Should churches, synagogues & mosques etc. be taxed?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Like I told you morons earlier, go back and check your history... when the founding fathers were debating the Constitution and Bill of Rights, some were lobbying for Church property to be taxable... wanna guess who was doing the lobbying for this? It wasn't social liberals of the day, it was actually the religious leaders! Yep... they wanted the Churches to be subject to property taxes in order to give the Church more power and control in government, and the founding fathers wisely rebuked the idea.

 

[Cancel8]

LMFAO.. No, still no evidence that you are retarded and ignorant, no one seems to have bothered with a study to determine that, we just accept it as a fact. Oh, and it's the entire phrase "prohibit the free exercise thereof" not just the word "free." If it is taxed, it is no longer a free exercise, you have prohibited that with a tax on the exercise. I don't know how much simpler this could be, or how much clearer it can be made for you. If you are too retarded to understand it and comprehend basic English, I doubt I can post anything to help you with that.

Tax on religious institutions, is a defacto tax on the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make NO LAW prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The exercise is no longer "free" once it is taxed. It would be the equivalent of saying you must pay a tax in order to cast a vote.

I certainly hope, if and when this idea does come up, it is proposed by a Democrat, so the Republicans can reap the huge political rewards for the stupidity.

Again for the retarded, no we shouldn't make them tax exempt because they sell a product and/or service for profit. Yes, I know, they also pay property and payroll taxes, because they sell a product for profit. They are not taxed for the right to publish.

The word "free" in the constitution, means just what it says, and when we go down this PC road of redefining what words mean, this is a prime example of why that is insane.

So your position is that the words "prohibit the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibit the government from exercising any control whatsoever over religious organizations, including the levying of taxes?

Consider this:

"...the object of the First Amendment was to prevent the national government from choosing one Christian sect [denomination] over another and establishing a single national denomination..."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html

That is the more orthodox view of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

I have been unable, so far, to find any supporting documentation for your inference of a constitutional tax exemption.

 

[Cancel8]

Like I told you morons earlier, go back and check your history... when the founding fathers were debating the Constitution and Bill of Rights, some were lobbying for Church property to be taxable... wanna guess who was doing the lobbying for this? It wasn't social liberals of the day, it was actually the religious leaders! Yep... they wanted the Churches to be subject to property taxes in order to give the Church more power and control in government, and the founding fathers wisely rebuked the idea.

I'd like to see a link to your historical source for that assertion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So your position is that the words "prohibit the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibit the government from exercising any control whatsoever over religious organizations, including the levying of taxes?

Look, I understand you are retarded and can't help it, but please stop trying to read shit into what I say, instead of simply reading what I say, it's starting to annoy me. I never said anything about the government couldn't exercise "any control whatsoever" over religious organizations... not found in anything I have ever posted... not something I have ever articulated. It's another ABSURDITY you wish to attribute to me, in order to perceive yourself as some kind of intellectual superior, but you are retarded. You can't be superior to me, you couldn't be even if you weren't retarded, I am a Legend. So it's really for the best that you give up these lame attempts to try and twist my words into stuff I never said, I am never going to admit I said something I didn't say, and it wastes time and bandwidth for you to make such absurd claims.

Levying tax on something that is a fundamental right, is not defined in any dictionary as "freedom" and you can't show me where that is the case. All along, you have refused to provide any support for your lunacy, other than citing court cases which do not pertain to the topic at hand. The government doesn't have any more of a right to tax religious expression as it has to tax the right to vote, or the right to speak. If we were talking about levying a tax on any person who voted, or taking away the right to vote from people who don't pay taxes, you would be livid about it... you could understand how that was wrong, and unconstitutional... well, same thing applies here! Same exact principles are in play! You can't TAX something that is an inalienable right!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'd like to see a link to your historical source for that assertion.

Nope... you need to stop being lazy and go learn for yourself. That's the best thing I can do for you.

 

[Cancel8]

Nope... you need to stop being lazy and go learn for yourself. That's the best thing I can do for you.

So it doesn't exist, and your statement has no foundation in fact?

 

[Cancel8]

Look, I understand you are retarded and can't help it, but please stop trying to read shit into what I say, instead of simply reading what I say, it's starting to annoy me. I never said anything about the government couldn't exercise "any control whatsoever" over religious organizations... not found in anything I have ever posted... not something I have ever articulated. It's another ABSURDITY you wish to attribute to me, in order to perceive yourself as some kind of intellectual superior, but you are retarded. You can't be superior to me, you couldn't be even if you weren't retarded, I am a Legend. So it's really for the best that you give up these lame attempts to try and twist my words into stuff I never said, I am never going to admit I said something I didn't say, and it wastes time and bandwidth for you to make such absurd claims.

