(04-16-2015 06:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:33 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.

The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

You are correct. There is nothing in the constitution saying you can't tax churches. It is written in the tax code via congress and can be changed via congress. Good luck with that. What you can't do is treat churches differently based on a litmus test on their beliefs. You either tax all of them or none of them.

Which, ostensibly, they already do now.

You have to have some kind of guidelines defining a church or what is to stop me from claiming my household as a church and exempting myself from all taxes? What you can't do is say you are subject to taxes that another church isn't because you won't perform a gay marriage or marry someone who is divorced or don't allow pork or whatever.

(04-16-2015 06:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:33 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.

The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

You are correct. There is nothing in the constitution saying you can't tax churches. It is written in the tax code via congress and can be changed via congress. Good luck with that. What you can't do is treat churches differently based on a litmus test on their beliefs. You either tax all of them or none of them.

Which, ostensibly, they already do now.

You have to have some kind of guidelines defining a church or what is to stop me from claiming my household as a church and exempting myself from all taxes? What you can't do is say you are subject to taxes that another church isn't because you won't perform a gay marriage or marry someone who is divorced or don't allow pork or whatever.

I completely and wholeheartedly understand the logic, and in all legitimacy, I'm just being a little bit cheeky here.

That being said, doesn't even providing guidelines on what defines a church technically establish religion? It certainly establishes a framework for it, and what is required of it. If jesus lived today, his little group of apostles almost certainly wouldn't qualify. It's just, in the arena of faith, trying to define what's allowed is inherently silly and an exercise in futility.

(04-16-2015 06:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:33 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

You are correct. There is nothing in the constitution saying you can't tax churches. It is written in the tax code via congress and can be changed via congress. Good luck with that. What you can't do is treat churches differently based on a litmus test on their beliefs. You either tax all of them or none of them.

Which, ostensibly, they already do now.

You have to have some kind of guidelines defining a church or what is to stop me from claiming my household as a church and exempting myself from all taxes? What you can't do is say you are subject to taxes that another church isn't because you won't perform a gay marriage or marry someone who is divorced or don't allow pork or whatever.

I completely and wholeheartedly understand the logic, and in all legitimacy, I'm just being a little bit cheeky here.

That being said, doesn't even providing guidelines on what defines a church technically establish religion? It certainly establishes a framework for it, and what is required of it. If jesus lived today, his little group of apostles almost certainly wouldn't qualify. It's just, in the arena of faith, trying to define what's allowed is inherently silly and an exercise in futility.

I think it defines a church for purposes of a tax code, not establishes a religion.. This has to do with organization and accounting to protect against fraud, not dictating belief. You can start a church that believes in many Gods that are aliens that live in your body and collect money tax exempt as long as you follow the rules and can account for that money. "Church" and "religion" are not the same thing. Jesus and his followers would have been free to do their thing.

Oh, I'm not stating that they would have been stopped from doing their thing, but they wouldn't have been defined as a religion per the US government, and therefore would not have gotten the benefits afforded to other religions. In that way, the US government is tacitly endorsing a framework for what they define a religion by, for tax purposes, and as the Mormon church showed, tax purposes can have a drastic effect on religious dogma.

(04-16-2015 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yeah... I'm not sure that a person who won't really answer your questions and sticks to 'what he wants to tell you' is really the best for the country.

Do you want a salesman to answer your questions, or do you want them to stay on message?

Their employers want them to stay on message. As consumers, we want them to answer our questions.

I understand why 'staying on message' wins... I just don't think it says good things about our electorate. It essentially says that the comment about PT Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

I'd actually be embarrassed if I supported a candidate BECAUSE they stayed on message. If you agree with their message, fine... but even supporters would like to have their 'off message' questions answered.

They just tried the same gotcha on Cruz and he hit it out of the park.

" Well, I will tell you, I haven’t faced that circumstance. I have not had a loved one go to a, have a gay wedding,” Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who asked the senator if he would go to a gay wedding (Marco Rubio said yesterday that he would go to one).

“You know, at the end of the day, what the media tries to twist the question of marriage into is they try to twist it into a battle of emotions and personalities,” Cruz continued.

