Those are all “Libertarian stances”.
Personally I'd make the opposite change (everyone should be exempt) but religious organizations shouldn't get special treatment just because they're religious. The practice of having special rules which only come into play when religion is involved undermines the separation of church and state; it means that the state is discriminating between citizens on the basis of the presence of absence of a (recognized) religion.
> Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals
Religious organizations are exempt from tax, but so are PETA and the ACLU. Against that background, efforts to strip tax exemptions from churches are a deliberate attack on religious organizations as compared to other civic organizations.
There are plenty of other areas where the government shows favoritism toward religious organizations besides 501(c)3 status. For example, ministers are exempt from federal income tax withholding, despite being classified as W-2 employees, and can opt out of Social Security taxes via Form 4361, which is available only to "An ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church; A member of a religious order who has not taken a vow of poverty; or A Christian Science practitioner."[0] (That last one is oddly specific… and goes so far as to endorse a specific religious organization.) Membership in a "health care sharing ministry" also offers, or did offer while it was still in force, an exception to the individual insurance mandate under the Affordable Care Act (26 U.S. Code § 5000A(d)(2), "Religious Exemptions"[1]).
Ministers are exempt from withholding but they still have to pay it, and they pay FICA taxes like self employed workers: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
And that was the point. Other organizations have to be based around some particular beneficial purpose such as charity or education in order to qualify, and that classification can be challenged if, for example, a "charitable" organization doesn't actually redistribute most of the money it receives to charitable causes, but you can start a religious-themed amusement park (charging admission!) and call it a "church" and it's automatically tax-exempt.[0]
> exempt from withholding but they still have to pay it
Which means they're getting several months' worth of extra growth out of that portion of their income than everyone else by paying it at the end of the tax year rather than having it withheld from their paycheck. It's clearly a religious privilege; other W-2 employees would opt out of withholding if they could, but they can't since they aren't ministers.
> and they pay FICA taxes like self employed workers
Despite not being self-employed, and only if they don't use Form 4361 to opt out of Social Security, as I said before. Which is something which can only be done on religious grounds, or a lot more people would be doing the same, as SS is a poor retirement strategy compared to investing the same amount of money privately. (The average rate of return for SS contributions is lower than T-bills, much less mutual funds or stocks.)
[0] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/os-holy-land-experi...
There are some historical nuances about power dynamics and avoiding conflict between the church and state, but that is all long ago.
But it's 2022, not 1992, and a lot of contemporary conservative causes are based on coding conservative positions as being based on "religious beliefs" and liberal positions as being based on some sort of "rational morality." But that distinction is fictitious.
For example, liberals decry Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban as "imposing religious beliefs." So why do highly secular countries like France and Denmark draw the line at 13 or 14 weeks? In reality, the abortion debate rests on competing moral ideologies--one that emphasizes the importance of reproduction, and one that emphasizes the importance of individual choice. Neither position is based primarily on scientific facts or rigorous logic.
Likewise, when it comes to teaching kids about sex and gender. "God created man and woman and told them to reproduce" is a religious gloss on the factual observation that humanity comprises two sexes which reproduce sexually, and any sustainable human population requires each woman on average to have 2.1 children. Any conclusions you want to draw on top of that are moral judgments, not based on science or logic.
It's no different when it comes to law enforcement. Unless you're an anarcho-libertarian, you recognize that the state has a role in defending individual rights. Moreover, any system of law enforcement is going to produce problems and false positives at scale--especially when dealing with people at the margin of culpability. Leaving aside second-order effects for a moment, there is nothing inherently libertarian about asserting that we should err on the side of less aggressive policing to reduce the false positives, at the cost of allowing more wrong-doers to escape punishment. Likewise, there is nothing inherently libertarian about saying that destroying private property in riots is a justified reaction to police misconduct. These are all liberal moral judgments.
None of this is to say that liberals are wrong about any of these things. It's okay to formulate positions based on moral ideology rather than logic. My point is simply that you can't stake out a bunch of positions based on moral ideology, while claiming the high ground of secular rationalism and attacking your political opponents as "imposing religion."
