PDA

View Full Version : Should churches be taxed?


TonyR
08-27-2013, 10:42 AM
The author estimates the overall religious subsidy at $83.5 billion.

When people donate to religious groups, it’s tax-deductible. Churches don’t pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don’t pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don’t pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don’t pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get “parsonage exemptions” that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they’re doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/

Another article on the subject: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/22/churches_should_be_taxed_then_everyone_can_speak.h tml

Rohirrim
08-27-2013, 10:56 AM
I say if a church can show that the majority of what they take in goes to self-maintenance (at a reasonable level) and charitable works, then no, they shouldn't be taxed. If the preacher is living in a mansion, sporting bling and driving Cadillacs, then yes, he should pay taxes.

gyldenlove
08-27-2013, 12:33 PM
A tricky question. Undoubtedly some activities that churches engage in should be taxed or managed on equal footing with non-religious alternatives, such as schools, sports, camps etc. It is plainly not right that a religious organization should be able to profit from activities that would be taxed differently if they were carried out by any other group.

On the other hand religious groups and the activities they carry out directly related to maintaining religious activity should be protected, as should similar activities by non-religious groups.

houghtam
08-27-2013, 12:40 PM
Churches use all the same resources and infrastructure that I do.

They should be taxed along with every other non-profit organization.

W*GS
08-27-2013, 12:51 PM
Tax 'em. No breaks for cults. None.

Pony Boy
08-27-2013, 01:06 PM
I don't have a problem taxing churches, some have evolved into major structured business ventures.

but on the other hand you will never get past the First Amendment ....... but if anyone can trump the constitution it would be King Obama.

B-Large
08-28-2013, 07:46 PM
No- lets cut the churches a political break... They do so much good on an a community level... I am not religious myself, but I have seen the works in many churches and my catholic school.. It amazing.. Although it doesn't replace govt role in helping people..

I am also a big Joel Osteen fan.. I know, how can an agnostic listen to such tripe.. Joel is positive, inspirational.. He is what I expect from a God's messenger.. I leave every Sunday ready to be a positive person of influence, how can that be a bad thing? Thanks Joel... I hope you're the real thing, brother..

Fedaykin
08-28-2013, 08:22 PM
Churches should be held to exactly the same standard as any other similar organization (i.e. those that that are partly for profit and partly non-profit).

BowlenBall
08-29-2013, 03:51 AM
All churches should be taxed.

I'm an atheist -- why should I be forced to support and fund groups I disagree with philosophically?

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2013, 09:18 AM
All churches should be taxed.

I'm an atheist -- why should I be forced to support and fund groups I disagree with philosophically?

So I guess Planned Parenthood should definitely be taxed.

This idea of a tax exemption as making something "subsidized" is silly. The main point of the system is that you shouldn't tax an organization if there's no profit layer taken.

If you want to change that we should end the nonprofit system for everyone.

W*GS
08-29-2013, 09:23 AM
What is a "church", and, why shouldn't it be taxed?

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2013, 09:26 AM
What is a "church", and, why shouldn't it be taxed?

What is a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and why shouldn't it be taxed?

DenverBrit
08-29-2013, 09:39 AM
What is a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and why shouldn't it be taxed?

Why should I or anyone else subsidize religious beliefs??

Whether it is a Mosque, Cathedral or snake handling cult, we should not be paying for their rituals and recruiting.

If they feed and aid the disadvantaged, then I have no problem giving them tax free status for those activities....just like a homeless shelter or food bank.

Beyond that, they should be taxed just like any other organization.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2013, 10:08 AM
Why should I or anyone else subsidize religious beliefs??

Whether it is a Mosque, Cathedral or snake handling cult, we should not be paying for their rituals and recruiting.

If they feed and aid the disadvantaged, then I have no problem giving them tax free status for those activities....just like a homeless shelter or food bank.

Beyond that, they should be taxed just like any other organization.

In effect, they are taxed like any other organization. Businesses don't pay taxes on net revenue. They pay it on profit. In a non-profit, there is no profit.

How exactly would you determine what their 'fair share' should be? An arbitrary amount on whichever activities you deem unsavory?

A lot of 'eye of the beholder' stuff down that road.

DenverBrit
08-29-2013, 10:18 AM
In effect, they are taxed like any other organization. Businesses don't pay taxes on net revenue. They pay it on profit. In a non-profit, there is no profit.

How exactly would you determine what their 'fair share' should be? An arbitrary amount on whichever activities you deem unsavory?

A lot of 'eye of the beholder' stuff down that road.

Business DO pay taxes on net profit, a 'non-profit' is not taxed on ANY revenue.......profits included.

Calling an entity 'non-profit' doesn't make it so, it is a tax free designation, not a comment on its efficiency.

Still confused? Call your CPA.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2013, 10:24 AM
Business DO pay taxes on net profit, a 'non-profit' is not taxed on ANY revenue.......profits included.

Calling an entity 'non-profit' doesn't make it so, it is a tax free designation, not a comment on its efficiency.

Still confused? Call your CPA.

Efficiency? I think you might need to be the one who checks in with a CPA. The government doesn't go around looking at businesses' efficiency. "You could've really made more money, so we'll tax you extra." LOL

And most businesses do everything they can to reduce their taxable 'profit.' Many pay no federal taxes at all because they make no taxable 'profit' Yet it would never be argued that you are 'subsidizing' those businesses.

DenverBrit
08-29-2013, 10:37 AM
Efficiency? I think you might need to be the one who checks in with a CPA. The government doesn't go around looking at businesses' efficiency. "You could've really made more money, so we'll tax you extra." LOL

And most businesses do everything they can to reduce their taxable 'profit.' Many pay no federal taxes at all because they make no taxable 'profit' Yet it would never be argued that you are 'subsidizing' those businesses.

Again, 'non profit' is a tax free designation by the IRS, not a comment on their efficiency ie. 'profitability.'

I'm surprised you can spell CPA. ROFL!

DenverBrit
08-29-2013, 10:46 AM
Efficiency? I think you might need to be the one who checks in with a CPA. The government doesn't go around looking at businesses' efficiency. "You could've really made more money, so we'll tax you extra." LOL

And most businesses do everything they can to reduce their taxable 'profit.' Many pay no federal taxes at all because they make no taxable 'profit' Yet it would never be argued that you are 'subsidizing' those businesses.

You're ****ing joking, right?? We have been subsidizing corporations for years. The list is almost endless.

As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why we should stop subsidizing executive pay

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130802/COLUMNIST0150/308020008/Why-we-should-stop-subsidizing-executive-pay

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2013, 11:06 AM
You're ****ing joking, right?? We have been subsidizing corporations for years. The list is almost endless.

As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why we should stop subsidizing executive pay

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130802/COLUMNIST0150/308020008/Why-we-should-stop-subsidizing-executive-pay

Lolz. That Tennessean argument actually makes the drooler argument that businesses shouldn't be allowed to expense salaries if they're high enough to hurt people's feelings. Right in line with your "All money belongs to the collective. We Let the Individual Keep What We Deem He Deserves" logic.

So we have this dream team of scenarios.

Non-profit hospital system, pay some big 7-figure salaries. No "profit" Not Taxed.

Non-profit church. Pay a pastor $60k a year. Collective no likey what he says. Taxed.

Small "taxable" LLC. Structurally, all income is paid out in owners' 6-figure salaries plus expenses. Not Taxed.

Major corporation with multi-million dollar execs. Operated at a loss this year (on paper), including those salaries. Not Taxed (but maybe should be if I feel like their pay is unjustified) LOL

Is there any rhyme or reason to any of this? Or is it pure Libtard stream of consciousness stuff?

BowlenBall
08-29-2013, 11:17 AM
So I guess Planned Parenthood should definitely be taxed.

This idea of a tax exemption as making something "subsidized" is silly. The main point of the system is that you shouldn't tax an organization if there's no profit layer taken.

If you want to change that we should end the nonprofit system for everyone.

Here's a few examples why churches should never, ever be considered "non-profit":

http://www.texemarrs.com/images/jim_and_tammy_faye_bakker.jpg
http://bmia.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/rev-al.jpg
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/wright.jpg
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/flash/assets/asset_upload_file188_12278.jpg
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/600x537.jpg
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/westboro-baptist-church-protest-playoffs-god-hates-nba-1024x680.jpg

DenverBrit
08-29-2013, 11:23 AM
Lolz. That Tennessean argument actually makes the drooler argument that businesses shouldn't be allowed to expense salaries if they're high enough to hurt people's feelings. Right in line with your "All money belongs to the collective. We Let the Individual Keep What We Deem He Deserves" logic.