Levying tax on something that is a fundamental right, is not defined in any dictionary as "freedom" and you can't show me where that is the case. All along, you have refused to provide any support for your lunacy, other than citing court cases which do not pertain to the topic at hand. The government doesn't have any more of a right to tax religious expression as it has to tax the right to vote, or the right to speak. If we were talking about levying a tax on any person who voted, or taking away the right to vote from people who don't pay taxes, you would be livid about it... you could understand how that was wrong, and unconstitutional... well, same thing applies here! Same exact principles are in play! You can't TAX something that is an inalienable right!

It surprises me to learn that the Supreme Court rulings I cited have no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the applicability of a constitutional tax exemption for religious organizations based on the Free Exercise clause in the Firstt Amendment.

So you think you know how I would react to a discussion of poll taxes because I asked you to validate your argument for a constitutional tax ememption for religion?

That's an interesting assumption.

Are you now saying that freedom from taxes is "an inalienable right" for religious organizations? What's your constitutional basis for that idea?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Are you now saying that freedom from taxes is "an inalienable right" for religious organizations? What's your constitutional basis for that idea?

No, one more time, pinhead... I am saying what I post, not what you are interpreting into what I post. Re-read my post, and quote me precisely, and I will respond. If you are just going to make shit up I didn't say, and try to argue with that, I am not wasting any more time with you. I've tried to be polite about this, but you just keep doing it over and over, and whether it's something you just can't help or not, is not my problem.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So it doesn't exist, and your statement has no foundation in fact?

Okay...since you DO have an obvious learning disability...

Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it.

This supports the actual statement I made, to which you are now perverting in God-know what retarded way, to claim I said something entirely different. As I correctly stated, the founding fathers had great debates in that day, of taxing churches and religion, and those who favored it most, were religious zealots of the time, not liberal secularists. Just sayin....

What you pinheads seem to be clamoring for, is something the religiously fanatic people of this country would LOVE to have! I bet Baptists have trillions of dollars saved up to do pretty much whatever they wish to have done in politics, just turn them lose and watch it happen! I can't imagine being a secularist liberal, having to watch a largely Baptist Supreme Court overturn 70 years of liberalism in short order, and restore Christian moral values in our government. .....But if you people are just hellbent on making that happen.....

 

[Minister of Truth]

the solution to avoid the old european solution is to tax all religious institutions equally - who said anything about taxing one more than another anyway

The smaller ones can't afford it. You'd be ruining every non-denominational institution in this country.

 

[Schadenfreude]

The smaller ones can't afford it. You'd be ruining every non-denominational institution in this country.

let them go back to the way it was done in earlier times and meet at peoples homes - adversity helps organizations grow, or fail

remember, we are talking taxing religious property and contributions like any other incorporated entity

 

[Minister of Truth]

let them go back to the way it was done in earlier times and meet at peoples homes - adversity helps organizations grow, or fail

remember, we are talking taxing religious property and contributions like any other incorporated entity

We're not all Quakers. Catholics specifically go to Church because Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. The larger institutions such as my Church and the Assembly of God would survive your assault on them, but few others would.

Furthermore, I would like to know what a tax-worshiping liberal like you is losing as a result of tax-exempt status for religious institutions.

 

[Cancel8]

No, one more time, pinhead... I am saying what I post, not what you are interpreting into what I post. Re-read my post, and quote me precisely, and I will respond. If you are just going to make shit up I didn't say, and try to argue with that, I am not wasting any more time with you. I've tried to be polite about this, but you just keep doing it over and over, and whether it's something you just can't help or not, is not my problem.

Look, I understand you are retarded and can't help it, but please stop trying to read shit into what I say, instead of simply reading what I say, it's starting to annoy me. I never said anything about the government couldn't exercise "any control whatsoever" over religious organizations... not found in anything I have ever posted... not something I have ever articulated. It's another ABSURDITY you wish to attribute to me, in order to perceive yourself as some kind of intellectual superior, but you are retarded. You can't be superior to me, you couldn't be even if you weren't retarded, I am a Legend. So it's really for the best that you give up these lame attempts to try and twist my words into stuff I never said, I am never going to admit I said something I didn't say, and it wastes time and bandwidth for you to make such absurd claims.