Why does it always seem like the people who are on the “margin of culpability” always minorities? Like when Ving Rhames was suspiciously sitting in his own house (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/28/ving-rhames-...)
There are plenty of statistics showing minorities are stopped at a higher rate, convicted more harshly, face higher bail, etc for the same crime when you control for everything else.
So if you should only marry to reproduce, does that mean old people shouldn’t get married? Should we stop people who take steps not to reproduce? Conservatives use to fight to outlaw birth control and it is still the stance of many.
None of these are “Libertarian” stances.
Because that is the only time it makes the news. It sort of follows with Coulter's Law which states roughly that if the race of a suspect isn't initially mentioned, they are non-white.
>There are plenty of statistics showing minorities are stopped at a higher rate, convicted more harshly, face higher bail, etc for the same crime when you control for everything else.
I actually used to assume this to be true. However, when you factor for income level of suspects, the variance disappears. This is probably why you almost never see black millionaires in prison. Even with Bill Cosby it took hundreds of allegations across over 40 years before he did time. Because he had money.
The police definitely don’t know my household income level (I work remotely for $BigTech and I make over twice the median income in my county) when they see my 6 foot 3 son walking through our neighborhood back to our house in a county that’s only 3.9% Black and stopped him to question him twice.
For this to be true though, whites would also have the same advantages over Asians, but it's the opposite. So logically does that mean whites are discriminated against more than Asians, since that is what the numbers say? Or is it maybe that different cultures are more or less likely than others to do things that warrant police attention?
Another example of your logical fallacy is comparing men vs women. There are HUGE disparities in police interactions between men and women, is it because of sexism or is it possible that one gender reacts more aggressively during interactions with police on average..?
Who said this?
Except the current debate isn't about marriage law, it's about what kids should be taught in school, and when. It's one thing to have marriage law accommodate different groups with different beliefs about the basis of marriage. It's a different thing to teach any particular view or set of moral judgments to kids in public schools.
> Conservatives use to fight to outlaw birth control and it is still the stance of many.
As I noted in my post, it's 2022, not 1992. Today, 90% of conservatives agree with 93% of liberals that birth control is morally acceptable. https://news.gallup.com/poll/257858/birth-control-tops-list-....
Conservatives and libertarians were on opposite sides of this issue in the 1960s. But today, the political dispute is over privately owned companies being forced to pay for birth control for employees. And on the contemporary issue, libertarians and conservatives are on the same side.
For example, the significant majority of Americans think that sex between teenagers is not morally acceptable (54-42). Do the teachers who want to teach these facts believe that? Will they use materials that depict sexual interactions between teenagers—as in many of the books that have become controversial recently? Conservatives—and many moderates, given the Florida law has strong public support—view this as a “tip of the iceberg” situation.
Isn’t the entire idea behind “libertarianism” that you can do whatever the hell you want to do as long as it doesn’t affect others?
Shouldn’t Libertarianism be more concerned about teaching that you should conform to the standards of a religious institution?
> For example, the significant majority of Americans think that sex between teenagers is not morally acceptable (54-42). Do the teachers who want to teach these facts believe that? Will they use materials that depict sexual interactions between teenagers (as in many of the books that have become controversial recently)?
Yes because “abstinence education” has shown to be really effective. I’m sure if teachers have all of their students take “abstinence pledges” it’s going to stop them from having sex just like the “Just Say No” campaigns stopped teenagers from smoking weed.
I can’t help but notice how you’ve framed this in terms of “choice” and “self expression.” Do you see why even parents who want their kids to learn to be accepting of these biologically-determined differences might be wary of how the message will be delivered in practice?
> Isn’t the entire idea behind “libertarianism” that you can do whatever the hell you want to do as long as it doesn’t affect others?
That applies to adults, who are fully developed persons. But the moral socialization of your own children—dependent humans with underdeveloped brains—is within the ambit of what the State shouldn’t mess with. Aversion to social engineering is a key distinction between liberals and libertarians on this front.
> Shouldn’t Libertarianism be more concerned about teaching that you should conform to the standards of a religious institution?