So we have this dream team of scenarios.

Non-profit hospital system, pay some big 7-figure salaries. No "profit" Not Taxed.

Non-profit church. Pay a pastor $60k a year. Collective no likey what he says. Taxed.

Small "taxable" LLC. Structurally, all income is paid out in owners' 6-figure salaries plus expenses. Not Taxed.

Major corporation with multi-million dollar execs. Operated at a loss this year (on paper), including those salaries. Not Taxed (but maybe should be if I feel like their pay is unjustified) LOL

Is there any rhyme or reason to any of this? Or is it pure Libtard stream of consciousness stuff?

Good grief.

Kaylore
08-29-2013, 11:34 AM
I don't think churches should be taxed. I do think clergymen who are paid should be.

BroncoBeavis
08-29-2013, 11:46 AM
I don't think churches should be taxed. I do think clergymen who are paid should be.

Which they are.

The real issue is the tax deductibility of contributions to non-profit organizations. But that gets into one man's charity vs another man's vice.

But I think these guys more like the idea of crashing IRS agents through that whole semi-permeable wall of separation in order to separate out what Gaia deems to be in the collective interest. :)

Arkie
08-30-2013, 12:09 AM
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/westboro-baptist-church-protest-playoffs-god-hates-nba-1024x680.jpg

Two things so very wrong
1. This group is not considered a hate group despite displaying more hatred than any group in history on anything and everything possible to hate.
2. They get to use tax exempt funds to travel the country protesting at funerals, from soldiers to school kids. ugh!~

barryr
08-30-2013, 07:47 AM
Churches do far more to help the needy than anybody else. Seems rather stupid for those that want to make it harder for them to do so just because they don't like religion. Then get off your butt and do your part and help people. Nah, easier to tell others to do it and want to raise taxes on those that actually do something. Great sense here.

Kaylore
08-30-2013, 08:37 AM
I work for a Catholic hospital group that is non-profit and they buy failing hospitals in urban areas and build small ones in rural areas where a for-profit group wouldn't see the incentive to do so. They are huge and doing amazing work slowly moving to a preventative model. Their motivation for doing this is entirely religious, though they employ differing religious groups including agnostics and atheists who just believe in what we're doing.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 08:45 AM
I work for a Catholic hospital group that is non-profit and they buy failing hospitals in urban areas and build small ones in rural areas where a for-profit group wouldn't see the incentive to do so. They are huge and doing amazing work slowly moving to a preventative model. Their motivation for doing this is entirely religious, though they employ differing religious groups including agnostics and atheists who just believe in what we're doing.

Great.

Do they still use the same infrastructure system as for-profit hospitals?

Tax em.

Kaylore
08-30-2013, 08:58 AM
Great.

Do they still use the same infrastructure system as for-profit hospitals?

Tax em.

You're just a hater.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 09:01 AM
Great.

Do they still use the same infrastructure system as for-profit hospitals?

Tax em.

Again, what are you proposing to tax? Lay it out for me.

W*GS
08-30-2013, 09:01 AM
Churches do far more to help the needy than anybody else. Seems rather stupid for those that want to make it harder for them to do so just because they don't like religion. Then get off your butt and do your part and help people. Nah, easier to tell others to do it and want to raise taxes on those that actually do something. Great sense here.

I help the needy. Why do I have to pay taxes?

Kaylore
08-30-2013, 09:03 AM
I help the needy. Why do I have to pay taxes?

You know if you can write off what you gave to the needy right?

W*GS
08-30-2013, 09:04 AM
You know if you can write off what you gave to the needy right?

I still have to pay taxes that churches don't, despite doing the same thing.

Why do they get a break and I don't?

Kaylore
08-30-2013, 09:09 AM
I still have to pay taxes that churches don't, despite doing the same thing.

Why do they get a break and I don't?

You do a get a break. You can write off charitable contributions. Anyone can.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 09:22 AM
I still have to pay taxes that churches don't, despite doing the same thing.

Why do they get a break and I don't?

Most Walmart employees don't pay (federal) taxes either. Would you say they're getting an unfair break at your expense?

Kaylore
08-30-2013, 09:26 AM
Tax breaks are given to people and institutions when the government feels letting them keep that money is of more benefit to more people than if it is collected. For this reason people and businesses and non-profit groups and religions get tax breaks.

If you are sufficiently poor, or don't make any money after expenses - and especially if you are doing charitable work, or at least work the government thinks helps society, you can avoid taxes, W*GS. Anyone can. Many people do.

DenverBrit
08-30-2013, 09:30 AM
You do a get a break. You can write off charitable contributions. Anyone can.

True, but to have the same tax free status Churches enjoy, we would have to be able to deduct ALL income, not just charitable contributions.

There are many religious organizations that give little or nothing, yet their entire income is tax free. Real estate holdings alone account for billions in non payment of property taxes that we must subsidize.

Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith… I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional." [24]

Works for me. :)

houghtam
08-30-2013, 09:32 AM
Again, what are you proposing to tax? Lay it out for me.

Here. Start reading this...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

And when you get to the part where it says, "Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations and ministers...", stop reading, ignore the entire rest of the article, and then place the word "not" between "has" and "enacted", and "any" in between "enacted" and "special laws".

Then take that and replace "churches, religious organizations and ministers" with "any non-profit organization".

Clear enough?

Property taxes? Pay em. Income taxes? Pay em. Housing for religious leaders? Pay the tax.

Pay. The. Taxes.

Clear enough for you?

W*GS
08-30-2013, 09:35 AM
Most Walmart employees don't pay (federal) taxes either. Would you say they're getting an unfair break at your expense?

They pay plenty of taxes - and their income is too low to pay much in federal income taxes. Wal*Mart also gets subsidized by us because their wages are so low.

Of course, corporate welfare isn't a problem for conservatives.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 09:37 AM
Here. Start reading this...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

And when you get to the part where it says, "Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations and ministers...", stop reading, ignore the entire rest of the article, and then place the word "not" between "has" and "enacted", and "any" in between "enacted" and "special laws".

Then take that and replace "churches, religious organizations and ministers" with "any non-profit organization".

Clear enough?

Property taxes? Pay em. Income taxes? Pay em. Housing for religious leaders? Pay the tax.

Pay. The. Taxes.

Clear enough for you?

Wasn't aware that the federal government collected Property Taxes. And Church employees are subject to the same income taxes you are. What other "income" would you tax? And Housing? Now you're grasping at straws.

And once you work this all out, are you going to treat every charity like this?

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 09:41 AM
They pay plenty of taxes - and their income is too low to pay much in federal income taxes. Wal*Mart also gets subsidized by us because their wages are so low.

Of course, corporate welfare isn't a problem for conservatives.

Non-profits, like most Walmart employees, spend everything they receive. There's an obvious disconnect in your logic here.

You can't say there's nothing to tax in the one hand and then say 'tax it all' in the other.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 09:51 AM
True, but to have the same tax free status Churches enjoy, we would have to be able to deduct ALL income, not just charitable contributions.

There are many religious organizations that give little or nothing, yet their entire income is tax free. Real estate holdings alone account for billions in non payment of property taxes that we must subsidize.



Works for me. :)

So treating a church like any other Charity is some kind of special favor?

houghtam
08-30-2013, 09:53 AM
I've got a great idea guys.

Let's compare "make so little money that if you taxed it, they'd likely be on welfare if they're not already" with "exempt because they are a non-profit with no political action, except we all know there is, but there are special laws which limit the IRS' ability to investigate, oh and there has only been one case of a church losing its tax exempt status even though I personally have been in several churches AND non-profit organizations where I have been exhorted which ways to vote."

Not exactly apples and oranges. More like..apples and...snakes?

C WUT I DID THAR?

DenverBrit
08-30-2013, 09:56 AM
So treating a church like any other Charity is some kind of special favor?

Since when were Churches 'charities'?

Some do charitable works, others don't, some are hate groups or just wackos, others accumulate large amounts of real estate and start businesses. Non pay taxes, regardless their activities.

They are not charities, they are religious organizations.

W*GS
08-30-2013, 09:58 AM
You can't say there's nothing to tax in the one hand and then say 'tax it all' in the other.

Since I didn't say that, you're just grasping at straws.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 10:06 AM
Since when were Churches 'charities'?

Some do charitable works, others don't, some are hate groups or just wackos, others accumulate large amounts of real estate and start businesses. Non pay taxes, regardless their activities.

They are not charities, they are religious organizations.

