Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is most certainly written in the U.S. Constitution AKA the 1st Amendment.
"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."
Yes, with our belief in freedoms, again no question, but again there is what Thomas Jefferson said about the use of reason, to help us judge, more to my point. I suspect there is no point in repeating myself about that again, because I sense a lack of inclination or interest in that respect far as you are concerned.
Yes, Congress.
Taxing church property, under States rights, does not establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The building is not needed to have your faith; it is only ancillary.
Again you are explaining what doesn't need any explanation. Of course you can believe whatever you want to believe, and I'm not going to try to address that again except perhaps to ask you read my comment(s) again to better understand that simple point. We ALL know we are ALL free to believe and do as we please. Of course. Within the confines of the law, also of course.
All that said and/or completely understood. However, when we share that which we claim "cannot be denied," I think we all CAN judge whether that's true or not, the experience as claimed or not. We certainly can judge and do, or not so inclined, there's that option too. Right?
No different than if you were to explain you are a racist, for whatever your reasons. Racists also like to argue they are racist for reasons "that can't be denied." I/we may not understand someone else's personal experience, and of course none of us can really speak for someone else, but we can't judge? Should not judge? Of course we can!
I believe we all judge what is right vs wrong, for ourselves and with respect to the thinking and actions of others, what is true and what is not.
At the same time, of course there are those who have no interest or inclination to judge beyond what they wish to believe. End of story. Others are more inclined to determine what they believe based on a different set of criteria altogether and judge accordingly. "Comparing notes" on what is fact vs fiction, right vs wrong, truth vs lies, what "can't be denied" or what can be denied. And very importantly, why.
Clearly there are people with all variety of reason, rationale and conclusion when it comes to these sorts of subjects. Again no need to go on any more about any of that. Exchange of opinion, generally speaking, is based on how we judge all variety of reason, rationale and conclusion. If not, you are simply stating your beliefs as you might write them on a bathroom wall, without any interest what anyone else thinks or why. Of course there are plenty of those kinds of people too. We all know this all too well...
All of that because I answered a question ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Not to get personal (especially since I've explained my comments are about religions in general), but I was raised a Catholic and went through Holy First Communion.
Oh well, why not ...
I believe in God, because God showed Himself to me in a manner in which I can not deny. When that happens to a person, it doesn't matter what great education the person has. Or the great wealth or the lack there of ... the person can not unknow that which is known to them.
I'm looking at your post as you are addressing, judgment, rights and wrongs, truth and lies and when I get to the part where you say end of story ... what I said, should have been ... 'end of story'.
_____________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Uhh...
It is most certainly written in the U.S. Constitution AKA the 1st Amendment.
"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."
Yes, with our belief in freedoms, again no question, but again there is what Thomas Jefferson said about the use of reason, to help us judge, more to my point. I suspect there is no point in repeating myself about that again, because I sense a lack of inclination or interest in that respect far as you are concerned.
On the contrary I am very much interested and Thomas Jefferson was the one person who understood.
Jefferson’s letter to John Jay in 1789 (August 27th): "The embarrassments of the government, for want of money, are extreme."
And when we take into account those that will be hurt by removing the tax exempt, we can then understand the loss of freedoms by those who can not afford by way of taxation to keep them. Only the rich man's religion would publicly survive, therefore one can conclude by reason, the establishment of the rich man's religion and the poor man's Church be damned, as unconstitutional ...
Taxing church property, under States rights, does not establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The building is not needed to have your faith; it is only ancillary.
You're right. However, there are services these faiths provide that the burden will fall on the government to pick up the slack. For all the money they may gain, by taxing the buildings, they loose when the taxes close the building and the services, food, shelter etc then falls on the cities and states to financially support the people. (btw: if the states have to then rely on the federal government to help fund the poor, then it becomes a federal constitutional case)
Christ didn't teach in a church ... he gathered people from all over and they all met together in the fields and the mountain tops. However, he also worked within the communities, helping the poor.