Levying tax on something that is a fundamental right, is not defined in any dictionary as "freedom" and you can't show me where that is the case. All along, you have refused to provide any support for your lunacy, other than citing court cases which do not pertain to the topic at hand. The government doesn't have any more of a right to tax religious expression as it has to tax the right to vote, or the right to speak. If we were talking about levying a tax on any person who voted, or taking away the right to vote from people who don't pay taxes, you would be livid about it... you could understand how that was wrong, and unconstitutional... well, same thing applies here! Same exact principles are in play! You can't TAX something that is an inalienable right!

So now you claim you didn't say "You can't TAX something that is an inalienable right"?

 

[Cancel8]

Okay...since you DO have an obvious learning disability...

Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it.

This supports the actual statement I made, to which you are now perverting in God-know what retarded way, to claim I said something entirely different. As I correctly stated, the founding fathers had great debates in that day, of taxing churches and religion, and those who favored it most, were religious zealots of the time, not liberal secularists. Just sayin....

What you pinheads seem to be clamoring for, is something the religiously fanatic people of this country would LOVE to have! I bet Baptists have trillions of dollars saved up to do pretty much whatever they wish to have done in politics, just turn them lose and watch it happen! I can't imagine being a secularist liberal, having to watch a largely Baptist Supreme Court overturn 70 years of liberalism in short order, and restore Christian moral values in our government. .....But if you people are just hellbent on making that happen.....

I'm not "clamoring" for anything, except substantiation of statements that you have made. If you can't or won't provide any, just say so.

So, do you have a link to a historical account of these "great debates in that day, of taxing churches and religion, and those who favored it most, were religious zealots of the time, not liberal secularists"?

 

[Good Luck]

...
501.c's cannot engage in use of PACs AND enjoy tax exempt status - but remove that by taxing 501.c's and they CAN engage in the use of PACs, as well as direct advertising, making specific statements about the candidacy of specific candidates, etc. etc. etc.

Do you REALLY want that to happen?

it already does and the government does squat about it

Liar.

Churches are specifically forbidden to run PACs, a prohibition which Constitutional only because it is specifically derived from their 501.c tax exemption status. There is not a single religion-operated PAC in existence. You will not find churches sending out fliers which specifically support or oppose certain political candidates either for the same reason.

What DOES take place is preaching about political issues from some pulpits, though most are careful to not mention names or anything else too specific - and liberal anti-religion pundits have a cow over even that much. (unless, of course, they agree with the pulpit message ("God DAMN America!!") and then it's just okee-dokee.)

 

[Based Chad]

Liar.

Churches are specifically forbidden to run PACs, a prohibition which Constitutional only because it is specifically derived from their 501.c tax exemption status. There is not a single religion-operated PAC in existence. You will not find churches sending out fliers which specifically support or oppose certain political candidates either for the same reason.

What DOES take place is preaching about political issues from some pulpits, though most are careful to not mention names or anything else too specific - and liberal anti-religion pundits have a cow over even that much. (unless, of course, they agree with the pulpit message ("God DAMN America!!") and then it's just okee-dokee.)

It's constitutional because it's derived from their tax exemption status? Tax law is not as powerful as the constitution.

 

[Good Luck]

I'd like to see a link to your historical source for that assertion.

The possibility of taxing religious organizations was discussed, and turned down as a bad move. You can find it in the minutes of the 1st (who wrote the BOR) and 2nd Congresses.

 

[Cancel8]

...If it is taxed, it is no longer a free exercise, you have prohibited that with a tax on the exercise...

So which of the other constitutional freedoms have been violated by being taxed?

 

[Good Luck]

let them go back to the way it was done in earlier times and meet at peoples homes - adversity helps organizations grow, or fail

remember, we are talking taxing religious property and contributions like any other incorporated entity

And if adversity causes them to fail, it is on government for deliberately setting up the conditions of adversity.

Many religions (Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews among many others) believe it is mandatory to have an established temple/sanctuary to worship in. Are you saying government has the authority to tell them they are wrong?

 

[Cancel8]

The possibility of taxing religious organizations was discussed, and turned down as a bad move. You can find it in the minutes of the 1st (who wrote the BOR) and 2nd Congresses.

I appreciate the tip.

I wonder why "Dixie" couldn't answer my request, since he made the statement.