Is Planned Parenthood a "Charity?"

houghtam
08-30-2013, 10:07 AM
Since when were Churches 'charities'?

Some do charitable works, others don't, some are hate groups or just wackos, others accumulate large amounts of real estate and start businesses. Non pay taxes, regardless their activities.

They are not charities, they are religious organizations.

Yeah, and it's not just the Catholic Church. Go down south sometime. They have religious business colleges that teach people how to make a very nice living by doing this.

And of course they're not politically active... Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 10:12 AM
I've got a great idea guys.

Let's compare "make so little money that if you taxed it, they'd likely be on welfare if they're not already" with "exempt because they are a non-profit with no political action, except we all know there is, but there are special laws which limit the IRS' ability to investigate, oh and there has only been one case of a church losing its tax exempt status even though I personally have been in several churches AND non-profit organizations where I have been exhorted which ways to vote."

Not exactly apples and oranges. More like..apples and...snakes?

C WUT I DID THAR?

Yeah, you pitted anecdote vs anecdote. There are plenty of shoestring charities out there, both secular and affiliated. Many doing good work. The last thing we need is thousands of clueless federal agents sifting through it all to enforce the Orthodox Statolatry of the day.

Some (secular) Charities do dumb things with their money. Others do great public service. Some Churches do dumb things with their money. Others do great public service. So long as they're not being fraudulent about it, the government needs to steer clear of making values judgements.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 10:20 AM
Yeah, you pitted anecdote vs anecdote. There are plenty of shoestring charities out there, both secular and affiliated. Many doing good work. The last thing we need is thousands of clueless federal agents sifting through it all to enforce the Orthodox Statolatry of the day.

Some (secular) Charities do dumb things with their money. Others do great public service. Some Churches do dumb things with their money. Others do great public service. So long as they're not being fraudulent about it, the government needs to steer clear of making values judgements.

Except it's not a values judgment to say treat them all the same.

It's not a values judgment to say treat them all the same and don't tax them, so it can't be a values judgment to say treat them all the same and tax them.

Kaylore
08-30-2013, 10:21 AM
Except it's not a values judgment to say treat them all the same.

It's not a values judgment to say treat them all the same and don't tax them, so it can't be a values judgment to say treat them all the same and tax them.

You're over-simplifying a convoluted and complex issue that really needs to be looked at case by case.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 10:24 AM
You're over-simplifying a convoluted and complex issue that really needs to be looked at case by case.

Except the IRS can't look into churches and religious organizations because there are severe restrictions limiting their doing so, and even when they have, they've only been successful once.

If you believe that "success" ratio is representative of the political activity of the rest, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Sorry though, it's crumbling and could collapse at any moment.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 10:25 AM
Except it's not a values judgment to say treat them all the same.

It's not a values judgment to say treat them all the same and don't tax them, so it can't be a values judgment to say treat them all the same and tax them.

So you're saying tax all charities? How does that work? Does Uncle Sam Charities get a 25% cut of every charitable donation made in the United States?

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 10:27 AM
Except the IRS can't look into churches and religious organizations because there are severe restrictions limiting their doing so, and even when they have, they've only been successful once.

If you believe that "success" ratio is representative of the political activity of the rest, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Sorry though, it's crumbling and could collapse at any moment.

And if there's one thing Hough can't accept, it's any real restrictions on where the state can or can't impose it's will.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 10:27 AM
So you're saying tax all charities? How does that work? Does Uncle Sam Charities get a 25% cut of every charitable donation made in the United States?

Churches =/= charities

Religious organizations =/= charities

Ministers =/= charities

Once you stop playing this game, then let's talk.

DenverBrit
08-30-2013, 10:35 AM
Is Planned Parenthood a "Charity?"

Yes, what do they have to do with churches/religion?

houghtam
08-30-2013, 10:41 AM
Yes, what do they have to do with churches/religion?

You know, it should come of no surprise we're having this conversation.

If you don't like taxes, and you can't distinguish the difference between religion and politics, it's no wonder some people would just say NO TAXES regardless of how little fiscal or logical sense it makes.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 10:44 AM
Churches =/= charities

Religious organizations =/= charities

Ministers =/= charities

Once you stop playing this game, then let's talk.

So what you're saying is the "Wall of Separation" really means the State should be all up in the Church's bidness but leave everyone else alone. LOL

Your "Wall of Separation" really equates to State Supremacy. Which is exactly what Jefferson believed the Wall was constructed to prevent.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 10:47 AM
Yes, what do they have to do with churches/religion?

So an Atheist Planned Parenthood employee telling a Mother to get an Abortion deserves higher protection than a Catholic Church employee trying to get her to look at other options?

Congrats on that, if that's what you believe.

DenverBrit
08-30-2013, 10:53 AM
So an Atheist Planned Parenthood employee telling a Mother to get an Abortion deserves higher protection than a Catholic Church employee trying to get her to look at other options?

Congrats on that, if that's what you believe.

One is a 'charity' proving a wide range of free services to the entire community, the other is a religious organization that has spent centuries plundering the known world for its own gain.

Better?? :)

houghtam
08-30-2013, 10:57 AM
So what you're saying is the "Wall of Separation" really means the State should be all up in the Church's bidness but leave everyone else alone. LOL

Your "Wall of Separation" really equates to State Supremacy. Which is exactly what Jefferson believed the Wall was constructed to prevent.

Where did I say that?

Please, quote me.

I'll be here waiting.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 10:58 AM
One is a 'charity' proving a wide range of free services to the entire community, the other is a religious organization that has spent centuries plundering the known world for its own gain.

Better?? :)

So because some Catholics somewhere did something wrong in the past, the whole outfit should fall in line with the State? (regardless of that whole Amendment 1 problem)

If I can show you some Planned Parenthood agents doing ****ty things, are they no longer a "Charity?"

houghtam
08-30-2013, 11:00 AM
It's separation of church and state, not exemption of church from state.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:03 AM
Where did I say that?

Please, quote me.

I'll be here waiting.

You imply Faith and Charity can be separated. Which is silly, if you think about most Faiths and what they entail. In most cases, it's just not possible.

But your immaculate government even giving that a try would be far far more dangerous for everyone than just maintaining a proper separation.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:04 AM
It's separation of church and state, not exemption of church from state.

http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/cases/walz-v-tax-commission-of-the-city-of-new-york--2?q=

The Court disagreed, concluding that the purpose of the exemptions was not to advance or inhibit religion; the exemptions were available to a broad class of institutions the state found desirable, including hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. After examining the long history in the United States of exempting religious institutions from taxation, the Court determined that the exemption has not resulted in the excessive entanglement of religion and the government. In fact, the Court found, taxing religious property could increase government entanglement by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, and tax foreclosures. Further, demanding that religious institutions support the government by paying taxes would also create entanglement.

Hough: Psssssht
DB: Pffffffft

houghtam
08-30-2013, 11:06 AM
Typical big business mentality here on display.

"If you tax them, they'll have less money for charity!"

No.

They'll have less money.

How they choose to spend that is their own issue.

If you don't think churches and religious organizations can afford to tighten their belts a bit to accommodate it, I've got a ****ty bridge to sell you, too, Beaver.

DenverBrit
08-30-2013, 11:06 AM
So because some Catholics somewhere did something wrong in the past, the whole outfit should fall in line with the State? (regardless of that whole Amendment 1 problem)

If I can show you some Planned Parenthood agents doing ****ty things, are they no longer a "Charity?"

Any organization that enjoys tax free status but is not involved in charitable works, should have that portion of their income taxed.

The rest of your argument is silly.

Once more. I have no problem with money spent in charitable works by churches, or any other organization, being given tax free status for the dollars spent.

Buying billions in real estate for non charitable purposes need to be taxed, just like any other business.

Can't make it any clearer.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 11:08 AM
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/cases/walz-v-tax-commission-of-the-city-of-new-york--2?q=



Hough: Psssssht
DB: Pffffffft

Cool.

So when the Court says 26-28 weeks is the appropriate time before which an abortion can be legally performed, you're willing to accept that and not say 20 weeks is a "compromise"?

We can do this all day.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:10 AM
Typical big business mentality here on display.

"If you tax them, they'll have less money for charity!"

No.

They'll have less money.

How they choose to spend that is their own issue.

If you don't think churches and religious organizations can afford to tighten their belts a bit to accommodate it, I've got a ****ty bridge to sell you, too, Beaver.

Ah, the Collectivers flex their Contra-Constitutional muscle. "Screw the 1st Amendment, they can tighten the ol' belt so I don't have to." LOL

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:14 AM
Cool.

