(December 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 11:22 pm)Jenny A Wrote: When you can translate that into understandable English, I'll respond.

What's not to understand, you and your kudo partners seem to agree the constitution doesn't call for the separation of church and state, all the other atheist believe it does.

That's not how you phrased it last night, and frankly, in the late evening what you said that made no sense to me whatsoever. That is the problem with bad syntax, it can make one difficult to understand.

But, as promised now that I do understand you, I will explain. Separation of Church and State is a short hand way of referring to what the First Amendment says about religion. But, parsing the the words "separation of church and state" doesn't lead to a very good analysis of the First Amendment because that not what it actual says. It does say:

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So Congress may not establish religion and Congress may not prohibit the exercise of religion. Which of those two requirements do you think taxing churches in the same manner that other institutions are taxed would violate? The Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause?

I argue that giving churches a tax break for money spent on providing religious services and promoting religion is establishing religion and therefore prohibited by the Establishment Clause. Tax breaks for actual education and charitable works given on the same basis as those given to other institutions is not prohibited.

Last time the Supreme Court looked at the issue they didn't agree with me about the Establishment Clause prohibiting tax breaks for money spent on religious services. But the Supreme Court has never to my knowledge said that such tax breaks are required under the Free Exercise Clause either. And the Court has struck down tax exemptions given to churches for property taxes on business property and general sales tax exemptions given to churches under the Establishment Clause. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/am...perty.html
.

I think the short version is that they are still getting away with some dodgy shit from while back. Is that right?

(December 12, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So Congress may not establish religion and Congress may not prohibit the exercise of religion. Which of those two requirements do you think taxing churches in the same manner that other institutions are taxed would violate? The Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause?

I argue that giving churches a tax break for money spent on providing religious services and promoting religion is establishing religion and therefore prohibited by the Establishment Clause. Tax breaks for actual education and charitable works given on the same basis as those given to other institutions is not prohibited.

Last time the Supreme Court looked at the issue they didn't agree with me about the Establishment Clause prohibiting tax breaks for money spent on religious services. But the Supreme Court has never to my knowledge said that such tax breaks are required under the Free Exercise Clause either. And the Court has struck down tax exemptions given to churches for property taxes on business property and general sales tax exemptions given to churches under the Establishment Clause. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/am...perty.html

To convince me that it would be constitutional to tax churches you would need to show:

1)The tax would not impede the free exercise of religion.
or
2)The state has a compelling interest in taxing all persons equally(I'm figuring that a church is a person for purposes of law).

(December 12, 2014 at 3:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: To convince me that it would be constitutional to tax churches you would need to show:

1)The tax would not impede the free exercise of religion.
2)The state has a compelling interest in taxing all persons equally(I'm figuring that a church is a person for purposes of law).

What part of treating equally situated persons equally, is not compelling to you? Equality before the law is a compelling interest.

And frankly, I don't see how taxing organizations for churches for money collected would prohibit the free exercise of religion. If money is necessary to exercise religion than all taxes that affect the pocket books of religious persons impede religion. Impede is not the standard. Prohibit is.

(December 12, 2014 at 4:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(December 12, 2014 at 3:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: To convince me that it would be constitutional to tax churches you would need to show:

1)The tax would not impede the free exercise of religion.
2)The state has a compelling interest in taxing all persons equally(I'm figuring that a church is a person for purposes of law).

What part of treating equally situated persons equally, is not compelling to you? Equality before the law is a compelling interest.

And frankly, I don't see how taxing organizations for churches for money collected would prohibit the free exercise of religion. If money is necessary to exercise religion than all taxes that affect the pocket books of religious persons impede religion. Impede is not the standard. Prohibit is.

The state does not nor is it in its interest to tax all persons equally. High income people are in a higher bracket than low income people. Blind people get an exemption that the sighted do not. People who buy electric cars get tax breaks that I do not. If anything the state has a compelling interest to tax different persons differently.

Impede is to obstruct and the intent of the First Amendment was to forbid the state from passing laws which unnecessarily obstruct speech, press, or religion. It simply is not necessary for the state to tax churches. Can you demonstrate that it is necessary for the state to tax churches?

They're a business, and they're not above the law of everyone else. You can practice your religion just fine wherever you are if you keep it out of people's faces.

---

It's this obsession with needing to be seen to be practicing the religion, rather than just quietly doing it, that is the problem.

