| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
04 May 2004 09:45:33 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Illegal parking for synagogue - settlement in Newton |
On 4 May 2004, Rich Carreiro wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> writes:
Religious institutions have far too many aspects which identify them as
busnesses to deny it.
Such as? I don't believe in proof by assertion.
I think that some of thes aspects were covered by urls I previously
submitted, but I will dig them up again.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Tax the Churches; was: Illegal parking for synagogue - settlement in Newton |
04 May 2004 10:06:03 AM |
|
|
Why should I pay taxes to cover public services for organizations which
endorse religious literature which endorses slavery, infanticide and other
atrocities?
We all pay taxes, and what we pay is at a higher rate because it must
cover what is not paid by institutions which do not pay.
These institutions pursue agendas such as campaigns against homosexuals
(ala Fred Phelps), campaigns against family planning, etc. Why should my
tax dollars go to supporting such agendas? Also, why should my tax
dollars go to faith-based programs sponsored by organizations which do not
share the tax burden?
Either a church is a private org. or a public org.
If, as the former, it claims exemptions, exclusive tax exemptions or
funding from the government, can a case be made that it is a public org?
If it is a public org, and receives money derived from taxes I pay (and
other citizens pay) should it not adhere to scrutiny?
Do churches have a profit motive? Do they send that profit to corporate
headquarters (i.e. the Vatican?) Or do they have only private motives
such as recruiting membership not only from religiously disinterested
portions of the population, but from other religions? So if the property
of such churches is used to pursuing such private motives, should they not
be taxed as other businesses are taxed?
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On 4 May 2004, Rich Carreiro wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> writes:
Religious institutions have far too many aspects which identify them as
busnesses to deny it.
Such as? I don't believe in proof by assertion.
I think that some of thes aspects were covered by urls I previously
submitted, but I will dig them up again.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Tax the Churches; was: Illegal parking for synagogue - settlement in Newton |
05 May 2004 07:01:18 AM |
|
|
Religious exemption jealously guarded.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
opinion is here:
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=11583
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Three judges on the state's 3rd Court of Appeals rejected state
Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn's bid to strip tax-exempt status from
the Ethical Society of Austin, a small congregation that defines its faith
through pursuit of ethical ideals and humane behavior rather than worship
of a deity.
"It's very good news," said University of Texas School of Law professor
Douglas Laycock, who filed a brief in the case supporting the society.
"These are emotional issues, and you never know whether judges will have
the courage to enforce the constitution when it's unpopular."
Strayhorn said in a statement that she will appeal the ruling.
"Groups like the Ethical Society of Austin are not religiously based,"
Strayhorn said.
-----end of excerpt-----
http://www.bobbysays.org/item/?id=158
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/6967-Supreme_Court_rules_for_Ethical_Society_to_get_religious_tax_exemption.html
American Statesman (USA), Apr. 24, 2004
http://www.statesman.com
By David Pasztor
-----excerpt-----
Strayhorn argues that the group doesn't qualify because it doesn't worship
a higher power.
The state comptroller's office, pinch hitting for divine beings, is now
zero for three in Texas courts but wants one more trip to the plate.
The state Supreme Court on Friday rejected Comptroller Carole Keeton
Strayhorn's argument that the Ethical Society of Austin doesn't qualify
for religious tax exemptions because its members do not worship a specific
God or higher power.
The group, with about 60 members, defines its faith through pursuit of
ethical ideals and humane behavior rather than worshipping a deity. Its
roots reach back to the Ethical Culture movement that began in 1876.
-----end of excerpt-----
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
Why should I pay taxes to cover public services for organizations which
endorse religious literature which endorses slavery, infanticide and other
atrocities?
We all pay taxes, and what we pay is at a higher rate because it must
cover what is not paid by institutions which do not pay.
These institutions pursue agendas such as campaigns against homosexuals
(ala Fred Phelps), campaigns against family planning, etc. Why should my
tax dollars go to supporting such agendas? Also, why should my tax
dollars go to faith-based programs sponsored by organizations which do not
share the tax burden?
Either a church is a private org. or a public org.
If, as the former, it claims exemptions, exclusive tax exemptions or
funding from the government, can a case be made that it is a public org?
If it is a public org, and receives money derived from taxes I pay (and
other citizens pay) should it not adhere to scrutiny?
Do churches have a profit motive? Do they send that profit to corporate
headquarters (i.e. the Vatican?) Or do they have only private motives
such as recruiting membership not only from religiously disinterested
portions of the population, but from other religions? So if the property
of such churches is used to pursuing such private motives, should they not
be taxed as other businesses are taxed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Tax the Churches; was: Illegal parking for synagogue - settlement in Newton |
05 May 2004 12:24:20 PM |
|
|
Theme park, hotel, other FL ventures get tax breaks?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html
Regards "Fahrenheit 911" which links George W. Bush and prominent Saudis
(including the family of Osama bin Laden) and criticizes his actions
before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks:
-----excerpt-----
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief
executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr.
Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would
endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other
ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