So when the Court says 26-28 weeks is the appropriate time before which an abortion can be legally performed, you're willing to accept that and not say 20 weeks is a "compromise"?

We can do this all day.

Has the federal government ever taxed Churches? Is that no-no some kind of new understanding? Or has it always been understood as off-limits because our understanding of the 1st Amendment didn't used to be so shallow.

Why do you guys think you can reweave the contract which holds the nation together at will without any negative consequence?

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:20 AM
Any organization that enjoys tax free status but is not involved in charitable works, should have that portion of their income taxed.

The rest of your argument is silly.

Once more. I have no problem with money spent in charitable works by churches, or any other organization, being given tax free status for the dollars spent.

Buying billions in real estate for non charitable purposes need to be taxed, just like any other business.

Can't make it any clearer.

Your argument is the silly one. Because there is no Consensus on what "Charity" is.

One group thinks funding Abortion is Charity. The other thinks preventing it is. The only civil resolution is to allow Charity to be beheld in the eye of the donor. Those who want to impose Charity per their own definition lead us down the road to Tyranny. And the sad thing is, they don't realize that every time they win, they ultimately lose.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 11:20 AM
Has the federal government ever taxed Churches? Is that no-no some kind of new understanding? Or has it always been understood as off-limits because our understanding of the 1st Amendment didn't used to be so shallow.

Why do you guys think you can reweave the contract which holds the nation together at will without any negative consequence?

So now it's cool to talk about the original intent of Amendments?

I don't understand your arbitrary interpretations...oh wait, yes I do, they're based off self-service.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:22 AM
So now it's cool to talk about the original intent of Amendments?

I don't understand your arbitrary interpretations...oh wait, yes I do, they're based off self-service.

Not sure you'd ever catch me making a non-originalist argument about the Constitution. Maybe it's happened. But I don't remember it if it has. Anyway, that tends to be my approach.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 11:25 AM
Not sure you'd ever catch me making a non-originalist argument about the Constitution. Maybe it's happened. But I don't remember it if it has. Anyway, that tends to be my approach.

This coming from the OMane winner for Poster Most Abused by His Own Arguments.

Awesome, then if we're getting into originalist interpretations, maybe you can revisit what "well-regulated" means with regard to 18th Century military terminology.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:34 AM
This coming from the OMane winner for Poster Most Abused by His Own Arguments.

Awesome, then if we're getting into originalist interpretations, maybe you can revisit what "well-regulated" means with regard to 18th Century military terminology.

Do you know what Originalism is? Go back to the dudes that wrote and debated the Amendment. That's originalism.

The clear intent of the people involved renders the whole prefatory clause distraction irrelevant.

W*GS
08-30-2013, 11:39 AM
I belong to the Church of Me, Myself, and I.

I don't have to pay many taxes now.

Right?

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:42 AM
I belong to the Church of Me, Myself, and I.

I don't have to pay many taxes now.

Right?

It's clear you don't understand what a Church being tax exempt really accomplishes.

Go ahead. Donate money to yourself. See if you get taxed. LOL

houghtam
08-30-2013, 11:44 AM
Do you know what Originalism is? Go back to the dudes that wrote and debated the Amendment. That's originalism.

The clear intent of the people involved renders the whole prefatory clause distraction irrelevant.

That was the same argument southern lawmakers used to secede.

"If we had known the intent of the agreement was that we could not get out of the agreement, we never would have reached it in the first place."

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 11:55 AM
Wasn't aware that the federal government collected Property Taxes. And Church employees are subject to the same income taxes you are. What other "income" would you tax? And Housing? Now you're grasping at straws.

Totally, complete, laughably false. Google "parsonage" (and know that that concept extends toward cash payments). I would really love to be able to compensate my devs that way. Would really, really cut my costs.

I'm sure the Red Cross, et al. would too.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:57 AM
That was the same argument southern lawmakers used to secede.

"If we had known the intent of the agreement was that we could not get out of the agreement, we never would have reached it in the first place."

And that's the same kind of fallacy that says since many ruthless dictators don't believe in gun rights, you're just like them. LOL

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 11:57 AM
It's clear you don't understand what a Church being tax exempt really accomplishes.

Actually, as per usual, the exact opposite is true. It's amazing how willfully ignorant people like you can be. Churches are not even remotely on the same playing field, tax wise, as other organizations.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 12:01 PM
Totally, complete, laughably false. Google "parsonage" (and know that that concept extends toward cash payments). I would really love to be able to compensate my devs that way. Would really, really cut my costs.

I'm sure the Red Cross, et al. would too.

Parsonage is housing. How does that make what I said false.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 12:15 PM
Parsonage is housing. How does that make what I said false.

Parsonage is an essentially unrestricted housing and/or a living allowance (cash) that is tax exempt. In other words, you can pay your church employee primarily in untaxable money.

Typically, a church will designate a portion of the church employee's salary as a parsonage, and that amount is entirely exempt from taxes as long as it's used for mortgage payments, furnishings, utilities, insurance, property taxes, house maintenance, home improvements, food, etc.

Those expenses typically consume the bulk of a person's income.

There are some restrictions, but essentially as long as you can actually spend the money on those items above, it can be any amount. Pastor has a mufti-million dollar mansion? Parsonage!


It's a great deal, and is clearly a distinct and separate tax treatment for churches.

Kaylore
08-30-2013, 12:52 PM
See it would have been easier to start this thread with "Do you hate organized religion?"

The responses would be identical.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 12:57 PM
See it would have been easier to start this thread with "Do you hate organized religion?"

The responses would be identical.

Yeah, because pointing out that churches get uniquely special tax treatment and arguing that they shouldn't is the same thing as expressing hatred.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 01:16 PM
Parsonage is an essentially unrestricted housing and/or a living allowance (cash) that is tax exempt. In other words, you can pay your church employee primarily in untaxable money.

Typically, a church will designate a portion of the church employee's salary as a parsonage, and that amount is entirely exempt from taxes as long as it's used for mortgage payments, furnishings, utilities, insurance, property taxes, house maintenance, home improvements, food, etc.

Those expenses typically consume the bulk of a person's income.

There are some restrictions, but essentially as long as you can actually spend the money on those items above, it can be any amount. Pastor has a mufti-million dollar mansion? Parsonage!


It's a great deal, and is clearly a distinct and separate tax treatment for churches.

I'm not sure parsonages are necessarily 'typical' And I'm not real up on the history, but I'm guessing it's grounded in how many clergy used to (and some still do) live their lives as live-in volunteers. Think of the nuns back in the day who lived in the convent and worked in the community basically in exchange for housing, sustenence, (and blessings)

How exactly would that kind of Protected Church work function if the roof overhead was treated as taxable income? Regardless, this is a rabbit trail. If this whole anti-Crusade were only about Parsonages, you could throw most of the arguments these other guys are making out the window. The idea that removing that exemption (not only granted to the church mind you)

http://chronicle.com/article/For-Many-Public-College/139187/

would result in any significant amount of revenue for the federal government is laughable.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 01:17 PM
Yeah, because pointing out that churches get uniquely special tax treatment and arguing that they shouldn't is the same thing as expressing hatred.

Pastors, Nuns, and University Presidents. See, you do think the Government is a church. LOL

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 01:19 PM
See it would have been easier to start this thread with "Do you hate organized religion?"

The responses would be identical.

They shall be hereforth known as the Sister Taxers.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 01:37 PM
I'm not sure parsonages are necessarily 'typical' And I'm not real up on the history, but I'm guessing it's grounded in how many clergy used to (and some still do) live their lives as live-in volunteers. Think of the nuns back in the day who lived in the convent and worked in the community basically in exchange for housing, sustenence, (and blessings)

How exactly would that kind of Protected Church work function if the roof overhead was treated as taxable income? Regardless, this is a rabbit trail. If this whole anti-Crusade were only about Parsonages, you could throw most of the arguments these other guys are making out the window.


Just be a man and admit you were wrong.


The idea that removing that exemption (not only granted to the church mind you)

http://chronicle.com/article/For-Many-Public-College/139187/


Not the same thing. That is a common and typical perk available to many (as your own reference points out, bluntly) as a condition of and tied directly to employment (i.e., if you leave that employment, you don't get to keep the house).

It's very similar to "traditional" parsonage (where the church person was just given room and board, but only as long as they were employees of the church.

That is NOT what "modern" parsonage / living allowances are. In modern times, it's cash income paid that church employees use to buy and maintain private residences that are not tied to their employment in any fashion.


would result in any significant amount of revenue for the federal government is laughable.