You’re not allowed to teach that in public schools either. And libertarians should be concerned about the State trying to socialize children in the opposite ideology too.
> Yes because “abstinence education” has shown to be really effective. I’m sure if teachers have all of their students take “abstinence pledges” it’s going to stop them from having sex
Teenagers will draw outside the lines. All the more reason to draw those lines rigidly. And again you confirm what ideologies will come in through the door of these discussions.
> just like the “Just Say No” campaigns stopped teenagers from smoking weed.
Legalization of weed seems to have resulted in a significant uptick in smoking of marijuana.
> Teenagers will draw outside the lines. All the more reason to draw those lines rigidly. And again you confirm what ideologies will come in through the door of these discussions.
No matter how you “draw the lines”, do you really think little Johny and Sue are going to decide not to have sex because their teacher told them “it was wrong”? Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach them how to be safe?
Sure I would rather my underage son not drink. But I also have told him if he is in a position where he shouldn’t be driving, call me. Well at least that’s the old school way. I told him to call an Uber and if I see him home without his car - no preaching. Just call the Uber to take him back to his car.
> Legalization of weed seems to have resulted in a significant uptick in smoking of marijuana.
More importantly it’s taken a tool out of the toolbelt of the police state - something that libertarians should want.
Who shouldn’t? The way you framed it—in terms of “choice” and “self expression”—it could apply to everyone. Certainly, it’s not the role of teachers to tell straight kids that they don’t have to conform to Biblical or Quranic teachings if that’s what their parents want. That’s the point. Liberals believe in non-conformity, self-fulfillment, and self-expression for everyone. Many parents therefore don’t trust liberal teachers to talk to their kids about topics that implicate morality. (My Bangladeshi immigrant mom flipped out when my high school counselor suggested I major in European History given my interests. She doesn’t suffer fools!)
> No matter how you “draw the lines”, do you really think little Johny and Sue are going to decide not to have sex because their teacher told them “it was wrong”?
Many won’t, and even the ones that do will learn to keep sex a private part of their life and identity. Either way, the point is that—e.g. some white American teacher doesn’t get to decide how some Muslim kid is socialized to think about sex.
Libertarianism is premised on independent rational actors. Libertarian freedom doesn’t apply directly to children. Instead the freedom from State interference applies to the parents in deciding how to socialize their dependent, mentally undeveloped children.
I had to look this up and while it's somewhat true, it's highly misleading. "On demand" abortion in Denmark is limited until 12 weeks. However you can still get an abortion afterwards "if the woman's life or health are in danger" or "if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman, risk of birth defects in the baby, the pregnancy being the result of rape, or mental health risk to mother)."[1]
The special circumstances allowed by the Mississippi abortion ban are much more narrow, including only medical emergencies and severe fetal abnormality[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark
[2] https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/mississippi-ab...
Moreover, both agree that there are extenuating circumstances that can change the balance in specific cases. And they agree on the particular extenuating circumstances that are most likely to arise: risk of severe deterioration to woman's physical health, and fetal abnormalities.
All you're pointing out is that Denmark recognizes additional extenuating circumstances for special cases. Specifically, the health exception covers the risk of "severe deterioration of woman's physical or mental health." But note that the "risk to a woman's life or to her physical or mental health should be based solely or principally on circumstances of a medical character." The other grounds for second trimester abortions require unanimous approval from a special committee: https://cyber.harvard.edu/population/abortion/Denmark.abo.ht.... They are not an open-ended exception to allow second trimester abortions in ordinary cases.
I would say the former isn't about the value of reproduction any more than the principle of not killing a one-year-old is not about reproduction. It's about what counts as murder, based on what counts as human life. Whether or not one thinks of a 15 week old as being human life is all the question is about.
I have several liberal beliefs myself, but do think that other liberals delude themselves into thinking that they are somehow scientific judgements, opposed to simple moral sentiments, inherently subjective.
Yes, people don't realize that Roe v. Wade made abortion far more permissible in the US than in almost every other Western country. The only exception I am aware of is Canada, which because of a series of accidents ended up with no abortion laws at all.