political process selectively:   its great when its on their side.   In a secular age, Freedom of Speech is more talismanic than Freedom of Religion.   But the latter is the first freedom in our Bill of Rights (Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena v. Unsworth). Since our country was founded, churches not only led great social movements, but also freely preached directly on political candidates qualifications for office.   That was no problem when the Constitution was signed, or when the first commissioner of internal revenue was appointed in 1862, or when the federal income tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment in 1913.   Nor were churches transformed into political machines.   Churches simply spoke when their moral voice needed to be heard-even during election season-and decided for themselves how they wanted their pastors to preach. Tax exemption enabled churches to exist without unnecessary encumbrance by the government and to be the moral force in these great social movements in American history.   This historical record of tax exemption is an important reason churches should continue to be tax exempt. Tax Exemption Protects the Free Exercise of Religion Churches are tax-exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it.   If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the door is open for the government to censor and control churches and the free exercise of religion.   But thats not just an opinion.   Its the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Walz v. Tax Commission, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.   The Supreme Court also said that the power to tax involves the power to destroy.   Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.   As the Massachusetts State Tax Commission put it in 1897, The general exemption of houses of worship is a fit recognition by the State of the sanctity of religion. For those concerned about an appropriate separation between church and state, no better way exists to ensure it than to keep churches tax exempt.   If the government were to begin to tax churches, it necessarily asserts sovereignty, power, and control over churches. An example of how the government can abuse its power against churches in this area is in the passage of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and other non-profits from directly or indirectly supporting or opposing political candidates for office.   A churchs tax exemption has been conditioned on obedience to this mandate since 1954 when Lyndon Johnson was instrumental in adding this prohibition to the tax code.   Scholars agree that the Johnson Amendment was a revenge piece of legislation directed at two non-profit foundations opposing Johnson for Senate.   Johnson did not target churches, yet for 55 years, churches have been prohibited from preaching about candidates for office.   The Johnson Amendment perpetuates a system requiring government agents to monitor and parse the words of a pastors sermon to determine whether that sermon violates the law and punishment should be meted out.   That system is an excessive and unreasonable government entanglement with re ligion. In 1943, the Supreme Court stated, If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox inà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦religion, or other matters of opinion.   The court didnt add except when pastors address the subject of electoral candidates.   Since 1954, the IRS and its petty officials have been able to prescribe for churches what is orthodox in matters of religion.   This is not religious freedom in any sense of that phrase.   Rather, this is religious orthodoxy mandated by the government, and it falls heaviest on those churches who believe their faith compels them to do what churches have done for centuries:   address the moral fitness of electoral candidates from the pulpit. The Johnson Amendment provides a stark example of the power of the government to destroy the free exercise of religion.   The surest way to protect the free exercise of religion is to continue the healthy separation between church and state fostered by tax exemptions for churches. Taxing Churches Involves the Government as Church Speech Police Since 1954, the government has prohibited churches from speaking about a certain area of life in order to maintain their tax exemption.   Pastors are allowed to talk about anything they want to from the pulpit of their church except how Scripture applies to our electoral politics.   Called the Johnson Amendment, because of its sponsor Lyndon Johnson, this prohibition has enabled IRS agents to monitor and censor sermons preached from the pulpit for almost 55 years.   Allowing the government to condition tax exemption on a church refraining from preaching on a certain issue allows the IRS to act as speech police and monitor churches for compliance. The Johnson Amendment allows government to determine when a pastors speech becomes too political.   That is an absurdly ridiculous standard.   A pastors speech from the pulpit that addresses candidates in light of Scripture is religious speech.   That speech doesnt become political any more than a pastors speech becomes commercial when he addresses from Scripture the current financial debacle on Wall Street.   Allowing government agents to make that determination is as absurd as asking a first-grader to design and build NASAs next space shuttle. The Johnson Amendment also allows the government to parse the content of a pastors sermon to determine whether it violates the law.   That is called a content-based restriction on speech, which the Free Speech Clause prohibits unless the government has a compelling reason to censor speech based on its content.   And you would have to ignore reality to agree that any compelling reason existed for Johnsons amendment. Allowing the government to police speech is a bad idea that contains dangerous consequences for liberty-a principle that our nations founders understood most clearly.   The best way to preserve liberty, and specifically religious liberty, is to get the government speech police out of the business of reviewing a pastors sermon.   That is no place for the government in a free society.   