Removing the parsonage exemption (or reverting it to be tied to employment such as with university employees or the POTUS) alone would not make a huge dent, but no one has claimed that, nor is it the point.

Taxing the non-charity related assets of say the Catholic and Mormon churches -- now that would make a dent.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 01:46 PM
Just be a man and admit you were wrong.



Not the same thing. That is a common and typical perk available to many (as your own reference points out, bluntly) as a condition of and tied directly to employment (i.e., if you leave that employment, you don't get to keep the house).

It's very similar to "traditional" parsonage (where the church person was just given room and board, but only as long as they were employees of the church.

That is NOT what "modern" parsonage / living allowances are. In modern times, it's cash income paid that church employees use to buy and maintain private residences that are not tied to their employment in any fashion.



Removing the parsonage exemption (or reverting it to be tied to employment such as with university employees or the POTUS) alone would not make a huge dent, but no one has claimed that, nor is it the point.

Taxing the non-charity related assets of say the Catholic and Mormon churches -- now that would make a dent.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but the federal government doesn't generally tax assets. Mostly income. Taxing their assets would only serve to allow Uncle Sam to give the Church the Father Nelson treatment. :)

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 01:51 PM
Not sure if you're aware of this, but the federal government doesn't generally tax assets. Mostly income. Taxing their assets would only serve to allow Uncle Sam to give the Church the Father Nelson treatment. :)

EDIT: My Bad

Who the hell is talking about taxing asserts? We're talking about income that is not taxed here bubba.

Perhapas you don't (maybe you're a trust fund baby), but I sure as **** use my income to pay my mortgage, utilities, etc.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 01:57 PM
Not sure if you're aware of this, but the federal government doesn't generally tax assets. Mostly income. Taxing their assets would only serve to allow Uncle Sam to give the Church the Father Nelson treatment. :)

No, the feds don't tax assets, but they do tax the income made from those assets (capital gains, rental income, etc.) and the income used to purchase those assets. And of course, doesn't matter what level (fed, state, local) we're talking about, churches don't get taxed.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 02:03 PM
No, the feds don't tax assets, but they do tax the income made from those assets and the income used to purchase those assets. And of course, doesn't matter what level (fed, state, local) we're talking about, churches don't get taxed.

Yes, churches don't get taxed. And when Charities buy buildings, those don't get taxed either. Even if Capital Gains are realized. If either Churches or 501c3s make money on anything and hold onto it, it is not taxed. If at any point that money turns into income for any individual, it becomes taxable.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 03:22 PM
Yes, churches don't get taxed. And when Charities buy buildings, those don't get taxed either. Even if Capital Gains are realized. If either Churches or 501c3s make money on anything and hold onto it, it is not taxed. If at any point that money turns into income for any individual, it becomes taxable.

How much of their income do the Mormon and Catholic churches actually use for charitable purposes? Answer that for me.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 03:25 PM
How much of their income do the Mormon and Catholic churches actually use for charitable purposes? Answer that for me.

Can I answer? I don't want to steal your thunder, but I highly doubt Beacis can provide it.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 03:31 PM
Can I answer? I don't want to steal your thunder, but I highly doubt Beacis can provide it.

Heh, go ahead you know where I'm headed.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 03:41 PM
How much of their income do the Mormon and Catholic churches actually use for charitable purposes? Answer that for me.

Can't be any worse than this.

http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 03:48 PM
Can't be any worse than this.

http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/

Nice try at a dodge. Care to engage is some integrity and answer the question?

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:00 PM
Nice try at a dodge. Care to engage is some integrity and answer the question?

It's cute that you think there's a cut and dried answer. Are you talking about Catholic Charities USA... The Vatican? Regional and Local church-based community charity?

What is Charity? Is pregnancy counseling as much a Charity as Abortion milling?

Lay it out for me.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 04:00 PM
While we're waiting for Beavis to answer (like waiting for Godot), how about we also throw in these two facts:

- The parsonage exemption didn't exist until 1921. So much for the original intent argument.

- The parsonage exemption accounts for about $2.3 billion just in church and religious properties. So much for insignificant.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:02 PM
It's cute that you think there's a cut and dried answer. Are you talking about Catholic Charities USA... The Vatican? Regional and Local church-based community charity?

What is Charity? Is pregnancy counseling as much a Charity as Abortion milling?

Lay it out for me.

LMAO As I expected, you're totally lost. Houghtam, want to spell it out for him?

houghtam
08-30-2013, 04:04 PM
It's cute that you think there's a cut and dried answer. Are you talking about Catholic Charities USA... The Vatican? Regional and Local church-based community charity?

What is Charity? Is pregnancy counseling as much a Charity as Abortion milling?

Lay it out for me.

That is kind of the point, dumbass, and you walked right into it. The answer isn't cut and dry because churches do not have to document that stuff for the government. They can, but are not required to like other 501c organizations, because they are automatically assumed to be 501c organizations. The IRS also cannot investigate them like a normal organization. They follow a completely different set of rules, and have no accountability.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:06 PM
While we're waiting for Beavis to answer (like waiting for Godot), how about we also throw in these two facts:

- The parsonage exemption didn't exist until 1921. So much for the original intent argument.

Not surprising. Considering the income tax didn't really legally exist until 1913. Should they have enacted an exemption for a tax that didn't exist yet?

- The parsonage exemption accounts for about $2.3 billion just in church and religious properties. So much for insignificant.

What do you believe to be the Government's fair cut of that money? Then please tell me how significant a few hundred million is to the Federal Government. I'd love to hear all about it. LOL

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:12 PM
Not surprising. Considering the income tax didn't really legally exist until 1913. Should they have enacted an exemption for a tax that didn't exist yet?

You're forgetting that the feds aren't the only one's taxing. Funny how you think this is all about the feds taxation despite being reminded otherwise several times now.


What do you believe to be the Government's fair cut of that money? Then please tell me how significant a few hundred million is to the Federal Government. I'd love to hear all about it. LOL

What's a fair cut? The same cut that comes out of every other worker's (charity or not) income.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:12 PM
That is kind of the point, dumbass, and you walked right into it. The answer isn't cut and dry because churches do not have to document that stuff for the government. They can, but are not required to like other 501c organizations, because they are automatically assumed to be 501c organizations. The IRS also cannot investigate them like a normal organization. They follow a completely different set of rules, and have no accountability.

Man, that Separation of Church and State thing really irritates the hell out of you doesn't it.

Because if we want to make sure money is well spent, it should first be audited and blessed by the Federal Government, whom we all know places Financial Stewardship above all other virtues.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/politics/gsa-hearing
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/irs-spent-50m-years-conferences-report-article-1.1361220

In the free world, the solution is if you don't like how a Church spends money, don't donate to them.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 04:15 PM
Not surprising. Considering the income tax didn't really legally exist until 1913. Should they have enacted an exemption for a tax that didn't exist yet?



What do you believe to be the Government's fair cut of that money? Then please tell me how significant a few hundred million is to the Federal Government. I'd love to hear all about it. LOL

Do you really want us to get into a discussion on how important a few hundred million dollars is to the government with you and yours?

How many programs have you guys argued for defunding with less than $500m in government funds over the years? Yeah, let's go there. Hilarious!

Let's chalk this up to another argument that will be used against you when the next barrage of tax whining comes. I can't wait.

Nice dodge, by the way, but answer the ****ing question.

Oh wait, we answered it for you.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:15 PM
You're forgetting that the feds aren't the only one's taxing. Funny how you think this is all about the feds taxation despite being reminded otherwise several times now.

Am I supposed to give two ****s how California treats Gaia worship?


What's a fair cut? The same cut that comes out of every other worker's (charity or not) income.

Which would amount to next to nothing. Oh, and still wouldn't be a tax on churches, but on the individuals working for churches. Meaning repealing that exemption does next to nothing when it comes to "Should Churches be Taxed"

houghtam
08-30-2013, 04:16 PM
Man, that Separation of Church and State thing really irritates the hell out of you doesn't it.

Because if we want to make sure money is well spent, it should first be audited and blessed by the Federal Government, whom we all know places Financial Stewardship above all other virtues.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/politics/gsa-hearing
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/irs-spent-50m-years-conferences-report-article-1.1361220

In the free world, the solution is if you don't like how a Church spends money, don't donate to them.

Oh look, and right on cue.

Beavis - Complains about the IRS spending $50m, thinks the tax revenue on $2.3b is no big deal.

Can't make this stuff up, folks.

