Support Obama? No communion for you.

[Damocles]

Yes, the Humanists' paper did focus on 3rd world Muslims. The tables provided had no basis in fact and in fact it was hard to derive where in the heck they even pulled their numbers from.

Except it did, it was by population. And if you think it "focused" on only muslims then you either cannot read, or didn't read the analysis. It is not my assertion that the analysis is any more true than your opinion piece.

Funny, all 3 links work fine for me. However, do you still need more links to show that crime in areas where there are churches is lower? Translated in another way churches bring security. I have certainly done a better job at providing support for my assertions than you have for yours. No gottcha necessary beyond that.

Try them on this site. You copied and pasted them from a site that truncated the first two. Only the last link worked. I would like to have read such studies to see what premises they were based on. It is possible that people will change their activities if they believe in the church, but it is my experience that the proximity of the building does nothing to stop the actions of the criminals.

I know you'd like for me to ignore the fact you have not been able to support your assertion about the significant drain that churches supposedly are in American communities, right? You'd now like me to move onto your implied constitutional disparity? A discussion I never attempted to have with you, but one that you are more confident in having?

I have made no such assertion of a significant drain. I said that some churches, like the one I grew up in, can be a significant drain, not that all churches are. This is based on what you want me to say, not what I have said.

OK, Damocles, I think that when an organization files for tax exempt status there are specific criteria that they have to meet. That this criteria with regards religious organizations was hammered out under Adams I believe? I beleive that Adams was mostly against it, because he feared that then the governemnt might be able to interfere in religious freedoms i.e. political discourse? He also felt strongly that relgious entities might abuse such financial benefit. Therefore, when Johnson revised the policy in the 60's I also believe that those considerations were once again brought to the discussion. As to who qualifies and who does not, I would again assume that within the application proccess an organization that qualifies, religious, or non religious is vetted.

More comfortable on this ground?

And such vetting again, puts the government in the position of endorsing specific religions while "punishing" (according to another poster it is punishment to require them to pay taxes) others. Such a thing is directly against the 1st Amendment because it establishes two things.

1. That a belief in a religion is endorsed by the government.
2. That only government approved religions can receive such an endorsement.

 

[Damocles]

Well, I am off to bed and will pick this up later when I have some time. Before I go I will reiterate the points that I have made in the thread so far on this particular hijack subject. (Yeah, I like the hijack)...

The question I have is not whether they give benefit the only reason I stated the benefit issue was because it is the excuse given when asked why churches are getting such benefit from the government. I have asserted that many do and that some do not give benefits to that level, at least not enough to cover the cost of the government endorsement provided by exempting them from taxation and the overtly higher cost to everybody in the community, even those who do not believe.

I have never stated that no church ever provides benefits above and beyond that, just that the excuse that they provide benefit (which is what is used to say that they are worth their exemption) is not strong enough to overcome the 1st Amendment that supposedly states that the government will not endorse a religion through law (including tax law). I said that many, like the church I went to as a child, are most certainly a drain on the community and stated why as well as gave examples of how they spent the congregation's money and provided information such as the police actually had outposts in the church that were manned specifically for them during services and activities.

I have also stated that such taxes would not make it so no churches existed and so long as they never had to pay more than any other business in the area it would not be "persecution" to have them pay taxes. I provided my personal opinion as to what would happen if any religion were to have the same benefit so as not to appear to be endorsing the larger religions.

I also provided why I believe that such exemptions, especially when unequally applied as they are, are a violation of the 1st Amendment at the very least indirectly.

So far I have gotten a request to prove that all churches cost society, when I have made no such assertion, called "atheistic" because I believe that the government should follow the constitution and quit making tax law respecting religion, especially when such law respects only selected religions. I brought up that it forces those who do not believe to pay the share that churches would have given in property taxes directly and in sales taxes indirectly (especially in CO where property tax is constitutionally required to be set on a proportional basis with business and private property being in that proportions and including churches would bring noticeable savings.)

Well, that pretty much covers it. So, I'll see y'all later.