“And they try to make it say, so for example, you know, they routinely say well, gosh, any conservative must hate people who are gay. And as you know, that has nothing to do with the operative legal question. And listen, I’m a Christian, and the Scripture commands us to love everyone, and to love everyone, and all of us are sinners,” the Texas senator stated. “But the legal question, I’m a Constitutionalist. And under the Constitution, from the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question for the states. It has been a question for elected legislatures in each of the 50 states. And what we’ve seen in recent years from the left is the federal government and unelected federal judges imposing their own policy preferences to tear down the marriage laws of the states.”

“And so if someone is running for public office, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them their views on whether they’re willing to defend the Constitution, which leaves marriage to the states, or whether they want to impose their own extreme policy views like so many on the left are doing, like Barack Obama does, like Hillary Clinton does. That’s what we would be doing.”

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

You are essentially arguing to amend the Constitution to remove 'religion' as a protected class and have the IRS remove their status as a charitable organization... and some people wonder why the far right believes there is a 'war' on religion?

If those other property holders are charitable organizations OR if they are part of a protected class, they get the same treatment as religions. Most of them are not. A religion that is not a bona-fide charity SHOULD be denied tax exempt status. I'll accept that this definition is poorly defined (Scientology?), and frankly I think MOST religions would have no problem 'thinning the herd'.

Just because a charitable organization has a very nice building and a well compensated leader doesn't mean they don't fit even the more strict definitions of 'charitable'. (The American Cancer Society and United Way and others have some VERY nice facilities and pay some VERY high salaries to their leaders) Especially if they have 'service' aspects to them... people are more likely to volunteer their time in a nice facility than in one that is falling down... and those volunteers are entitled to the same 'working' conditions (safety etc) as any other employee.

I think some people don't understand the concept of an endowment.... so when they see that a charitable organization is worth $5 billion dollars, they assume that this is a bad thing. $5byn at 5% per year spins off $250mm per year in income. That essentially describes Rice University. Tuition and room and board is roughly $50k/yr for 5k students and the average aid is something like 75%... That means that $187,500,000 of that $250mm is spent on the actual cost of 'education' (grounds, teachers, facilities etc). SOME of the rest is reinvested in the endowment to account for future inflation. If we assume that they plow 10% back into the endowment for future expenses, that means that they spend something around 85% of the endowment revenues on education AT A MINIMUM. So long as they do this, they will remain a qualified charity. Donations to the endowment or for facilities etc grow the amount they can spend in perpetuity.

That sort of definition accurately describes MOST major religions and their member churches... as they support food pantry's, hospitals, schools, global outreach etc etc.

but far too often, anti-religious people merely see a tax-free $5byn organization with very nice facilities and they don't like it.

(04-16-2015 08:10 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yeah... I'm not sure that a person who won't really answer your questions and sticks to 'what he wants to tell you' is really the best for the country.

Do you want a salesman to answer your questions, or do you want them to stay on message?

Their employers want them to stay on message. As consumers, we want them to answer our questions.

I understand why 'staying on message' wins... I just don't think it says good things about our electorate. It essentially says that the comment about PT Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

I'd actually be embarrassed if I supported a candidate BECAUSE they stayed on message. If you agree with their message, fine... but even supporters would like to have their 'off message' questions answered.

They just tried the same gotcha on Cruz and he hit it out of the park.

" Well, I will tell you, I haven’t faced that circumstance. I have not had a loved one go to a, have a gay wedding,” Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who asked the senator if he would go to a gay wedding (Marco Rubio said yesterday that he would go to one).

“You know, at the end of the day, what the media tries to twist the question of marriage into is they try to twist it into a battle of emotions and personalities,” Cruz continued.

“And they try to make it say, so for example, you know, they routinely say well, gosh, any conservative must hate people who are gay. And as you know, that has nothing to do with the operative legal question. And listen, I’m a Christian, and the Scripture commands us to love everyone, and to love everyone, and all of us are sinners,” the Texas senator stated. “But the legal question, I’m a Constitutionalist. And under the Constitution, from the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question for the states. It has been a question for elected legislatures in each of the 50 states. And what we’ve seen in recent years from the left is the federal government and unelected federal judges imposing their own policy preferences to tear down the marriage laws of the states.”

“And so if someone is running for public office, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them their views on whether they’re willing to defend the Constitution, which leaves marriage to the states, or whether they want to impose their own extreme policy views like so many on the left are doing, like Barack Obama does, like Hillary Clinton does. That’s what we would be doing.”

Cruz is right. Marriage should not be emotional.

