| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2011 06:05:01 AM · #5326 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm still under the impression that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass a law requiring all churches to be taxed since the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." |
...The taxation issue is not one that has any bearing on the establishment of any religions, nor does it in any way prohibit free speech. One cannot argue that a law that applies to everyone else but not the church is in any way discriminatory.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 10:22:50 AM · #5327 |
Good gravy. Are you two (nullix and johnny) really trying to make us believe that the word "free" in the first amendment statement means FINANCIALLY!?
lol. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 11:31:54 AM · #5328 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Good gravy. Are you two (nullix and johnny) really trying to make us believe that the word "free" in the first amendment statement means FINANCIALLY!?
lol. |
I'm not trying to make you believe anything. I'm just relaying information from the IRS. See post #5324. I didn't make that up. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 12:29:01 PM · #5329 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Good gravy. Are you two (nullix and johnny) really trying to make us believe that the word "free" in the first amendment statement means FINANCIALLY!?
lol. |
I'm not trying to make you believe anything. I'm just relaying information from the IRS. See post #5324. I didn't make that up. |
Does the First Amendment specifically state that the churches have no obligation to pay taxes...if it doesn't, then the issue is open to debate and I am more than positive that legal scholars could arrive at a conclusion.
...Until that happens, all we are doing is expressing opinions.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 12:29:34 PM · #5330 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Good gravy. Are you two (nullix and johnny) really trying to make us believe that the word "free" in the first amendment statement means FINANCIALLY!?
lol. |
I'm not trying to make you believe anything. I'm just relaying information from the IRS. See post #5324. I didn't make that up. |
Johnny, just tell us in plain English, please: do you believe that the word "free" in "free exercise thereof" means "without charge" or "without restraint"?
R. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 04:31:04 PM · #5331 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Good gravy. Are you two (nullix and johnny) really trying to make us believe that the word "free" in the first amendment statement means FINANCIALLY!?
lol. |
I'm not trying to make you believe anything. I'm just relaying information from the IRS. See post #5324. I didn't make that up. |
Johnny, just tell us in plain English, please: do you believe that the word "free" in "free exercise thereof" means "without charge" or "without restraint"?
R. |
Do I believe that? No. But it doesn't really matter what I believe does it? The only opinions that matter are those of the IRS, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Congress has passed laws--based on its understanding of the 1st Amendment--which exempt the church from paying taxes. The IRS has backed these laws and the Supreme Court has done nothing to overturn these laws. Would I have come to that conclusion on my own after reading the 1st Amendment? No. But, like I said, my conclusion doesn't matter. I'm not a lawmaker. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 04:32:57 PM · #5332 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Johnny, just tell us in plain English, please: do you believe that the word "free" in "free exercise thereof" means "without charge" or "without restraint"? |
Do I believe that? No. |
It wasn't a yes or no question. He asked which one. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 04:43:12 PM · #5333 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
...The only opinions that matter are those of the IRS, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Congress has passed laws--based on its understanding of the 1st Amendment--which exempt the church from paying taxes. The IRS has backed these laws and the Supreme Court has done nothing to overturn these laws. Would I have come to that conclusion on my own after reading the 1st Amendment? No. But, like I said, my conclusion doesn't matter. I'm not a lawmaker. |
You are absolutely right that your conclusions do not matter in the least... and it is debatable that the Constitution does indeed make even a veiled suggestion relative to taxes.
There is NOT ONE IOTA of any mention of taxes in the First Amendment... the word "Free" does not imply that churches are NOT to be charged taxes... that is something that the IRS decided.
If I am wrong in my premise... show me where it specifically states in the Constitution that churches are not required to pay taxes.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 04:55:23 PM · #5334 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Johnny, just tell us in plain English, please: do you believe that the word "free" in "free exercise thereof" means "without charge" or "without restraint"? |
Do I believe that? No. |
It wasn't a yes or no question. He asked which one. |
Apparently I didn't phrase it very well. Let me try again:
Johnny, do you believe that the word "free" in "free exercise thereof" means "without charge"? Or do you think it means "without restraint"?
Let me give you an example: "I am free to enter any of the poker tournaments being held today as long as I can pay the entry fee." In other words, "free" is about restraint, or lack of same, in this context, and has nothing to do with the monetary cost of the tournament.
Bearing that in mind, which do you think the Founders intended in the referenced phrase of our Constitution: restraint or cost?
R. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 04:57:46 PM · #5335 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Johnny, just tell us in plain English, please: do you believe that the word "free" in "free exercise thereof" means "without charge" or "without restraint"? |
Do I believe that? No. |
It wasn't a yes or no question. He asked which one. |
Ah... In that case I believe it means "without restraint."
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There is NOT ONE IOTA of any mention of taxes in the First Amendment... the word "Free" does not imply that churches are NOT to be charged taxes... that is something that the IRS decided.
If I am wrong in my premise... show me where it specifically states in the Constitution that churches are not required to pay taxes.
Ray |
I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that as it stands right now, Congress and the IRS have interpreted "free exercise" to mean that the church shouldn't be taxed. So in order for the church to be taxed Congress is going to have to repeal the laws that they have enacted regarding the matter and pass new laws requiring the taxation of the church. If, or when, that happens, the federal government will probably be sued and the case will probably go to the Supreme Court at which point all the ambiguity will be clarified. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 05:20:23 PM · #5336 |
A reasoned exploration of why churches should be exempt from taxation.
R.
ETA: And, Johnny, thanks for a straight answer. We are in agreement on that point interpretation. :-)
Message edited by author 2011-02-27 17:21:15. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 05:29:41 PM · #5337 |
... a very interesting read Robert, one that is worth reading again.
and Johnny, thank you for your last entry...glad to see we can agree on some things. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 06:28:12 PM · #5338 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... a very interesting read Robert, one that is worth reading again.
and Johnny, thank you for your last entry...glad to see we can agree on some things. :O)
Ray |
I like what that article says. "Tax exemption is a privilege, not a right." I'm fine with the government taxing certain churches on a case-by-case basis. I'm not fine with the government taxing all religious institutions on a national scale for two reasons. First, that would violate the laws that are currently in place. Second, it would violate the principle of the separation of church and state, which would not turn out well for either the church or the state. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 06:56:32 PM · #5339 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
First, that would violate the laws that are currently in place. Second, it would violate the principle of the separation of church and state, which would not turn out well for either the church or the state. |
This is patently false. If the press can be taxed without infringing upon their freedoms under the same constitutional amendment, then so can religion. If anything, the separation of church and state arguably precludes tax-free status since it amounts to state subsidy of religion. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 07:05:36 PM · #5340 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
First, that would violate the laws that are currently in place. Second, it would violate the principle of the separation of church and state, which would not turn out well for either the church or the state. |
This is patently false. If the press can be taxed without infringing upon their freedoms under the same constitutional amendment, then so can religion. If anything, the separation of church and state arguably precludes tax-free status since it amounts to state subsidy of religion. |
I didn't say anything about infringing upon freedoms. Did I?
Taxation is a form of subjugation, which would eliminate separation. If there is nothing to prevent the government from getting involved with church business, then there will also be nothing to prevent the church from getting involved in government business. My guess is that taxing the church would only lead to more religious organizations getting involved in politics. Threatening to take away tax exemption might get the church to stay out of politics. But actually removing the tax exemption status would only encourage the church to get involved in politics. I can't see that being a good thing for either the government or the church. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 07:19:36 PM · #5341 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Taxation is a form of subjugation, which would eliminate separation. |
Horseradish. Property and income taxes pay for the fire protection, traffic control, water, sewage and other services the church uses. If paying for those services violates separation, then the services must be suspended.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If there is nothing to prevent the government from getting involved with church business, then there will also be nothing to prevent the church from getting involved in government business. |
Hard to see how churches could be any more involved than they already are: Proposition 8, Planned Parenthood, DOMA, DADT, teaching evolution in schools, immigration, sex education, deliberate efforts to remove court judges, and even direct influence on elections. You'd be hard pressed to find any lobby more heavily involved in politics than organized religion. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 07:39:28 PM · #5342 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Horseradish. Property and income taxes pay for the fire protection, traffic control, water, sewage and other services the church uses. If paying for those services violates separation, then the services must be suspended. |
Double horseradish. Those protections and services are not for the benefit of the church, they are for the benefit of all citizens. Fire departments don't exist to save property, they exist primarily to save lives. Besides, the citizens that are members of this or that church already pay taxes for those services.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hard to see how churches could be any more involved than they already are: Proposition 8, Planned Parenthood, DOMA, DADT, teaching evolution in schools, immigration, sex education, deliberate efforts to remove court judges, and even direct influence on elections. You'd be hard pressed to find any lobby more heavily involved in politics than organized religion. |
There is a difference between the church being directly involved in politics, and religious people being involved in politics. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 07:43:11 PM · #5343 |
Aw man, I have to actually side with johnnyphoto on this one. (the specific argument he's having with scalvert that is)
The world is ending. lol. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 08:03:04 PM · #5344 |
The IRS provides for tax-exempt status for a variety of non-profit corporations in addition to churches, all of which are considered to somehow contibute to the betterment of society or disadvantaged individuals therein. You can tell because contributions to them are considered tax-deductible on your personal income taxes, so the government is actually subsidizing these organizations twice (the tax you don't pay on that income, and the tax the organization doesn't pay for money received).
