Atheist Nebraska senator proposes bill banning tax exemption for religious organizations.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by NJBest

Well, I've shown that you are incorrect in your understanding of the constitution. I have also shown that the case you brought up doesn't set any precedent relating to the taxation of churches.

You've made claims. Nothing more.

[Egbert]

Originally Posted by pknopp

That churches are restricted in what they can do and those restrictions are officially noted in law is not being argued. They are tax exempt in their religious activities even without it though. Churches have always been tax exempt even before there were any I.R.S. designations. There is no big deal in noting that churches funding a certain candidate would run afoul of the reasons they are not taxed.

The IRS was created in 1953. How is it that churches were tax exempt before that? The IRS doesn't have anything at all to do with things like property taxes and yet the church has always been exempt.

Omg you are really that obtuse. Churches were exempted by state statutes ever since colonial times but again the key word is STATUTE. Obviously churches weren't taxed by the federal government on their income before 1913 because there was no 16th amendment, either way it has very little to do with the 1st amendment. Especially prior to the 20th century since there was no incorporation doctrine back then nor any income tax.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Egbert

Omg you are really that obtuse. Churches were exempted by state statutes ever since colonial times but again the key word is STATUTE.

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted but all the same at the time.of the founding of the country we also had official state religions.

Obviously churches weren't taxed by the federal government on their income before 1913 because there was no 16th amendment, either way it has very little to do with the 1st amendment. Especially prior to the 20th century since there was no incorporation doctrine back then nor any income tax.

I'll just note that you didn't even realize there was a difference in a church and a political PAC so your opinion doesn't hold a lot of weight.

[Egbert]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted but all the same at the time.of the founding of the country we also had official state religions.

Uh I know that and its not my opinion it is a fact. Do you have a different "opinion" about the existence of a federal income tax (absent a brief period during the civil war) before the 16th amendment. Maybe in your "opinion" churches did not pay federal income tax for some other reason then everyone else in the country not paying income tax before the 16th amendment (namely it was unconstitutional).

Also maybe in your "opinion" the incorporation doctrine did exist and Baron v. Baltimore didn't exist in the 19th century such that your unsupported view of first amendment did apply against the states in the 19th century and as such it could shelter churches from state taxes and not state statutes which is what led to churches being exempt from state taxes in the first place.

Originally Posted by pknopp

I'll just note that you didn't even realize there was a difference in a church and a political PAC so your opinion doesn't hold a lot of weight.

I'll note that most people when the use the term "church" in the context of taxes and tax exempt status mean it to apply to religious organizations generally. Thus why we say "church" and not mosques/temples/churches/synagogues/religious aid societies/religious advocacy organizations etc. that would be cumbersome.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Egbert

Uh I know that and its not my opinion it is a fact. Do you have a different "opinion" about the existence of a federal income tax (absent a brief period during the civil war) before the 16th amendment. Maybe in your "opinion" churches did not pay federal income tax for some other reason then everyone else in the country not paying income tax before the 16th amendment (namely it was unconstitutional).

.

They didn't pay it for the simple reason of the seperation of the two. If the state can tax the church then it is over it. That's exactly what the founders wanted to avoid.

If the state can tax then the church can also get involved in promoting political positions. Something else the founders wanted to avoid. Thats what was being fled from.

Also maybe in your "opinion" the incorporation doctrine did exist and Baron v. Baltimore didn't exist in the 19th century such that your unsupported view of first amendment did apply against the states in the 19th century and as such it could shelter churches from state taxes and not state statutes which is what led to churches being exempt from state taxes in the first place.

if all it took was a change in a statute it would have been tried a long time ago. Can the government tax speech? No. Why not? The 1st amendment.

I'll note that most people when the use the term "church" in the context of taxes and tax exempt status mean it to apply to religious organizations generally. Thus why we say "church" and not mosques/temples/churches/synagogues/religious aid societies/religious advocacy organizations etc. that would be cumbersome.

No you looked foolish in your argument and are now only compounding it. Political pacs and churches have nothing in common. You used or better yet, tried to use a political organization to try and explain why the government can tax the church.

[Kerby W-R]

Originally Posted by John1960

Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha once filed a lawsuit against God.

Read more: Sen. Ernie Chambers wants religious organizations to lose tax-exempt status - UPI.com

They should do this nation wide.