(04-16-2015 08:10 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yeah... I'm not sure that a person who won't really answer your questions and sticks to 'what he wants to tell you' is really the best for the country.

Do you want a salesman to answer your questions, or do you want them to stay on message?

Their employers want them to stay on message. As consumers, we want them to answer our questions.

I understand why 'staying on message' wins... I just don't think it says good things about our electorate. It essentially says that the comment about PT Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

I'd actually be embarrassed if I supported a candidate BECAUSE they stayed on message. If you agree with their message, fine... but even supporters would like to have their 'off message' questions answered.

They just tried the same gotcha on Cruz and he hit it out of the park.

" Well, I will tell you, I haven’t faced that circumstance. I have not had a loved one go to a, have a gay wedding,” Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who asked the senator if he would go to a gay wedding (Marco Rubio said yesterday that he would go to one).

“You know, at the end of the day, what the media tries to twist the question of marriage into is they try to twist it into a battle of emotions and personalities,” Cruz continued.

“And they try to make it say, so for example, you know, they routinely say well, gosh, any conservative must hate people who are gay. And as you know, that has nothing to do with the operative legal question. And listen, I’m a Christian, and the Scripture commands us to love everyone, and to love everyone, and all of us are sinners,” the Texas senator stated. “But the legal question, I’m a Constitutionalist. And under the Constitution, from the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question for the states. It has been a question for elected legislatures in each of the 50 states. And what we’ve seen in recent years from the left is the federal government and unelected federal judges imposing their own policy preferences to tear down the marriage laws of the states.”

“And so if someone is running for public office, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them their views on whether they’re willing to defend the Constitution, which leaves marriage to the states, or whether they want to impose their own extreme policy views like so many on the left are doing, like Barack Obama does, like Hillary Clinton does. That’s what we would be doing.”

Outstanding answer... whether or not you agree with his personal views.

I actually don't agree that it should be left to the states because the feds use it (marriage) far too often for their own purposes, but I VASTLY prefer local control to national...

so yeah... good example of how you handle it.

You don't really ignore the question, but you ignore the minutiae of it and get to the 'actual' issue.

(04-17-2015 11:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 08:10 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yeah... I'm not sure that a person who won't really answer your questions and sticks to 'what he wants to tell you' is really the best for the country.

Do you want a salesman to answer your questions, or do you want them to stay on message?

Their employers want them to stay on message. As consumers, we want them to answer our questions.

I understand why 'staying on message' wins... I just don't think it says good things about our electorate. It essentially says that the comment about PT Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

I'd actually be embarrassed if I supported a candidate BECAUSE they stayed on message. If you agree with their message, fine... but even supporters would like to have their 'off message' questions answered.

They just tried the same gotcha on Cruz and he hit it out of the park.

" Well, I will tell you, I haven’t faced that circumstance. I have not had a loved one go to a, have a gay wedding,” Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who asked the senator if he would go to a gay wedding (Marco Rubio said yesterday that he would go to one).

“You know, at the end of the day, what the media tries to twist the question of marriage into is they try to twist it into a battle of emotions and personalities,” Cruz continued.

“And they try to make it say, so for example, you know, they routinely say well, gosh, any conservative must hate people who are gay. And as you know, that has nothing to do with the operative legal question. And listen, I’m a Christian, and the Scripture commands us to love everyone, and to love everyone, and all of us are sinners,” the Texas senator stated. “But the legal question, I’m a Constitutionalist. And under the Constitution, from the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question for the states. It has been a question for elected legislatures in each of the 50 states. And what we’ve seen in recent years from the left is the federal government and unelected federal judges imposing their own policy preferences to tear down the marriage laws of the states.”

“And so if someone is running for public office, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them their views on whether they’re willing to defend the Constitution, which leaves marriage to the states, or whether they want to impose their own extreme policy views like so many on the left are doing, like Barack Obama does, like Hillary Clinton does. That’s what we would be doing.”

Outstanding answer... whether or not you agree with his personal views.

I actually don't agree that it should be left to the states because the feds use it (marriage) far too often for their own purposes, but I VASTLY prefer local control to national...

so yeah... good example of how you handle it.

You don't really ignore the question, but you ignore the minutiae of it and get to the 'actual' issue.