Tax exemption for churches protects freedom of speech and gets the government out of the role of policing a churchs speech. Taxing Churches Makes No Practical Sense Under simple logic, churches and other nonprofit organizations are exempted from income taxes.   Though its very true that such organizations are beneficial to the public in many ways, thats not what truly justifies their exemption, as is often argued; it is their existence as non-profit entities that does.   Taxation naturally applies to profit-makers, the generators of revenue upon which government depends.   As Professor Dean Kelley pointed out in his book, Why Churches Should Not Be Taxed, Other entities would be pointless, since they are not in any meaningful sense producers of wealth.   It is the very nature of a nonprofit organization that makes it tax exempt in that it does not produce wealth like businesses or other taxed entities.   So, it makes no practical sense to tax these organizations. In fact, taxing such nonprofits discourages their existence and amounts to double taxation.   First, all citizens, whether or not involved in a church or other nonprofit, are taxed on their individual incomes.   As professor Kelley again pointed out, To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be double taxation indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy.  Ã‚   The only thing a tax exemption for a non-profit organization like a church does is to ensure that all the money an individual puts into a non-profit goes to the purposes he intends without being diverted by the government, which the individual already supports in his individual capacity. Charles Eliot, former President of Harvard, said it best in testimony before the Committee on Taxation in 1906 when he stated, The things that make it worthwhile to liveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦anywhere in the civilized world, are precisely the things which are not taxed.   Churches are one of the things that have made it worthwhile to live in the civilized world.   Churches, throughout history, have improved American society and have acted as agents of positive societal change, in addition to their purpose of providing meaning for peoples lives and ministering to the local community.   Even many federal court opinions, right up to the present day, have acknowledged this.   To tax churches is to discourage the important work they do in society and to double-tax the individuals who support the church.   This makes no practical sense. Read more:  Should Churches be Tax Exempt? | Answerbag Debates  http://www.answerbag.com/debates/churches-tax-exempt_1855555#ixzz0vHJh7kVV Church Exemptions Imply Churches Benefit Society Merely by Existing Many churches too many are taking advantage of the system, using tax exemptions for selfish or even antisocial goals (e.g., Branch Davidians, the Holy Land terrorist front, Scientology, and multi-millionaire televangelists).   The fact is that a church is just another kind of club, but it gets special treatment because the club preaches about a mythology or religion (same thing). In order for any other club to gain tax-exempt status, they must adhere to rules and regulations, declare their income, and prove their worth to society as a whole. Religious clubs get treated differently ONLY because they talk about religion, instead of stamp collecting or todays best-selling books.   This is clearly illegal, and its clearly wrong. Its illegal because it offers benefits to religious institutions but not to their secular counterparts; its wrong because it assumes that every religious institution benefits society by merely existing. Churches need not perform any service at all in order to get these massive exemptions; they merely need to declare themselves religious to be tax-free. Let the Churches Choose! By removing the automatic tax exemption for religious institutions from the IRS nonprofit code, one of the following two changes will take place at every religious institution: 1) They will pay their rightful taxes. This, in turn, will benefit everyone in the community by lowering the tax burden, producing more household income which taxpayers can then turn around and donate to the church of their choice. As an aside, this will also allow religious organizations to express political views, as many so desire. -or-   2) They will EARN their nonprofit status by performing real charity work for the community at large (note: outreach is not charity, but merely another word for marketing). Many churches are already doing this, and as long as they can prove their charitable activity in the same manner as other nonprofits, this would continue. However, the possibility of losing tax exemption would be a strong stimulus for churches that are not earning their status to step up their charity work, again helping the community at large. Churches have been and will continue to be useful to society on the whole, and such earnest organizations should keep their rightful place beside other tax-exempt organizations that serve community and country. By eliminating the religious exemption we would implement a fair and equitable tax provision that benefits everyone except those who abuse the system or leech from it. Read more:  Should Churches be Tax Exempt? | Answerbag Debates  http://www.answerbag.com/debates/churches-tax-exempt_1855555#ixzz0vHJxiEuR Anton Tanquintic: uh Anton Tanquintic: define the purpose of a tax and state that nothing is above the law Anton Tanquintic: then defend Anton Tanquintic: thats one argument Tax Exempt Churches: Religious Freedom vs Tax Exemptions Should churches receive tax exemptions on their property? Should religious organizations be tax exempt in their businesses even those which compete with for-profit companies? Should individuals receive tax deductions for expenses at private religious schools? It is important to understand what sorts of exemptions exist, why they exist, and how the various court cases have proceeded. The more you know, the better informed your judgment will be. Religious Tax Exemptions: Overview of Current Laws Tax laws are more complicated than the average person can readily understand; tossing into the mix various things tax-exempt organizations might or might not be allowed to do threatens to make the task