MiltonRedman, no one volunteers to have their own money used for political activity that is contrary to their interests.

This tax exempt status is another of the free passes that religion unfairly benefits from. The other is that clear thinking people are not supposed to question the goofy beliefs of the religious.

On the other blog there are complaints about hurt feelings. Considering the psychological torture endured by people, including devote adherents, during centuries of religious psychosis, I find the "hurt feelings" complaint laughable.

my previous message should say "significant assets to the community"

Religious organizations have every right to be part of the political process. The constitution prohibits the government from recognizing any religion as a 'state' religion but it no way prevents religious groups from being part of the political process. Attempting to prohibit any religious organization from being a part of the political process is nothing short of censorship and a gross violation of their constitutional rights. Religious groups are tax exempt not because tax payers agree or disagree with their message, but because they are significant to the community. There are organizations I don't agree with that are tax exempt, but I'm not going to say they don't deserve to be tax exempt because I'm a taxpayer and I don't agree with their message or mission.

That taxpayers are made to finance the capitalism of the church so that the church can use its profits in ways that are contrary to the interests of the taxpayer is unacceptable.

ktaustin: Some religious institutions may choose carefully and lawfully guard their nonprofit status status while others might use it as a "badge of courage" to oppose and challenge IRS regs regardless of the consequences such as St. Elizabeth's signage last November endorsing a political candidate. Where should "necessities for our industrial society" be placed? The answer is obvious: in areas properly and adequately zoned for such activities, of course! No one is negating the need for progress but we should all agree that there are reasonable, rational and completely valid reasons for community zoning regulations from which no property owner nor entity should be exempt. Be careful whom you call NIMBYs for you never know when it will be you yourself...

I defer to proartist's superior knowledge of the RLUIPA situation and I too hope for the Supreme Court to strike it down!!!

ktaustin, churches aren't afraid of the IRS and religions are dangerously inserting themselves into politics and government. And this is with financial benefits derived from the government and taxpayers. This must stop. The American Taliban is gaining ground.

In a way, I actually agree that churchs tax exempt status should be eliminated. Because I hear of so many churchs that tip-toe on eggshells being careful what they say, especially around election times, because if they say something that the IRS doesn't like they could lose their tax-exempt status (whereas they should be focusing on what's biblical and true regardless of what the IRS or government in general says). Of course I also think the IRS should be abolished, but that's a wishfull dream.

As for the tower, I am amazed to discover that nothing is free from the effects of NIMBY: industrial plants, pipelines, power lines, cell towers, wind turbines, solar panels. These are the necessities for our industrial society. Unless you live off the local land, poop in an outhouse, pump your own well water, etc, then it's hard to take your complaints seriously unless you're proposing a better alternative location for the tower that would cover the same area.

Milton Redman: Sad thing is . . . yes, it's quite likely that every property owner near a church will adversely affected at one time or another by the vagueness of RLUIPA until it is finally overturned in the Supreme Court. The facts are that Congress approved RLUIPA blindly without hearing absolutely valid concerns. The usual procedure of holding public hearings was thrown aside for RLUIPA in spite of the pleading of city and state governments, historic preservationists, urban planners, and even some churches themselves for consideration of what might (and has) resulted. The act was passed in both Houses by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no Congressperson had to go on record (or even be present) so no vote was taken. The consequence has been municipal and legal chaos.

I'm starting a new organization. It's called EAEA - Everybody Against Everything Anywhere.
Want to join???

klob, you'd have to pay tax on that money -the church doesn't which increases your tax burden whether you have the tower or not.

And St. Marks is probably going to get some much needed $ I'm sure that the cell phone comp. will be paying rent. Put it in my back yard! I could use the money.

thekid's got character. He can maintain his cool in the presence of opposition.

I suspect thekid would think that with friends like me who needs enemies after our last repartee.

billnewbie, a post by thekid has you "on the team" re: the legalization of marijuana (in response to your apparently favorable posts) while all my posts have been in opposition to that legalization.

MiltonRedman, you're probably correct. Religion's need for SOCIALISTIC support (in lieu of adequate support from "believers") will probably continue.

Considering RLUIPA was passed by unanimous consent in both the house and senate, I doubt it will be overturned anytime soon, and probably never (thankfully).

While you're drumming up majority support for the repeal of RLUIPA and tax exempt status for religious organizations, you can get advice from the Pro-marijuana movement. I'm sure the 2 crusades have many constituencies in common. And think of all the fun you can have at each other's conventions.

Yes, proartist, it's not fair that this form of mumbo-jumbo should receive tax exempt revenue. It only increases the tax burden for the rest of us. RLUIPA should be repealed.

I have hideous power lines all over my neighborhood and demand they be taken down! Phone and cable wires too!

There always seems to be a complainer against forward progress. Doug, you need to get a life if you are going to be staring at the tower all day. After a month, you won't even know it is there.

I'm YIMBY - Yes! In my backyard! I should call US Cellular, and see if they need one by me.

kaw...my sentiments exactly.. If people don't want to "move ahead" then move to the woods!!!

If the Plan Commission rightly does not approve a conditional use permit for St. Mark, I hope the Plan Commission will also have the courage necessary and the support from the city administration to stand up to what might come if St. Mark really wants that revenue. Since 2000, generally any church can do whatever it wants on it's own property by just invoking the mere threat of RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Insitutionalized Person's Act).

Are you kidding me? The "not in my backyard" crowd is really getting rediculous. Anyone who opposes this better not have a cell phone or other device that uses the signals used in cell networks.The word hypocrite comes to mind. How would this person feel if it were their family member involved in a serious accident and they couldn't get help quickly because there was a lack of cell signal. I know I am not alone in the fact that I long ago eliminated my home phone service and switched to using exclusively cell. This guy builds his house within blocks of a major interstate and then doesn't want part of the infrastucture that supports it near his house? Is this the same type of person that buys a house next to the interstate ,taking advantage of lower prices due to proximity of the interstate, and then expects taxpayers to support a noise blocking wall? All too often in this area we continue to see things that benefit many be denied for the whining of the very few. The people that oppose major gas lines and power lines ,in my view, better disconnect themselves from those services if they feel the need to oppose them. After all that power or gas you use came through someones "backyard" on the way to your home.

It should be noted that the property line this is "80 feet west" of is the Interstate. Due to street configuration this is also about 100 yards from any private homes.
http://tinyurl.com/dkj3du
.
I think this is about as good a location as can be found in the general area (and no, there are no industrial parks anywhere nearby -- this is not where the city targets industrial development).

How many of the complainers are cell phone users themselves? Everyone wants the best service possible, then complains when the companies try to improve their service.
----------------------------------------------
“This is going to get rather unsightly, I believe, especially since it’s probably within 600 to 700 feet of my property,” he said. “I’m going to be looking at that tower all the time.
-----------------------------------------------

Oh please...you are *not* going to be looking at that tower all the time. There must be more outside your house to look at than a planned tower.

keep up your good work Doug and I hope your neighbors come together to keep these eye sores in their proper places like a industrial park.

8o)

;~)