All such organizations are restricted in the ways they can spend money on what are considered "political" issues, and failure to comply with those rules can result in revocation of the tax-exemption. AFAIK, churches do not receive special considerations not available to other non-profit, non-religious, charitable organizations, except perhaps undue deference ...
Message edited by author 2011-02-27 20:03:39. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 08:48:18 PM · #5345 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
All such organizations are restricted in the ways they can spend money on what are considered "political" issues, and failure to comply with those rules can result in revocation of the tax-exemption. |
Bingo. I already linked an article (which Johnny promptly ignored) showing the Catholic Church's direct involvement in politics. They also directly supported Prop 8 (as did the Mormons) and the ties between evangelical protestant churches and the Republican far right couldn't be more obvious if they wore sponsor decals. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 08:57:10 PM · #5346 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Bingo. I already linked an article (which Johnny promptly ignored) showing the Catholic Church's direct involvement in politics. They also directly supported Prop 8 (as did the Mormons) and the ties between evangelical protestant churches and the Republican far right couldn't be more obvious if they wore sponsor decals. |
I didn't ignore the article. If you weren't so set on opposing every statement that I make in these forums, you would realize that I actually agree with most of what you're saying.
If the Catholic church wants to be directly involved in politics, then let the government tax that Catholic church. All I'm arguing is that the federal government cannot tax all religious organizations on a national scale for the political actions of one church. I've said this many times.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Aw man, I have to actually side with johnnyphoto on this one. (the specific argument he's having with scalvert that is)
The world is ending. lol. |
lol... my work here is done! |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 09:05:24 PM · #5347 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
All I'm arguing is that the federal government cannot tax all religious organizations on a national scale for the political actions of one church. I've said this many times. |
Which is what's so confusing, since no one here has suggested otherwise. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 09:08:28 PM · #5348 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... All I'm arguing is that the federal government cannot tax all religious organizations on a national scale for the political actions of one church. I've said this many times. |
...and I would counter that the government could quite readily tax any and all churches should it decide to do so, and would not infringe on any constitutional rights whatsoever.
When one considers the political activities of some of the churches in recent history, I am surprised that they haven't undertaken any action yet.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 09:23:42 PM · #5349 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If the Catholic church wants to be directly involved in politics, then let the government tax that Catholic church. All I'm arguing is that the federal government cannot tax all religious organizations on a national scale for the political actions of one church. |
Fine. Tax the Catholic and Mormon churches for lobbying in favor of Prop 8. Tax Methodists for lobbying against Israel (The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society is their lobbying arm). Tax the Southern Baptist Convention for their massive lobbying efforts. Tax the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Church of the Brethren, Episcopal Church, Mennonite Central Committee, National Council of Churches, Presbyterian Church, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church and Unitarian-Universalist Association... all have dedicated government lobbying arms, and that's not even considering general organizations like The American Christian Lobbyists Association. In fact, I doubt you can find ANY significant denomination that doesn't already directly petition the government. So let the government tax any church directly involved in politics. That will cover the vast majority and probably make a more meaningful dent in budgets that stripping out the collective bargaining rights of workers. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 09:27:50 PM · #5350 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
All I'm arguing is that the federal government cannot tax all religious organizations on a national scale for the political actions of one church. I've said this many times. |
Which is what's so confusing, since no one here has suggested otherwise. |
Not true. The way the discussion has developed as implied that folks here are referring to national scale taxation of the church. At any rate, even if folks weren't intending to suggest that, Ray suggested that very blatantly in the post right after yours. |
|