I think the SCOTUS ruled last year that the feds have to recognize the states' laws on marriage (striking down DOMA), thus throwing it back to the states. That seems appropriate. I wouldn't predict it, but I would not be surprised if they ruled in favor of the states this summer.

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.

The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

You can't be both for "Separation of Church and State" and also promote the taxation of churches.....cognitive dissonance much?

(04-17-2015 11:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think the SCOTUS ruled last year that the feds have to recognize the states' laws on marriage (striking down DOMA), thus throwing it back to the states. That seems appropriate. I wouldn't predict it, but I would not be surprised if they ruled in favor of the states this summer.

You're right... let me say it differently. If Texas recognizes gay marriage but Louisiana doesn't, then can a gay Texas couple file their federal taxes as 'married' but not the Louisiana couple? That doesn't seem fair, especially in that it isn't a state tax at issue. NOW the state question of gay marriage becomes one driven by federal tax policy. That's what I meany by 'for their own purposes'. It would probably come into play for estate taxes and social security and other issues as well. I prefer local control, but that probably means the federal government has to do away with any such references. Since my proposed solution is that the feds recognize all 'selections of a partner' as civil unions... replacing the word 'married' and let the individuals and their churches decide if they are 'married' or not... I also suppose I wouldn't have a problem with the state deciding whether or not they are 'married'.... though it seems redundant. I know some states have tax and benefit differences based on marital status, but I think they'd have to follow the lead of the feds on that one anyway. They may not be 'married' in some state, but they can still pass their estate, make decisions for, etc each other.

(04-17-2015 11:26 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  You can't be both for "Separation of Church and State" and also promote the taxation of churches.....cognitive dissonance much?

Well you can, but not without supporting the taxation of every other charitable organization. Minor correction because I agree that he seems to be implying that you would ONLY tax churches BECAUSE they are churches, but not other charities.

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.
The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

It MIGHT not violate "separation of church and state" if you taxed ALL churches.

But a policy that we taxed CERTAIN churches which held certain beliefs, but did not tax OTHER churches which held different beliefs, would clearly indicate a preference for certain beliefs in clear violation of what the "establishment" clause actually states. That actually gets pretty close to the controversy in fact at the time, which led to the amendment.

As I've said before, true "separation of church and state" necessarily implies the right of churches to discriminate in ways that other organizations cannot.

(04-17-2015 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It MIGHT not violate "separation of church and state" if you taxed ALL churches.

How would you define 'church'?

The entire reason churches were declared exempt from taxes is that it was believed they served a public 'good'... NOT because they worshiped a deity. On the whole, they are fundamentally no different from any other charitable organization.. some with, and some without a belief in a higher power. The separation of church and state was as you note, to not treat 'the church you agree with' any different than 'the one you don't'. As such, the belief (or not) in God or Jesus or Muhammad or Space Aliens or the tooth fairy or animals or the power of 'red hats' is completely immaterial to their status. What matters is whether or not they serve their communities in a charitable fashion.

If the argument is that they don't serve a public good, then the ability to remove their individual tax exemption is already in place as is the mechanism to do so.

Like every other charitable organization, they discriminate for membership based on your belief (or not) in their mission. That is entirely different from discriminating in their charitable acts. While a church CAN certainly promote the well being of its members (and thus its financial base) it must also provide charity to people (or animals) REGARDLESS of their beliefs. With exceptions, the monies spent for the benefit of members is not considered 'charity'... hence the Pastor is taxed on his earnings, but building a nice facility where rich people want to come and be encouraged to 'give to others' is not.

(04-17-2015 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It MIGHT not violate "separation of church and state" if you taxed ALL churches.

How would you define 'church'?
The entire reason churches were declared exempt from taxes is that it was believed they served a public 'good'... NOT because they worshiped a deity. On the whole, they are fundamentally no different from any other charitable organization.. some with, and some without a belief in a higher power. The separation of church and state was as you note, to not treat 'the church you agree with' any different than 'the one you don't'. As such, the belief (or not) in God or Jesus or Muhammad or Space Aliens or the tooth fairy or animals or the power of 'red hats' is completely immaterial to their status. What matters is whether or not they serve their communities in a charitable fashion.
If the argument is that they don't serve a public good, then the ability to remove their individual tax exemption is already in place as is the mechanism to do so.
Like every other charitable organization, they discriminate for membership based on your belief (or not) in their mission. That is entirely different from discriminating in their charitable acts. While a church CAN certainly promote the well being of its members (and thus its financial base) it must also provide charity to people (or animals) REGARDLESS of their beliefs. With exceptions, the monies spent for the benefit of members is not considered 'charity'... hence the Pastor is taxed on his earnings, but building a nice facility where rich people want to come and be encouraged to 'give to others' is not.

