Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under that theory, therapists could not write contracts for services. I am sure that the contract could cite something provable, such as a seat on a church committee, the right to one of the front pews, a parking space, access to the pastor for pastoral services, etc. I can come up with many other options without going to intercessory prayer, although it might be enough to contract for prayer services.
"therapists could not write contracts FOR SERVICES"
DOING THE SERVICE is proof enough of the reasonable demonstration of your ability to perform on the contract.
So then the "church tithe" contract would have to say in it "you tithe is to pay for Chruch services"
In which case, they couldn't sue unless one received Church services without paying, having signed the contract.
Quote:
What? Contracts do not need to be taxed. I have worked for many educational institutions that are tax exempt, and we can legally contract for services and provide services, with no tax on the transaction. This is something that you are pulling out of a dark orifice.
No, it is not. Legal considerations often include Government revenue considerations.
Even Roe-v.-Wade ultimately came down about the "value of a fetus of a certain monthly age" to the State.
A "religious contract" cannot be enforced by the State and is thus not legally binding. A religious institution performing a provable worldly (secular) task (taking time to pray, preaching, etc) or transaction (painting the church) with a contract IS legally binding.
"tax-exempt" doesn't mean they simply choose not to pay taxes like Churches are allowed to. It means they filed that they are a NON-PROFIT or PUBLIC INSTITUTION or PUBLIC CHARTER and the State allowed that loss because they valued their existence (knowing the rich would not maintain their existence without "help/privilage" from the State) more than the State revenue loss.
I doubt having this aggregious Anti-American religious contract be upheld would be considered a "value to social stability."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encourages its members to pay tithing. It's supposed to be based on one's "increase," and whether that is considered to be one's gross or net (i.e. after taxes) income is left entirely up to the individual. While each tithe payer is asked at the end of the year whether or not he paid a "full tithing," whatever answer he gives is accepted and assumed to be truthful. He is not asked to provide proof of any kind that he is being honest. The idea of a lawsuit being brought against someone who does not choose to pay tithing is absolutely ridiculous. Each person who has given any financial contributions to the Church during the calendar year is given a receipt for the amount of the donation at year end, which can be used when filing one's taxes. We don't pass a collection plate and none of our tithing contributions go towards the support of our lay ministry.
I only said lawyers draft it because I doubt many would have the ability to write up a clear, "simple" non-interpretable, "with considerations to both parties"contracts that covers all the bases without a good lawyer.
Anything "illegal" or "unreasonable" in it is often enough to make it void in whole, but that often depends on the State law, not often the Federal.
For example, if one 18-year-old sign contracts about paying another 18-year-old a percentage of their income, there is no "damage" to prove if one negates on the contract. Thus no "consideration of both parties."
And what are the Churches selling for the price of a tithe? Nothing provable. That is enough to legally repudiate a contract. (see UCC 2-609(1))
Furthermore, to be an enforceable contract, the exchange would need to be taxed. I could not see a set of State Judges being so dumb as to enforce contracts that don't pay them, unless they see the "damage" of breaking such a contract as a grave threat to the under-the-table "social stability" which is often so important to them (since they make the big bucks and have great government-health-insurance and pension plans and investments, etc).
Well, from a social aspect it's certainly a good church as the sermons are quite engaging and the lessons learned are applicable to real life. Its diverse and members come from all sorts of life. It just raises the creep factor that they prompt you to place your signature after one of the members explains the expectations they seek from members (volunteering and tithing 10%). They also take your mugshot too.
Also, aren't you supposed to be warned that not paying 10% of income could result in xyz penalties before they can legally come after you for any unpaid $$$ ?
Next Sunday I'll see if I can get ahold of that particular paperwork that new members sign to post here.
could the church take these pledges and sell them at a discount, in order to raise money right away, and the congregation members would then pay their tithes to whoever owns the note (perhaps even using an escrow account)?
It could be a secondary market in tithe payments.
Vanguard or Fidelity could sell these as a REIT- a Religious Eternity Investment Trust.
could the church take these pledges and sell them at a discount, in order to raise money right away, and the congregation members would then pay their tithes to whoever owns the note (perhaps even using an escrow account)?
It could be a secondary market in tithe payments.
Vanguard or Fidelity could sell these as a REIT- a Religious Eternity Investment Trust.
A church that I've been attending makes people sign paperwork that describes their members are expected to pay 10% of their income as tithe..
I wouldn't sign this because there is a chance it is legally binding.
You need to find another church. They will retaliate by kicking people out who don't sign the document.
I have seen an increase in recent years, of churches charging for various things that used to be free, such as Sunday school for kids, nursery care, attending church functions such as church musical concerts, vacation bible school, charging or expecting a "tip" for baptisms or christenings, requiring books to be purchased for Bible studies, and the list goes on and on.
If it's membership then the only damage is caused by retaining the non-payers as members when they haven't paid, and thus all damages would be the fault of the Church for not kicking them out appropriately/legally. Thus the false church could not sue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