The City of Nashville v. State Board of Equalization clearly advises that those parts of church property not directly used for religious services are taxable, and, more importantly, that was never appealed to SCOTUS. You need to read the judgement that is clear the exemption is due to the State constitution, and that exemption can be withdrawn.
So, the property tax exemptions that exist are State based, and has nothing to do with the First Amendment. If it did, the cases mentioned above would have been appealed, and laws like Washington State would have been challenged decades ago.
There is a legitimate, and Constitutional argument that can be made for property taxes to be considered on all religious properties.
The question of taxing parts of church property not directly used for religious services is not the question of taxing churches in general, regardless. I assumed that distinction, yes, as I think it is the subject of this thread. I also think that distinction is in keeping with the first amendment and/or it's intent, and this is why it wasn't appealed to the SCOTUS, or why else?
Taxing church property, under States rights, does not establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The building is not needed to have your faith; it is only ancillary.
Yes, Congress, as dictated, directed and/or required by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
I'm looking at your post as you are addressing, judgment, rights and wrongs, truth and lies and when I get to the part where you say end of story ... what I said, should have been ... 'end of story'.
_____________________________
On the contrary I am very much interested and Thomas Jefferson was the one person who understood.
Jefferson’s letter to John Jay in 1789 (August 27th): "The embarrassments of the government, for want of money, are extreme."
And when we take into account those that will be hurt by removing the tax exempt, we can then understand the loss of freedoms by those who can not afford by way of taxation to keep them. Only the rich man's religion would publicly survive, therefore one can conclude by reason, the establishment of the rich man's religion and the poor man's Church be damned, as unconstitutional ...
Yes. "All that" because what you simply stated about all you can only do, what "can't be denied, inspired me so...
Your beliefs and what "cannot be denied" is "end of story" according to you. Not so much or necessarily according to others. Again that's entirely your prerogative. Yes again.
My comments in reply to yours have more to do with other things you have written not having much to do with the right or wrong of tax exempt status for churches. Probably best to refocus on that subject more directly, the subject of this thread, for a variety of reasons. I'm good with that...
Yes. "All that" because what you simply stated about all you can only do, what "can't be denied, inspired me so...
Your beliefs and what "cannot be denied" is "end of story" according to you. Not so much or necessarily according to others. Again that's entirely your prerogative. Yes again.
My comments in reply to yours have more to do with other things you have written not having much to do with the right or wrong of tax exempt status for churches. Probably best to refocus on that subject more directly, the subject of this thread, for a variety of reasons. I'm good with that...
My argument for this thread began with the words, 'on the contrary' and ended with the word 'unconstitutional', in the post you have responded to ...
You're right. However, there are services these faiths provide that the burden will fall on the government to pick up the slack. For all the money they may gain, by taxing the buildings, they loose when the taxes close the building and the services, food, shelter etc then falls on the cities and states to financially support the people. (btw: if the states have to then rely on the federal government to help fund the poor, then it becomes a federal constitutional case)
Christ didn't teach in a church ... he gathered people from all over and they all met together in the fields and the mountain tops. However, he also worked within the communities, helping the poor.
Let me guess...
Is the difference between "Christ" and "Jesus" another one of these "facts" that "cannot be denied?"
Oops! Right. Back to the right or wrong of tax exemptions for churches...
You're right. However, there are services these faiths provide that the burden will fall on the government to pick up the slack. For all the money they may gain, by taxing the buildings, they loose when the taxes close the building and the services, food, shelter etc then falls on the cities and states to financially support the people. (btw: if the states have to then rely on the federal government to help fund the poor, then it becomes a federal constitutional case)
I've discussed this, and gave examples of churches that are involved in giving back to the community and those that are not.
I have no problem exempting property tax for those churches/mosques etc. that actually give back. I also have no problem taxing those that are insular and just look at their own congregation. The former is far less prevalent than the later, and interestingly enough, the more evangelical, the less giving back.
My argument for this thread began with the words, 'on the contrary' and ended with the word 'unconstitutional', in the post you have responded to ...
Seems we have a failure to communicate. No doubt for reasons we're not likely to similarly recognize or agree about either. No worries and no matter anyway. I've got to be signing off now...
Cheers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