---

Ooh I got a badge or something now! Yay me I've talked a whole lot of crap to earn that.

(December 12, 2014 at 4:26 pm)robvalue Wrote: They're a business, and they're not above the law of everyone else. You can practice your religion just fine wherever you are if you keep it out of people's faces.

---

It's this obsession with needing to be seen to be practicing the religion, rather than just quietly doing it, that is the problem.

---

Ooh I got a badge or something now! Yay me I've talked a whole lot of crap to earn that.

A business is one person or a coming together of multiple persons to engage in the exercise of commerce. A church is the coming together of people to engage in the exercise of religion. A church is not a business any more than a civil protest(people coming together to speak) is a business.

People are taxed as individuals, why then should we tax them again when they pool their resources together to engage in the exercise of religion?

Rob, you have made it quit clear that you want to see the destruction of religion. The Supreme court has already stated that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Someday people of your mindset will be in power and use the power of taxation to attempt to destroy religion. The only thing that prevents this is a prohibition on taxing people when they come together to engage in religion(i.e. establishing a church).

I don't want to destroy religion as such, that would be impossible. People can and should believe whatever they like. It's the privilege and power that Religion has that I despise. Also the harm that it does, which is plenty. Also, indoctrination should be considered child abuse in my opinion.

Religion doesn't even need it's own building or business to exist, you can just meet up and do whatever. Why expect special treatment? It is indeed a business, people turn up and pay for services. It's not a charity, and it's not prepared to file under proper procedure for tax exemption. Religion is simply belief in nonsense, but people still make a living out of that business and it should not be given special status.

Say I start my own religion, I don't get given a building. I would be expected to buy and maintain one, including paying taxes on earnings, if that's what at I wanted to do. Everyone who spends money at a business has already had their money taxed once.

If I invent a nonsense element to another form of business, should that then get tax exemption?

Religion is not special, that is my point. It's not magical, and certainly not obviously good. It's just believing made up stuff. The government giving tax breaks to help keep delusions going seems a bit...

And if you really believe in religion, God relying on tax breaks is pretty weak.

---

If all the harmful elements of religion were addressed, I would have no problem with it. But right now, they are in abundance.

(December 12, 2014 at 5:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't want to destroy religion as such, that would be impossible. People can and should believe whatever they like. It's the privilege and power that Religion has that I despise. Also the harm that it does, which is plenty. Also, indoctrination should be considered child abuse in my opinion.

Religion doesn't even need it's own building or business to exist, you can just meet up and do whatever. Why expect special treatment? It is indeed a business, people turn up and pay for services. It's not a charity, and it's not prepared to file under proper procedure for tax exemption. Religion is simply belief in nonsense, but people still make a living out of that business and it should not be given special status.

Say I start my own religion, I don't get given a building. I would be expected to buy and maintain one, including paying taxes on earnings, if that's what at I wanted to do. Everyone who spends money at a business has already had their money taxed once.

If I invent a nonsense element to another form of business, should that then get tax exemption?

Religion is not special, that is my point. It's not magical, and certainly not obviously good. It's just believing made up stuff. The government giving tax breaks to help keep delusions going seems a bit...

And if you really believe in religion, God relying on tax breaks is pretty weak.

---

If all the harmful elements of religion were addressed, I would have no problem with it. But right now, they are in abundance.

Life is full of trade off and you can't make a Utopian world where everything is right and just. If you give people the freedom of speech. Some people will abuse it to incite hate and anger toward others. If you give people the right to privacy, some people will use that right to conceal nefarious activities such as molesting children or cooking up meth. If you give people freedom of religion, some people will use it for personal gain. Nirvana is not for this world and no amount of laws or taxation will make it such.

If we the people give our government the power to tax churches we are giving our government the power to obstruct their establishment. The power to tax churches is the power to make them so prohibitively expensive that people will not be able to readily come together, pool their resources, and exercise religion. The power to tax churches is the power to destroy them and I frankly do not want our government to have that much power. I would rather see a few rich televangelist than the government have this ability to destroy churches.

Suppose you trust this congress and Barack Obama to "fairly" implement taxation of churches. Well it isn't always going to be this congress or Barack Obama in charge. If you want to keep the government from having the power to obstruct the free exercise of religion, it necessitates making/keeping churches tax exempt. If you want freedom of religion, you have to accept that churches need to be tax exempt.

It is obvious that you would be ecstatic in a full fledged Orwellian world. Just do not bring it here.