Pony Boy
08-30-2013, 04:16 PM
If you think southern Democrats back-peddled when there was talk of passing new gun regulations, trying bring up taxing churches and watch the Shiite hit the fan.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:17 PM
Do you really want us to get into a discussion on how important a few hundred million dollars is to the government with you and yours?

How many programs have you guys argued for defunding with less than $500m in government funds over the years? Yeah, let's go there. Hilarious!

Let's chalk this up to another argument that will be used against you when the next barrage of tax whining comes. I can't wait.

Nice dodge, by the way, but answer the ****ing question.

Oh wait, we answered it for you.

$500 mil? You think the average Pastor is paying a 20% marginal rate? Lolz. You need to stop learning everything you know about Churches from MSNBC. LOL

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:18 PM
Man, that Separation of Church and State thing really irritates the hell out of you doesn't it.

Because if we want to make sure money is well spent, it should first be audited and blessed by the Federal Government, whom we all know places Financial Stewardship above all other virtues.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/politics/gsa-hearing
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/irs-spent-50m-years-conferences-report-article-1.1361220

In the free world, the solution is if you don't like how a Church spends money, don't donate to them.

Again, you have it totally backwards. The current situation is what is violating the separation of church and state (and providing a gaping hole that allows non honest people to exploit tax laws brazenly). Churches are given a clear special privilege compared to non-churches.

Like my first post in this thread said: they should be treated no differently than any other organization. If they don't want their finances to be scrutinized, they shouldn't be asking for tax exempt status that requires that -- just like every other organization.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 04:18 PM
Again, you have it totally backwards. The current situation is what is violating the separation of church and state (and providing a gaping hole that allows non honest people to exploit tax laws brazenly). Churches are given a clear special privilege compared to non-churches.

Like my first post in this thread said: they should be treated no differently than any other organization. If they don't want their finances to be scrutinized, they shouldn't be asking for tax exempt status that requires that -- just like every other organization.

^ x 2

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:19 PM
Oh look, and right on cue.

Beavis - Complains about the IRS spending $50m, thinks the tax revenue on $2.3b is no big deal.

Can't make this stuff up, folks.

Your priorities are hilarious. "Let's break down that Wall of Separation so the GAO can do Vegas the Right Way." LOL

houghtam
08-30-2013, 04:19 PM
$500 mil? You think the average Pastor is paying a 20% marginal rate? Lolz. You need to stop learning everything you know about Churches from MSNBC. LOL

No, I don't think they are paying that...but we're talking about is vs. should here.

You need to stop learning everything you know about churches from...churches.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:21 PM
Am I supposed to give two ****s how California treats Gaia worship?


Nice non-sequitur.


Which would amount to next to nothing.


Fine. Give me tax exemption. It'll be even LESS, so shouldn't be a problem for you at all, right?


Oh, and still wouldn't be a tax on churches, but on the individuals working for churches. Meaning repealing that exemption does next to nothing when it comes to "Should Churches be Taxed"

Sure it would. Churches greatly benefit from being able to pay their employees less while still allowing them the same take home. Engage your brain dip****.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 04:22 PM
Your priorities are hilarious. "Let's break down that Wall of Separation so the GAO can do Vegas the Right Way." LOL

It's pronounced "straw" man...

Say it with me.

And an irrelevant straw man, at that. Like putting up a scarecrow in a department store.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:23 PM
Again, you have it totally backwards. The current situation is what is violating the separation of church and state (and providing a gaping hole that allows non honest people to exploit tax laws brazenly). Churches are given a clear special privilege compared to non-churches.

What's the privilege? The Parsonage? That's done in spirit all over the country by Government officials. You can argue the deets. But the principle is the same.

Like my first post in this thread said: they should be treated no differently than any other organization. If they don't want their finances to be scrutinized, they shouldn't be asking for tax exempt status that requires that -- just like every other organization.

Repeal the 1st! LOL

So can students start talking about JC during graduation again, or is treating the Church 'differently' still ok in those cases?

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:24 PM
$500 mil? You think the average Pastor is paying a 20% marginal rate? Lolz. You need to stop learning everything you know about Churches from MSNBC. LOL

median pay, according to the oh so reliable payscale.com (hah) is $45,000, putting the catholics (who can't marry) in the 25% bracket, and the average protestant in the 15% bracket.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:25 PM
Nice non-sequitur.



Fine. Give me tax exemption. It'll be even LESS, so shouldn't be a problem for you at all, right?

No, place reasonable limits on Parsonage. Take it off the table. Does nothing for the debate.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:28 PM
median pay, according to the oh so reliable payscale.com (hah) is $45,000, putting the catholics (who can't marry) in the 25% bracket, and the average protestant in the 15% bracket.

Payscale and taxable income are two different animals.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:33 PM
What's the privilege? The Parsonage? That's done in spirit all over the country by Government officials. You can argue the deets. But the principle is the same.


As I already told you, the principal is not the same. Saying "You get to live in this house for a few years while you work for us" is entirely different from "here, pay for your house you get to keep forever with this tax free money!"


Repeal the 1st! LOL


On what loony toons planet is treating churches the same as other non-taxable entities (i.e. fairly) a breach of church and state? We also have freedom of speech. Is taxing newspaper companies a violation of that? (hint: no)

Also, on what loony toons planet is providing special privileges to churches (but only the churches the government deems "real") not providing explicit support for a particular religion (or religion period)?


So can students start talking about JC during graduation again, or is treating the Church 'differently' still ok in those cases?

nice red herring.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:36 PM
Payscale and taxable income are two different animals.

True, but the point is we're talking about a class of folks that have more income, on average, than a typical american. In other words, the actual federal tax would be a bit more than average too.

That's currently around 20%

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:39 PM
No, place reasonable limits on Parsonage. Take it off the table. Does nothing for the debate.

Already said it wouldn't make a huge difference , but you've yet to justify why a minister (or rather, his church) should get a tax break that, say, a social worker, fireman, police officer, aid worker, etc. should not also get.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:43 PM
As I already told you, the principal is not the same. Saying "You get to live in this house for a few years while you work for us" is entirely different from "here, pay for your house you get to keep forever with this tax free money!"

Well the few parsonages I personally have seen in Churches I know about aren't like that. They consist of housing owned by the Church, lived in by the Priest(s), Pastor, etc. If you want to remove all other types of Parsonage, be my guest.

On what loony toons planet is treating churches the same as other non-taxable entities (i.e. fairly) a breach of church and state? We also have freedom of speech. Is taxing newspaper companies a violation of that? (hint: no)

Were non-profits mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights? And are there non-profit newspapers? At least intentionally? :)

Also, on what loony toons planet is providing special privileges to churches (but only the churches the government deems "real") not providing explicit support for a particular religion (or religion period)?

Goes back to that whole inalienable rights thing that you guys don't believe in. The Church held a special place outside of Government. It was to be both kept out of (as an organization) and protected from the Government. Jefferson wrote "Separation of Church and State" to a Baptist who was concerned about what the State might enact against his non-mainstream beliefs (at that time/place)

nice red herring.

Not at all. You hate special provision being made. Unmake it.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 04:43 PM
Already said it wouldn't make a huge difference , but you've yet to justify why a minister (or rather, his church) should get a tax break that, say, a social worker, fireman, police officer, aid worker, etc. should not also get.

Hey there we go. Great opportunity for compromise here. :)

Teachers, social workers, government employees police, fire, doctors...all should get parsonage exemptions.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:45 PM
Already said it wouldn't make a huge difference , but you've yet to justify why a minister (or rather, his church) should get a tax break that, say, a social worker, fireman, police officer, aid worker, etc. should not also get.

Or Governor, or President? Or does Governance place you above the Governed?

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 04:48 PM
True, but the point is we're talking about a class of folks that have more income, on average, than a typical american. In other words, the actual federal tax would be a bit more than average too.

That's currently around 20%

Yeah, that's completely unrealistic.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/18/us/effective-income-tax-rates.html?_r=0

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:54 PM
Were non-profits mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights? And are there non-profit newspapers? At least intentionally? :)


Irrelevant sillyness, and you know it.


Goes back to that whole inalienable rights thing that you guys don't believe in. The Church held a special place outside of Government. It was to be both kept out of (as an organization) and protected from the Government. Jefferson wrote "Separation of Church and State" to a Baptist who was concerned about what the State might enact against his non-mainstream beliefs (at that time/place)


How does either

a.) taxing an organization according to the same standards as all other organizations or
b.) providing a tax exemption with documentation requirements, again according to the same standars as all other organizations

violate the free expression of religion? Again, does taxing a newspaper violate its right to free speech? (again, hint: no)

Since when is treating an organization precisely the same as all others tie it to any other organization? When Wal-Mart gets taxed is it being taken over by the government?