I very specifically used the word MIGHT because of the points you make here.

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 11:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I totally agree with Rand on this issue. I see no reason why 2 adults can not contract with each other and share each others assets, and benefits under the law. My guess is though...it still would not satisfy the LGBT community. Nothing short of forcing churches to marry them will satisfy these terrorists.

So long as 'marriage' does not convey any rights to anyone, I have no problem with everyone having civil unions (and everyone having to go down to the courthouse to fill out paperwork).

But there would be literally tens of thousands of bills that would have to be offered in order to sort this out.

But the GOP isn't really serious about this...because they fought civil unions when they were possible. Now that they're going to lose...only now do they want civil unions.

---

If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Every person, institution, corporation, discriminates. You think that if a Chuch won't hire an openly gay person then you think the government should force churches to marry gay people.
Churches do not have to accept everyone.

(04-17-2015 03:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It MIGHT not violate "separation of church and state" if you taxed ALL churches.

How would you define 'church'?
The entire reason churches were declared exempt from taxes is that it was believed they served a public 'good'... NOT because they worshiped a deity. On the whole, they are fundamentally no different from any other charitable organization.. some with, and some without a belief in a higher power. The separation of church and state was as you note, to not treat 'the church you agree with' any different than 'the one you don't'. As such, the belief (or not) in God or Jesus or Muhammad or Space Aliens or the tooth fairy or animals or the power of 'red hats' is completely immaterial to their status. What matters is whether or not they serve their communities in a charitable fashion.
If the argument is that they don't serve a public good, then the ability to remove their individual tax exemption is already in place as is the mechanism to do so.
Like every other charitable organization, they discriminate for membership based on your belief (or not) in their mission. That is entirely different from discriminating in their charitable acts. While a church CAN certainly promote the well being of its members (and thus its financial base) it must also provide charity to people (or animals) REGARDLESS of their beliefs. With exceptions, the monies spent for the benefit of members is not considered 'charity'... hence the Pastor is taxed on his earnings, but building a nice facility where rich people want to come and be encouraged to 'give to others' is not.

I very specifically used the word MIGHT because of the points you make here.

Understood.... I just didn't want the response to be that he would favor just that. Most atheists would be fine with that solution, but it wouldn't be fair. If a church isn't acting charitably, then I'd have no problem yanking their status... but if they are, then going after them because they believe in a God is not only morally wrong, but Constitutionally so (imo)

(04-17-2015 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.
The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

It MIGHT not violate "separation of church and state" if you taxed ALL churches.

But a policy that we taxed CERTAIN churches which held certain beliefs, but did not tax OTHER churches which held different beliefs, would clearly indicate a preference for certain beliefs in clear violation of what the "establishment" clause actually states. That actually gets pretty close to the controversy in fact at the time, which led to the amendment.

As I've said before, true "separation of church and state" necessarily implies the right of churches to discriminate in ways that other organizations cannot.

Of course, any new legislation which did anything like that would be unconstitutional. The point I was making when I said that statement is that right now, as the tax code currently stands, the government does this by deciding what can be considered a religion. I cannot successfully contend my home is a site of worship for UCF08ism, because it doesn't meet the qualifications for a religious exemption. I understand the case law behind it and the reason it is this way, but in a purely rational sense, that is religious discrimination like what you described above.

(04-17-2015 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It MIGHT not violate "separation of church and state" if you taxed ALL churches.

How would you define 'church'?
The entire reason churches were declared exempt from taxes is that it was believed they served a public 'good'... NOT because they worshiped a deity. On the whole, they are fundamentally no different from any other charitable organization.. some with, and some without a belief in a higher power. The separation of church and state was as you note, to not treat 'the church you agree with' any different than 'the one you don't'. As such, the belief (or not) in God or Jesus or Muhammad or Space Aliens or the tooth fairy or animals or the power of 'red hats' is completely immaterial to their status. What matters is whether or not they serve their communities in a charitable fashion.
If the argument is that they don't serve a public good, then the ability to remove their individual tax exemption is already in place as is the mechanism to do so.
Like every other charitable organization, they discriminate for membership based on your belief (or not) in their mission. That is entirely different from discriminating in their charitable acts. While a church CAN certainly promote the well being of its members (and thus its financial base) it must also provide charity to people (or animals) REGARDLESS of their beliefs. With exceptions, the monies spent for the benefit of members is not considered 'charity'... hence the Pastor is taxed on his earnings, but building a nice facility where rich people want to come and be encouraged to 'give to others' is not.

