What a fool you must be. If a church can be taxed it can be taxed into non-existence which would violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. If you want less of something you tax it. If you can legally tax religion you can eliminate religion.
Religious liberty
- Thread starter flaja
- Start date
What a fool you must be. If a church can be taxed it can be taxed into non-existence which would violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. If you want less of something you tax it. If you can legally tax religion you can eliminate religion.
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you simply a natural-born idiot?
My religion says I have to discriminate against certain people because of their lifestyle. Any law that says I cannot discriminate against these people violates my free exercise of religion.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Rein it in, I am not trying to tell you how to practice your religion. But I have some knowledge of numerous religions and extensive knowledge of christianity.
Rather than try and play that you have been harmed, how about telling us how you have been harmed or discriminated against?
I have the same authority that you do. And yet you want to amend the US Constitution. You said it was because people had lost rights because of their exercising their religion. You are the one who seems to think you have the authority to do something. I am asking for clear facts before we amend the Constitution.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
If you are going to use "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" as the basis for maintaining the tax exempt status of churches, why does this same thing not apply to everything else?
Taxing churches would involve property taxes and income taxes. Unless the physical building is a critical part of your religion (and I would enjoy seeing you argue that it is) you have no basis for saying that taxing a church would stop you from being able to practice your religion.
And rather than call names, try staying with facts.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
If your religion restricts you from having any contact with people who live certain lifestyles (if those lifestyles are legal) then it is up to you to withdraw from society. It is not society's duty to provide you with a place that is free from anyting you disagree with.
What gives you the authority to discriminate against sodomites (I am guessing you mean gays, but the word also includes many straights), pagans or other people? You claim your religion demands that you discriminate, and that is fine with me. But we are talking about commerce in our market place. Your business will be using public roads, access to public utilities, and more. So it is not a matter of your religion but a matter of commerce in the public venues.
Where is it in your religion that requires that you not work around anyone? You are not approving of their lives. Just letting them have a job.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
There should be lawsuits.
The Univ of Michigan is apparently using student fees and not tax dollars. So there may be some room there. Many public universities have religious organizations or support systems for student.
I do not know about the Byron School district and the muslim learning activities. But I suspect that you have selectively picked the facts to make it sound shocking, like you did with the San Diego government harrassment thing.
The Quran on display for the holiday is a problem is no other religious displays are allowed. If they allow all religions to have holiday displays then its equality. But I believe there should not be a Quran on display for Rammadan or decorations for Xmas.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The law does not mandate that you accept their behavior. If you hire a gay man do you actually think he will be having sex at the workplace? Is simply knowing that he is gay reason enough to deny him employment?
This is the sort of garbage that get my blood boiling. You think that your beliefs should be honored to the exclusion of all others. You are claiming that having a co-worker who is gay (or pagan) is denying you the free exercise of your religoon? Just by knowing that they do not abide by your religious rules means you are not allowed the free exercise of your faith?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Therte you go again, prattling about something that you know nothing about like a witless fool.
That was the explicit intent of the founding fathers that a person could worship any religon or no religion, if that is what they chose. Are you telling me that it was the founding fathers intent that we be coerced into practing some religion?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
First, quite saying "Christian" as if you own the sole point of view as to what a Christian is. You don't.
Second, just because a Christian has a first ammendment right does not give them the right to violate others 1st ammendment right which is implicit in your argument.
Third your argument is a strawman cause no one in this country is attempting to deny Christians their place in politics or commerce. That is an utter and complete misrepresentation.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
There you go again, speaking for fringe Christian groups as if they represent all of us Christians. As a Christian I have to tell you to stop it. You don't represent my views on Christianity. That in and of it self makes your argument a strawman. No one made you the American Christian Pope. You don't speak for me and the vast majority of Christians in this nation.
Next, you have to go to court because you are expecting the State to establish a formal respect for your religious views in direct opposition to the law of the land. That's not called persecution, it's called the rule of law.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh Christ all mighty, not this lame debate again. Sorry newbie, this one has been done to death.
When have I said it does not? Along with this religious liberty amendment I also support an amendment that would greatly regulate what the government can tax at the national, state and local levels.
How is it your place to argue that it is not? What gives you the authority to tell me what my religion can require?
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
The Christian faith requires its adherents to assemble together. This means that Christians must have places where they can assemble. If these places can be legally taxed, then the government has a mechanism whereby these places can be destroyed and Christians can be prevented from assembling and thus be denied their right to freely exercise their religion.
You are criticizing a religion that you apparently know nothing about. People like you are the precise reason why we need the amendment I propose.
It was not their intent to protect you from becoming offended, however. There is no guarantee that ideas that you don't like, religions that you don't believe in, etc. will be kept from your sight. The idea that you have "freedom from religion" is the idea that such ideas must be suppressed so that your tender sensibilities will be protected. It's a silly idea.
I haven’t said anything about not having contact with sinners. Jesus went to sinners the way a doctor goes to sick people. But, just because I have to tell sinners about the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not mean that I have to accept or otherwise aid and abet the sinners’ behavior.
Again you are trying to tell me that my religion must be. What gives you such authority?
Then explain why there is not.
What’s the difference? The University, a government agency, is making non-Muslims pay fees to subsidize Muslim ritual.
How do you know? What gives you the authority to tell me what my religion can and cannot be?
If liberals and libertarians ever succeed in gaining legal protection from religions that they don’t like, the next thing you know they will be clamoring for protection against political views they don’t like. And this is precisely why we have the 1st Amendment.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I am not trying to tell you what your religion requires. I am admonishing you for being vague about what your religon requires.
You are wanting to maintain the tax free status so that the government will to destroy all churches? Thats a bit farfetched, wouldn't you say?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You seem rather sensitive, to be accusing me of trying to tell you what your religion must be, and then demanding to know how I have such authority.
I have not claimed to have such authority. I have repeatedly asked questions that you have not answered. In other words, you are deliberately being vague and then getting offended when someone does not know what your religion requires.
I have been a christian my entire life. I do not ever recall being told I should not work with sinners. In fact, I recall being taught to show the way by example as much as by words and testiments.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Which is why I said there should be lawsuits and that I disagreed with the entire practice. You are cherry-picking my replies to lead to the wrong intent.