Should churches, synagogues & mosques etc. be taxed?
- Thread starter Cancel8
- Start date
So why would the use of the word "free" in the Second Amendment be subject to different interpretation, logically?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
How many times is your idiot ass going to post this red herring? I already answered you! Post #112... way back! Yet here you are, still yammering the same stupidity out of your pie hole... how much longer are you going to do it?
The second amendment is not worded the same as the first, the word "free" has 36 assorted meanings, depending on connotation. Taxation of a state, does not prohibit you from owning a firearm. You are attempting to take the meaning of "free" in one instance, and apply it in another, which I never stated was the case, and rejected when you first brought it up. Now, back to the TOPIC... can you give us some sort of logical basis for your conclusion that "free" doesn't mean "free from taxation" in the first amendment? Because that was what you needed to do, not run off and say... see? free don't mean the same thing over here with this other thing! That's a retarded, shit-smearing on the wall, pinheaded assertion to try and make. Stop smearing shit on the walls and answer my damn question!
So when you said "The word "free" in the constitution, means just what it says", what did you mean?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
When the Constitution says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, I take it to mean, the government can't tax religious expression in any way. Can you give us a logical explanation for why anyone would presume this to mean something else? I've asked you five times now, and you continue to slither around and try to find some point of contention that does not exist. You are being deliberately obtuse and ignorant here, and it has gotten very boring.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
You're the one who claimed that "free" means freedom from taxation, aren't you?
Since you made the claim, it's up to you to prove it.
It's not up to me to disprove it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It's called logic. You've not shown anything to suggest it doesn't mean free from taxation. It doesn't say "prohibiting the free* exercise thereof" *free offer doesn't apply to subsequent taxes and fees levied by the government.
There is no caveat or clarification, and the reasonable, rational assumption, just as it would be if you passed a FREE GAS sign on the highway, is that "free" includes freedom from being taxed by the government.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
are you seriously claiming that "free exercise" means freedom from taxation?
thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard...it says "FREE EXERCISE", eg, the freedom to practice, participate etc....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
dixie....are you free to walk on public streets?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Whether it's the dumbest thing you've ever heard, is not my concern, it is accurate. Taxation is an encumbrance. It is inherently (and logically) impossible to have "free religious exercise" which is taxed. The act of paying the tax, by definition, makes it no longer free. The "freedom" comes at the behest of a tax. You are not endowed an inalienable right to worship, you are granted this right if you have paid your tax. It is indeed, two completely different viewpoints on freedom, and what that means.
Yes, I am... what if some pinhead were here suggesting that all public streets have tax collection boxes on each corner, and you had to drop a penny in the box as you passed, in order to use the sidewalk? That analogy would be appropriate to compare to what is being suggested here. Or...If you went to hit reply on your latest paragraph of idiocy here, and a message popped up which says: The IRS has deducted a $.02 tax from your bank account for making this post... we thank you for exercising your taxable right to free speech.
You made the claim.
Repeating it doesn't make it valid.
Asking others to disprove it doesn't make it valid.
Now, can you cite any facts (not your personal opinion) for your interpretation of the adjective "free" in the Estabishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, I already have. LOGIC! COMMON FUCKING SENSE! KNOWLEDGE OF THE DICTIONARY! BASIC FUCKING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE! I gave you all 36 possible definitions of "free" in the English language, GoodLuck gave you a proper breakdown of grammar and how the word was used in this example as well as others you've offered, and you have presented nothing to support a belief or thought that it could logically mean something else.
How can you be FREE to exercise your religion if you are TAXED to exercise your religion? It does not comport with reason or logic, and you have presented NO EXPLANATION! It defies COMMON SENSE... it is beyond simple stupidity, and in the realm of mental retardation. Seriously!
Yet you are unable to provide a single source to support your contention?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're misusing the word encumbrance. you don't know what it means.
are commercials taxed dixie? are speeches taxed dixie? in that, is the money recieved from the commericials or speeches taxed?
your answer of course should be yes. so....explain to me how taxation of speech has hindered freedom of speech.
in 100 words or less dixie
bad analogy....you are in fact taxed for the street you claim you're free to walk on....thus...using your logic, you're not really free to walk on that street, because if you pay taxes, your freedom to walk on that street no longer exists
I found this information while researching the issue.
"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates."
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
"Every State and the District of Columbia provide for tax exemptions for religious institutions, and the history of such exemptions goes back to the time of our establishment as a polity.
The only expression by a Supreme Court Justice prior to 1970 was by Justice Brennan, who deemed tax exemptions constitutional because the benefit conferred was incidental to the religious character of the institutions concerned.
Then, in 1970, a nearly unanimous Court sustained a state exemption from real or personal property taxation of ''property used exclusively for religious, educational or charitable purposes'' owned by a corporation or association which was conducted exclusively for one or more of these purposes and did not operate for profit.
The first prong of a two-prong argument saw the Court adopting Justice Brennan's rationale. Using the secular purpose and effect test, Chief Justice Burger noted that the purpose of the exemption was not to single out churches for special favor; instead, the exemption applied to a broad category of associations having many common features and all dedicated to social betterment.