of understanding superhuman in nature. In reality, however, the issue isnt all that complicated and the restrictions on what churches and religious organizations can do arent hard to adhere to. What are Religious Tax Exemptions for Churches? To what extent, and even if, tax exemptions should be given to religious organizations and churches depends on why tax exemptions exist at all. If you think tax exemptions exist because charities provide public benefits, you may be suspicious of giving exemptions to churches. If you think tax exemptions exist because charitable organizations have no net income, then churches will should qualify. Why Taxation of Religion Matters Tax exemptions may not be the most common issue facing courts in arguments over the separation of church and state, it is one of the most fundamental. Initially it appears to be a form of government support for religions and religious activities; on the other hand, the power to tax is the power to restrict or destroy, so is exempting religions from taxation a means of ensuring their independence? Do Churches Deserve Tax Exemptions? Based upon court rulings on how tax exemptions for charitable groups work, we cannot be conclude that churches and religious organizations automatically deserve exemptions. Even if one believes that their religion and their church provide a necessary public service, it does not follow that all religions and churches necessarily provide a public service which merits support through tax exemptions. Are Tax Exemptions a Church Subsidy? One of the key arguments offered by those who oppose tax exemptions for churches and religious organizations is that tax exemptions constitute a type of subsidy for these groups. Subsidies for religious organizations are unconstitutional, however, because they represent a means by which churches are able to obtain public, taxpayer support for their religious goals. Tax Exemptions vs. Church Political Activity By not taxing churches, the government is prevented from directly interfering with how churches operate. By the same token, those churches are also prevented from directly interfering with how the government operates in that they cannot endorse any political candidates, they cannot campaign on behalf of any candidates, and they cannot attack any political candidate. Church Tax Exemptions: No Political Campaigning Not all churches and religious organizations have been content to live within the rules. Quite a few have attempted to evade the rules, either secretly or very openly, in order to allow churches and religious groups to participate actively in political campaigns even while retaining their charitable tax-exempt status. Religious Tax Exemptions vs. Government Policies Most people are aware that a church or religious organization can lose their tax exempt status for engaging in partisan political activity, like endorsing a political candidate. What many arent aware of, though, is that the same can happen for promoting or engaging in things contrary to government policy. Tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Backlash Against Religious Tax Exemption Laws It is a fact of law that charitable organizations, including churches, which have tax-exempt status are not allowed to participate in political campaigns on behalf of political candidates. A focus of current efforts is to make a direct change in how the laws read in order to ensure that churches can become fully active in political campaigns. Tax Exemptions Available to Churches Americas tax laws are designed to favor non-profit and charitable institutions which presumably benefit the community. Churches benefit the most from tax exemptions because they qualify for many of them automatically, whereas non-religious groups have to go through a more complicated application and approval process. Why? Commercial Tax Exemptions for Church Businesses Tax exemptions on church property used for specific worship purposes or religious work may be most easily defended because of the charitable and community work performed. Serious problems come into play, however, when church property is used for commercial purposes. To what extent should the business activities of a religious organization be tax   At a time when ordinary people are being told to tighten their belts and to expect massive reductions in public spending in order to repay the huge government debt incurred as the result of the financial crisis, there are two groups of people who continue to live it up: 1 The greedy and incompetent investment bankers who caused the financial crisis in the first place and who, nevertheless, continue to use the governments recapitalisation handouts to pay themselves obscene bonuses. 2 Religious organisations. While the United States and the European Union are responding to the bankers abject failure to show self-restraint by imposing restrictions on their bonus payments, they have done nothing to redress the fact that religious organisations are ripping the rest of us off by not paying any tax. [1] So while decent, hard-working families struggle to make ends meet, televangelists such as Creflo Dollar continue to swan about in their brand new Rolls-Royces [2] and Catholic priests carry on living the life of Reilly in their tax-free, all-expenses-paid parochial houses. [The YouTube clips are humorous, of course, but there is many a true word said in jest.] And how many hard-working, God-fearing family men can afford to hire young sex-workers to accompany them on luxury, ten-day tours of Europe? Not many, but Baptist Minister George Alan Rekers can. [3] Thats partly because he doesnt pay any tax. (In the interests of full disclosure here, by the way, I should point out that Rekers denied knowing that his companion was a male prostitute, even though he hired him from rentboy.com). To put this matter into perspective, The Church of England (CofE) rakes in  £1 billion ($1.52 billion) every year tax-free and yet its own website states that even though over  £200 million is given tax-efficiently each year through Gift Aid and a further  £60 million is recovered from the Inland Revenue in tax. [4] In other words, the CofE not only avoids contributing to the public purse, it is actually jewing  £60 million pounds a year out of it! And