Also, though it's a distraction it's one that tickles my fancy: There is no such thing as a "right", especially an "inalienable" one. If you question this, just ask a condemned prisoner about perhaps the most important supposed right: his "inalienable right" to life.

Perhaps you have a different definition of inalienable than the rest of us?


Not at all. You hate special provision being made. Unmake it.

Don't presume to speak for me.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:54 PM
Yeah, that's completely unrealistic.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/18/us/effective-income-tax-rates.html?_r=0

I'm not talking about income tax only.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 04:55 PM
Or Governor, or President? Or does Governance place you above the Governed?

You just can't help yourself with your strawmen, red herrings and other irrelevancies when you're getting crushed, can you?

houghtam
08-30-2013, 05:01 PM
Don't presume to speak for me.

With Beavis' current display of his intelligence, he's lucky we're letting him to speak to us.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 05:08 PM
Irrelevant sillyness, and you know it.



How does either

a.) taxing an organization according to the same standards as all other organizations or
b.) providing a tax exemption with documentation requirements, again according to the same standars as all other organizations

violate the free expression of religion? Again, does taxing a newspaper violate its right to free speech? (again, hint: no)

Since when is treating an organization precisely the same as all others tie it to any other organization? When Wal-Mart gets taxed is it being taken over by the government?

Also, though it's a distraction it's one that tickles my fancy: There is no such thing as a "right", especially an "inalienable" one. If you question this, just ask a condemned prisoner about perhaps the most important supposed right: his "inalienable right" to life.

Perhaps you have a different definition of inalienable than the rest of us?

Why do you jump back and forth between for-profits and non-profits. By no definition could you ever make The Church a for-profit. You only muddy the water by constantly bringing in irrelevant examples.

As for inalienable rights, the context of those rights in regards to the Church is inseparable from the Separation of Church and State argument. They were specifically called out in the Danbury Baptist letter Jefferson was replying to (in support of)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_an d_state#Wall_of_separation

He flat out states that a world of State-Doled "Privelege" especially in relation to the Church were "inconsistent with the Rights of freemen"

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 05:09 PM
You just can't help yourself with your strawmen, red herrings and other irrelevancies when you're getting crushed, can you?

I always laugh at Masterdebater that declares his own victory. It gets kinda sad after awhile though.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 05:12 PM
Yeah, that's completely unrealistic.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/18/us/effective-income-tax-rates.html?_r=0

Dem's some crazy numbers in that chart.

An (averages) income of 64k amounting to 13% income+payroll is total bull****.

Payroll tax (SS+MED) is either ~8% or ~16% (depending on your view, since half is paid by the employee and half is paid by the employer).

Typically, you can squeeze about $30,000 in deductions, if you can afford it (the bulk being mortgage interest and 401k contributions)

So, we're talking 34k taxable income (again, being very generous assuming someone can max the typical deductions). In 2013 rates that amounts to 14% income tax for a single person.

So, we're talking 14+8?+ 22%(30%)

And again, that's best case scenario, assuming you can max out your mortgage deduction and your 401k (if you have it).

Toss in another 3-5% for state taxes (depends a lot on states, deduction rules, etc.)


14% total federal payroll+income on 64 gross my ass.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 05:12 PM
I'm not talking about income tax only.

Oooh, I guess you're hand wringing in excitement over the 1 or 2% State Governments might rake on property. That'll fix everything. LOL

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 05:13 PM
I always laugh at Masterdebater that declares his own victory. It gets kinda sad after awhile though.

Oh look, more irrelevancies! Try to actually provide some sort of feasible defense of your ideas instead of more bull****, aight?

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 05:14 PM
Oooh, I guess you're hand wringing in excitement over the 1 or 2% State Governments might rake on property. That'll fix everything. LOL

Just can't get yourself away from thrashing at that strawman, can you. Jesus you are a piece of work!

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 05:14 PM
Dem's some crazy numbers in that chart.

An (averages) income of 64k amounting to 13% income+payroll is total bull****.

Payroll tax (SS+MED) is either ~8% or ~16% (depending on your view, since half is paid by the employee and half is paid by the employer).

Typically, you can squeeze about $30,000 in deductions, if you can afford it (the bulk being mortgage interest and 401k contributions)

So, we're talking 36k taxable income (again, being very generous assuming someone can max the typical deductions). In 2013 rates that amounts to 14% income tax for a single person.

So, we're talking 14+8?+ 22%(30%)

And again, that's best case scenario, assuming you can max out your mortgage deduction and your 401k (if you have it).

Toss in another 3-5% for state taxes (depends a lot on states, deduction rules, etc.)


14% total federal payroll+income my ass.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Looks like you've got a lot of people to argue with.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 05:19 PM
Oh look, more irrelevancies! Try to actually provide some sort of feasible defense of your ideas instead of more bull****, aight?

It's hard to debate against "The Church Should be Treated Exactly the Same Even Though The Constitution Says It's Different! But Only When I Say So. Other times treating them differently is OK. So long as it works against them either way." LOL

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 05:37 PM
It's hard to debate against "The Church Should be Treated Exactly the Same Even Though The Constitution Says It's Different!

Of course it's hard to argue on the wrong side of the coin...

The constitution states that the government should not prevent the free (free as in speech, not free as in beer, hah!) exercise of religion. You have yet to answer how the free exercise of religion is prevented by either of the two conditions I stated. Do you have the integrity to answer that or will you just continue with the diversions?

But Only When I Say So. Other times treating them differently is OK. So long as it works against them either way." LOL

More strawmen slaughter. You're *really* good at that!

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 06:05 PM
Why do you jump back and forth between for-profits and non-profits.


As best I can tell, your argument is taxation ( in and of itself) is government interfering in freedom of the right to practice religion. By that deeply flawed logic, taxation of any activity related to a right (implied or otherwise) is unconsititional (hence the references to newspapers and commerce entities).

I'm reminded of the open source meme. It's free as in speech, not free as in beer.


By no definition could you ever make The Church a for-profit. You only muddy the water by constantly bringing in irrelevant examples.


Tell that the the Church of Scientology (an officially recognized church) or any of thousands of miscreants that have abused the special privileges of churches.


As for inalienable rights, the context of those rights in regards to the Church is inseparable from the Separation of Church and State argument. They were specifically called out in the Danbury Baptist letter Jefferson was replying to (in support of)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_an d_state#Wall_of_separation

He flat out states that a world of State-Doled "Privelege" especially in relation to the Church were "inconsistent with the Rights of freemen"

Inalienable right. Great idealism, but simply does not exist. The only "rights" we have are the ones we fight to keep.

Anyway, once again: how does taxation interfere with freedom of religion, but not interfere with freedom of speech?

Moreover, the second amendment is not about churches, it's about freedom of religion. Do you understand the difference? It is meant to prevent the unification of religion and government, but does NOT grant religious organizations special privileges outside of that protection.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 06:37 PM
As best I can tell, your argument is taxation ( in and of itself) is government interfering in freedom of the right to practice religion. By that deeply flawed logic, taxation of any activity related to a right (implied or otherwise) is unconsititional (hence the references to newspapers and commerce entities).

That "deeply flawed logic" is Supreme Court (and basically foundational) precedent. Berger Court believe it or not.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664

Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an indirect economic benefit, and also gives rise to some, but yet a lesser, involvement than taxing [p675] them. In analyzing either alternative, the questions are whether the involvement is excessive and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement. Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; [n3] each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees "on the public payroll." There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion. As Mr. Justice Holmes commented in a related context, "a page of [p676] history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921). The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Really, read the whole thing. It leaves you nothing left to stand on.

Inalienable right. Great idealism, but simply does not exist. The only "rights" we have are the ones we fight to keep.

Survival of the Fittest Codified. Be thankful more people don't believe as you do.

Eldorado
08-30-2013, 06:39 PM
So, beavis=troll. Right?

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 06:42 PM
Tell that the the Church of Scientology (an officially recognized church) or any of thousands of miscreants that have abused the special privileges of churches.

I think the saying goes something like, "It's more important for the innocent to be protected than the guilty to be punished"

Things won't all shake out how you like them in a free country. It's the price of admisssion. If you can't deal with that, you have to ask yourself why you view your role as another man's master.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 06:48 PM
So, beavis=troll. Right?

Yeah, except instead of making you answer three questions to cross his bridge, he makes YOU ask three questions, which he will then dodge, create strawmen for, and subsequently refuse to answer.