Thus, churches as well as museums, hospitals, libraries, charitable organizations, professional associations, and the like, all non-profit, and all having a beneficial and stabilizing influence in community life, were to be encouraged by being treated specially in the tax laws. The primary effect of the exemptions was not to aid religion; the primary effect was secular and any assistance to religion was merely incidental.
For the second prong, the Court created a new test, the entanglement test, by which to judge the program. There was some entanglement whether there were exemptions or not, Chief Justice Burger continued, but with exemptions there was minimal involvement.
But termination of exemptions would deeply involve government in the internal affairs of religious bodies, because evaluation of religious properties for tax purposes would be required and there would be tax liens and foreclosures and litigation concerning such matters.
While the general issue is now settled, it is to be expected that variations of the exemption upheld in Walz will present the Court with an opportunity to elaborate the field still further.
For example, the Court determined that a sales tax exemption applicable only to religious publications constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause, and, on the other hand, that application of a general sales and use tax provision to religious publications violates neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#1
"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates."
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
"Every State and the District of Columbia provide for tax exemptions for religious institutions, and the history of such exemptions goes back to the time of our establishment as a polity.
The only expression by a Supreme Court Justice prior to 1970 was by Justice Brennan, who deemed tax exemptions constitutional because the benefit conferred was incidental to the religious character of the institutions concerned.
Then, in 1970, a nearly unanimous Court sustained a state exemption from real or personal property taxation of ''property used exclusively for religious, educational or charitable purposes'' owned by a corporation or association which was conducted exclusively for one or more of these purposes and did not operate for profit.
The first prong of a two-prong argument saw the Court adopting Justice Brennan's rationale. Using the secular purpose and effect test, Chief Justice Burger noted that the purpose of the exemption was not to single out churches for special favor; instead, the exemption applied to a broad category of associations having many common features and all dedicated to social betterment.
Thus, churches as well as museums, hospitals, libraries, charitable organizations, professional associations, and the like, all non-profit, and all having a beneficial and stabilizing influence in community life, were to be encouraged by being treated specially in the tax laws. The primary effect of the exemptions was not to aid religion; the primary effect was secular and any assistance to religion was merely incidental.
For the second prong, the Court created a new test, the entanglement test, by which to judge the program. There was some entanglement whether there were exemptions or not, Chief Justice Burger continued, but with exemptions there was minimal involvement.
But termination of exemptions would deeply involve government in the internal affairs of religious bodies, because evaluation of religious properties for tax purposes would be required and there would be tax liens and foreclosures and litigation concerning such matters.
While the general issue is now settled, it is to be expected that variations of the exemption upheld in Walz will present the Court with an opportunity to elaborate the field still further.
For example, the Court determined that a sales tax exemption applicable only to religious publications constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause, and, on the other hand, that application of a general sales and use tax provision to religious publications violates neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#1
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so after i post case law on this and answers....mojo now has to copy my finds and claim he found them on his own
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Case law does not reinterpret what the Constitution says, and neither does the Supreme Court. The Constitution is not a "living document" in that regard, sorry. We are discussing the philosophy rooted in stupidity, that "free to exercise religion" means something other than "free from taxation to exercise religion" and you two have offered absolutely nothing to show that. Instead, you stupidly challenge me to prove that "free" means what "free" means! Then you run around patting yourself on the back because I can't produce something to refute abject ignorant stupidity, that shouldn't have to be refuted! I guess, because I can't provide a scientific study from NASA that the moon isn't made of blue cheese, it must be, huh?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It means a burden, an obstacle, a roadblock. Tax is a burden, it can also be a roadblock, and it is also an obstacle to something being "free!" Again, you have not shown one thing to contradict or challenge this, you just continue to insist this isn't so.... are you really that ignorant? REALLY?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Commercials are a commodity, bought and sold by capitalists. Tax is paid on the sale and profit of commercials. I fail to understand how this relates to inalienable rights endowed by our Creator... who didn't bestow the inalienable right to buy and sell commercials without paying a tax on them. What is your point? You are trying to compare apples to ferret droppings.
No, it is an excellent analogy, and your logic is flawed, unless those who don't pay taxes are not allowed to walk on the streets. Last I checked, you are able to walk on a public street, regardless of whether you paid tax for it or not. My analogy would require you to pay tax as you exercised your right to walk on the street, much like you are suggesting it is okay to tax churches and religious exercise.
Then, there is still the issue both of you are avoiding, the issue of "taxation without representation" which is pretty much forbidden by the Constitution, and has been vehemently upheld by the SCOTUS. You can't tax churches unless you intend to allow them representation in government. This means they would get to contribute to political campaigns, elect their own representatives, and pass their own laws and push their own agendas... is that what you guys really want to do? REALLY?
So "free" in the Establishment Clause means "free from taxation", yet you cannot provide any source to corroborate your interpretation.
But "free" in the Second Amendment does not mean "free from taxation".
Because you say so?