things are even worse in Germany where citizens are subject to the Kirchensteuer (Church Tax) which nets protestant priests over EUR8 billion ( £7 billion / $10 billion) every year. [5] A similar situation exists in Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and Iceland where citizens are also forced by law to give a percentage of their income to the church. It seems to me that, with religious observance on the decline to a point where, according to the CofEs own figures only one million people just 1.6% of the British population go to church on Sundays [5], the church is becoming increasingly irrelevant in todays more enlightened society. And yet the churches are still growing fat at the expense of ordinary, hard-working citizens who have to make up the shortfall in tax receipts. This is a scandalous and outdated state of affairs and I believe it is high time that churches paid their way and, therefore, I duly affirm that religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status. Thank you. [1] http://www.irs.gov [2] http://www.cbsnews.com [3] http://www.independent.co.uk [4] http://www.cofe.anglican.org [5] http://www.kirchensteuer.de (in German) [6] http://www.cofe.anglican.org Report this Argument Con Religious organizations, in my opinion, should not pay taxes from church collections and other donations. Money gotten through collections and donations has already been taxed (it comes from a group of people who have already have been taxed). Additionally, the majority of the money gained through collections and donations is used in the purpose of helping others (examples include Haiti, earthquakes, money used to organize soup kitchens, and so on). Additionally, you will note that in certain countries, such as Ireland, 85%[1] of the population attends church. That would mean the Church in Ireland does have significant impact on the population. Religious individuals, on the other hand, should be taxed. I dont believe that it is fair reverends who earn proceeds through televised programs ought to be allowed to keep any of it, or if they would be allowed, then that income ought to be taxed. Any actual business (such as mass selling, investments, and so on, also ought to be taxed as it is a method of earning). Collections and donations should not be taxed as they are gifts. I apologize in advance for any spelling and/or grammar mistakes and for unclear sentences. Additionally, I apologize for having such a short counter-argument, however, I am short on time. I beg your understanding. [1]http://www.nationmaster.com Report this Argument Pro I would like to thank Bernardio for his considered comments to which I make the following responses: Ideally, there would be no taxes, but a country must raise funds somehow. In the past, if a king needed money he would assemble a fleet of frigates and galleons that would be bristling with guns and canons. He would load these ships with cargos of soldiers and send them across the Atlantic to the New World to rape and pillage newfound civilisations, and plunder their gold and have it repatriated back to Europe. Unfortunately though, these days the United Nations take a dim view of such activities and it is, therefore, necessary for the government to collect money from the general populace instead. This inevitably leads to the double-taxation my opponent referred to. You pay tax on the money you earn and when you buy something with the money left over the recipient pays tax on the profit from the sale. But my opponent suggests that churches shouldnt pay tax because they help others in places like Haiti. I looked into this and discovered that a Baptist group from Idaho did indeed travel to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake to help others they were arrested and accused of attempting to traffic 33 children out of the country. [1] Presumably their intention was to sell the youngsters on to paedophiles rings in America and if they had not been caught they would have succeeded in their mission their mission being to help others sexually molest vulnerable children. Meanwhile the Jewish Orthodox Union uses their tax-free donations to fund the Institute for Public Affairs [2] which is an American lobby group that opposes humanitarian aid being sent to victims of military aggression in Palestine, rejects the United Nations and international law and supports the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and the illegal Jewish land grabs in the West Bank. At the same time, there are widespread concerns that tax-free donations made to mosques may be channelled into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups. [3] With regard to countries such as Ireland where church attendances are higher, the income from tax paid by the churches would be very helpful in reducing their budget deficits and allow them to spend more money on schools and hospitals. In conclusion, the activities of religious organisations may seem worthy and noble by some: Christian paedophiles; racist Jews; Islamic terrorists and others; but not everybody welcomes having to pay more tax to make up for the shortfall in receipts from tax-exempt churches, temples, mosques and synagogues. Thank you. http://www.debate.org/debates/Religious-organisations-should-no-longer-enjoy-their-tax-exempt-status/1/ [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk [2] http://www.ou.org [3] http://www.foxnews.com Report this Argument Con Agreed, a country must raise taxes to run a government though I question my opponents comment on the fact that pillaging is now illegal is a bad thing. I, personally, enjoy the fact that people cant run around burning and stealing. I also concede that there was a, emphasis on a, single group of Baptists who were trying to use the situation in Haiti to there advantage. However, the information that did not get to the media were all the other parishes that collected and sent money for actual aid to refugees. As far as the Jewish Orthodox Union using money for illegal activities is something that ought to be fixed, but youll note that the Catholic Church does not use their tax free status for illegal activities. If you suggest that one example of someone(s) doing something bad ought to influence laws for everyone, then we ought to all b