LOL

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 06:54 PM
Yeah, except instead of making you answer three questions to cross his bridge, he makes YOU ask three questions, which he will then dodge, create strawmen for, and subsequently refuse to answer.

LOL

Sometimes summing up an argument only looks like a strawman because it was so hollow to begin with. LOL

houghtam
08-30-2013, 07:00 PM
Also trolls tend to wear loin cloths, which suggests at least some sense of shame.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 07:04 PM
Also trolls tend to wear loin cloths, which suggests at least some sense of shame.

Vs. Official State Worship, which from what I hear is a purely nudist pursuit.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 07:07 PM
Moreover, the second amendment is not about churches, it's about freedom of religion. Do you understand the difference? It is meant to prevent the unification of religion and government, but does NOT grant religious organizations special privileges outside of that protection.

Second Amendment? What the eff are you talking about? The Danbury Baptist exchange is the entire legal foundation for Separation of Church and State as read into the First Amendment.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 07:17 PM
Second Amendment? What the eff are you talking about? The Danbury Baptist exchange is the entire legal foundation for Separation of Church and State as read into the First Amendment.

This coming from the guy who said, when comparing Separation of Church and State to the Second Amendment (and I'm paraphrasing here...) "DURRRRR, You realize only one of them was written into the Constitution, right? DURRRRR."

And it was a typo.

Douche.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 07:31 PM
How dense is your skull? Do you need a special traction device for that thing?

He made a typo. It is quite obvious he was referring to the First Amendment.

You then say the Danbury letter is the "entire legal foundation" for the idea of SCS, only after arguing that somehow one being written into the Constitution and one not is significant.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=109990

So which is it?

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 07:43 PM
How dense is your skull? Do you need a special traction device for that thing?

He made a typo. It is quite obvious he was referring to the First Amendment.

You then say the Danbury letter is the "entire legal foundation" for the idea of SCS, only after arguing that somehow one being written into the Constitution and one not is significant.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=109990

So which is it?

It's not one or the other. Separation of Church and State has an exaggerated influence because it's a more recent invention. Asking for a consistent application from its most ardent supporters does nothing to absolve it completely from criticism. You can make an originalist argument to bring SOCAS into consideration for context. But it can never be interpreted to supercede the actual 1st Amendment in regards to Free Exercise Thereof. But it seems that against Free Exercise is the only context in which you like to wield it. Even though doing so is to take Jefferson's words 100% out of context.

But as far as the issue of taxation? That Supreme Court decision makes any argument for State taxation of the Church look like Open Mic Night Comedy Hour.

It is significant that Congress, from its earliest days, has viewed the Religion Clauses of the Constitution as authorizing statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies. In 1802, the 7th Congress enacted a taxing statute for the County of Alexandria, adopting the 1800 Virginia statutory pattern which provided tax exemptions for churches. 2 Stat. 194. [n5] As early as 1813, the 12th Congress refunded import duties paid by religious societies on the importation of religious articles. [n6] During this period, the City Council of Washington, D.C., acting under congressional authority, Act of Incorporation, § 7, 2 Stat. 197 (May 3, 1802), enacted a series of real and personal property assessments that uniformly exempted church property. [n7] In 1870, the Congress specifically exempted all churches in the District of Columbia [p678] and appurtenant grounds and property "from any and all taxes or assessments, national, municipal, or county." Act of June 17, 1870, 16 Stat. 153. [n8]

It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence, and indeed predates it. Yet an unbroken practice of according the exemption to churches, openly and by affirmative state action, not covertly or by state inaction, is not something to be lightly cast aside. Nearly 50 years ago, Mr. Justice Holmes stated:

If a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it. . . .

So you want to do things differently than they've ever been done over centuries. Interpret words differently than they've been interpreted for hundreds of years, and use as justification nothing other than some unwritten sense of politicized progressive justice. Not sure what it is about people who want to change the contract by fiat. Amendment is the Constitutional (and democratic) solution. Quit trying to rewrite law via reinterpretation.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 07:48 PM
That "deeply flawed logic" is Supreme Court (and basically foundational) precedent. Berger Court believe it or not.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664



Really, read the whole thing. It leaves you nothing left to stand on.



Survival of the Fittest Codified. Be thankful more people don't believe as you do.


Augment from authority. Completely unimpressive.

And yes, I meant the first amendment. Don't be so obtuse.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 07:52 PM
And once again Beavis, I'm aruging not for taxation of churches, but for equitable treatment by the federal government. As I've said a few times before, churches should be held to the same standard as any other organization in order to receive and maintain tax exempt status.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 07:52 PM
It's not one or the other. Separation of Church and State has an exaggerated influence because it's a more recent invention. Asking for a consistent application from its most ardent supporters does nothing to absolve it completely from criticism. You can make an originalist argument to bring SOCAS into consideration for context. But it can never be interpreted to supercede the actual 1st Amendment in regards to Free Exercise Thereof. But it seems that against Free Exercise is the only context in which you like to wield it. Even though doing so is to take Jefferson's words 100% out of context.

But as far as the issue of taxation? That Supreme Court decision makes any argument for State taxation of the Church look like Open Mic Night Comedy Hour.



So you want to do things differently than they've ever been done over centuries. Interpret words differently than they've been interpreted for hundreds of years, and use as justification nothing other than some unwritten sense of politicized progressive justice. Not sure what it is about people who want to change the contract by fiat. Amendment is the Constitutional (and democratic) solution. Quit trying to rewrite law via reinterpretation.

Wait wait wait...

ARGUMENT BY HYPERLINK

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3541380&postcount=179

What a sad sack.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 07:53 PM
And once again Beavis, I'm aruging not for taxation of churches, but for equitable treatment by the federal government. As I've said a few times before, churches should be held to the same standard as any other organization in order to receive and maintain tax exempt status.

^ x 2

Or is it x 4 now?

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 08:06 PM
Survival of the Fittest Codified. Be thankful more people don't believe as you do.

That has nothing to do with any concept of survival of the fittest. It has to do with fighting to make sure that our government stays a government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

You know, the whole concept that the founders laid out for out government...

houghtam
08-30-2013, 08:10 PM
That has nothing to do with any concept of survival of the fittest. It has to do with fighting to make sure that our government stays a government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

You know, the whole concept that the founders laid out for out government...

After, of course, unambiguously assuring special treatment for churches while simultaneously somehow leaving the whole concept of God out of the document.

Fedaykin
08-30-2013, 08:11 PM
After, of course, unambiguously assuring special treatment for churches while simultaneously somehow leaving the whole concept of God out of the document.

especially amazing as churches aren't even mentioned!

houghtam
08-30-2013, 08:14 PM
especially amazing as churches aren't even mentioned!

They were renaissance men. True trailblazers, and well ahead of their time.

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:20 PM
And once again Beavis, I'm aruging not for taxation of churches, but for equitable treatment by the federal government. As I've said a few times before, churches should be held to the same standard as any other organization in order to receive and maintain tax exempt status.

That's the same thing the Plaintiff argued in the epic Walz v. Tax Commission smack down where Proggy Hero Warren Berger completely dismantled your argument.

What do you think he meant when he wrote:

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

The Court specifically said that the State enforcing taxes on the Church would be more problematic than any tax exemption.

But I'm sure the Roe V Wade Supreme Court's opinions mean nothing compared to the vaunted opinions of a couple of Football Forum Progressive Utopian legal scholars. LOL

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:25 PM
That has nothing to do with any concept of survival of the fittest. It has to do with fighting to make sure that our government stays a government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

And of the 51% to piss in the 49%'s corn flakes. An outcome the Constitution was explicitly constructed to prevent. The very same construction that your 'living, breathing' interpretations work overtime to dismantle.

houghtam
08-30-2013, 11:30 PM
For someone who thinks 20 weeks is a compromise, you're sure hanging on every word of the Supreme Court.

Like I said, when it works for you...

BroncoBeavis
08-30-2013, 11:51 PM
For someone who thinks 20 weeks is a compromise, you're sure hanging on every word of the Supreme Court.

Like I said, when it works for you...

Well at least I can hang my hat on the Constitutional Abortion issue being in its relative infancy.

Can you point to a single example in the History of the United States of a Church being taxed? Going all the way back to the Founders. During which time they went on record saying things like:

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Meanwhile, these very people went out of their way to ensure the Church was exempt from all taxation. Don't forget, they'd just finished a war over taxation without representation. How could they possibly think that a Church wholly separated from government should be taxed and then forbidden representation?