I very specifically used the word MIGHT because of the points you make here.

Understood.... I just didn't want the response to be that he would favor just that. Most atheists would be fine with that solution, but it wouldn't be fair. If a church isn't acting charitably, then I'd have no problem yanking their status... but if they are, then going after them because they believe in a God is not only morally wrong, but Constitutionally so (imo)

I think their tax status could be tied to their charitable contributions without much of a fuss. And quite frankly, while a lot of churches do a lot of good (please don't think I'm questioning that), there are a lot who function more like marketing companies for jesus. I understand that proselytizing is important to their religion, but I don't see any compelling reason it should be tax deductible. Now, if you're providing food/shelter/assistance/care/etc while doing that, you're a-ok by me.

(04-17-2015 04:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Of course, any new legislation which did anything like that would be unconstitutional. The point I was making when I said that statement is that right now, as the tax code currently stands, the government does this by deciding what can be considered a religion. I cannot successfully contend my home is a site of worship for UCF08ism, because it doesn't meet the qualifications for a religious exemption. I understand the case law behind it and the reason it is this way, but in a purely rational sense, that is religious discrimination like what you described above.

It seems you're playing a little fast and loose with your words...

UFC08ism doesn't need to be considered a religion... Neither does the Catholic Church for that matter. It must merely meet the 510©(3) qualifications. The IRS doesn't really care WHY you have bound together... it only cares what you do as a result of it. Churches are not any different under IRS rules than any other 501 ©(3) organization.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profi...anizations


Generally speaking, If you could show that UCF08ism was not organized nor operated for the benefit of private interests and no part of its net earnings inured the benefit of a shareholder or individual and it doesn't engage in excess benefit transactions, you would qualify. The rules for churches (in terms of qualifying for an exemption) aren't really any different than any other charity.

(04-17-2015 04:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It MIGHT not violate "separation of church and state" if you taxed ALL churches.

How would you define 'church'?
The entire reason churches were declared exempt from taxes is that it was believed they served a public 'good'... NOT because they worshiped a deity. On the whole, they are fundamentally no different from any other charitable organization.. some with, and some without a belief in a higher power. The separation of church and state was as you note, to not treat 'the church you agree with' any different than 'the one you don't'. As such, the belief (or not) in God or Jesus or Muhammad or Space Aliens or the tooth fairy or animals or the power of 'red hats' is completely immaterial to their status. What matters is whether or not they serve their communities in a charitable fashion.
If the argument is that they don't serve a public good, then the ability to remove their individual tax exemption is already in place as is the mechanism to do so.
Like every other charitable organization, they discriminate for membership based on your belief (or not) in their mission. That is entirely different from discriminating in their charitable acts. While a church CAN certainly promote the well being of its members (and thus its financial base) it must also provide charity to people (or animals) REGARDLESS of their beliefs. With exceptions, the monies spent for the benefit of members is not considered 'charity'... hence the Pastor is taxed on his earnings, but building a nice facility where rich people want to come and be encouraged to 'give to others' is not.

I very specifically used the word MIGHT because of the points you make here.

Understood.... I just didn't want the response to be that he would favor just that. Most atheists would be fine with that solution, but it wouldn't be fair. If a church isn't acting charitably, then I'd have no problem yanking their status... but if they are, then going after them because they believe in a God is not only morally wrong, but Constitutionally so (imo)

I think their tax status could be tied to their charitable contributions without much of a fuss. And quite frankly, while a lot of churches do a lot of good (please don't think I'm questioning that), there are a lot who function more like marketing companies for jesus. I understand that proselytizing is important to their religion, but I don't see any compelling reason it should be tax deductible. Now, if you're providing food/shelter/assistance/care/etc while doing that, you're a-ok by me.

What the 1st Amendment, coupled with about a millennium of common law, actually says is that proselytizing is a tax exempt activity.