| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 May 2007 07:59:39 AM |
| Object: |
Stamp out separation - of church and state |
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and state
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
I'd best start with my conclusions or nobody will read any farther.
Opponents of the slogan "Separation of Church and State" are not
necessarilly theocrats-in-the-making; they may accept implicitly the
First Amendment's governmental non-establishment of religion but be
concerned about the slogan's silencing of political debate by
churches. Which it says. The word "Separation" is meaningless unless
the slogan, in preventing the government from influencing religion,
doesn't also prevent religion from influencing government. And the
man-on-the-street, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, has interpreted
it to say just that. But the Constitution just plain doesn't.
It would make good sense if separationists would at least consider the
possibility that some anti-separationists are not (in the soft-spoken
words of Reverend Barry Lynn, Commandant of American's United for
Separation of Church and State) planning a "political agenda for the
entire world;" they're just defending their own Constitutional rights.
The First Amendment to the Constitution
First, let's start with an undebatable fact: The slogan "Separation of
Church and State" is not in the Constitution of the United States.
Even the Americans United for Separation of Church & State readily
admits that. Then they continue: "But the concept is certainly there."
But is it?
Next,
what does "Separation" even mean? By common usage of anyone including
the dictionary, it means a division of two entities such they are not
joined or not shared. If separation means government must leave
religion completely alone, then it means religion must leave
government completely alone. Thus churches, alone in a democratic
society, would be unable to influence their government.
What does the Constitution say?
Americans United claims to take its authority from the First Amendment:
"Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When Thomas Jefferson was first elected President a group of Baptists
in Connecticut wrote to him pleading for strict enforcement of
religious liberty. (Their State had "established religion," the
Congragationalist denomination). Jefferson's reply of Jan. 1, 1802
stated that the First Amendment had created a "wall of separation
between church and state." Although a carefully worded letter it
ignored the fact that it was the State of Connecticut rather than
Congress that was discriminating against Baptists.
In addition, of course, it's the Supreme Court rather than the
President that's empowered to interpret the Constitution. But anyway
that letter is the source of Americans United's slogan.
Fast forward to June 13, 1866. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed,
including among other things "No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; ... " The Supreme Court has ruled that this extended
the First Amendment from Congress to the State governments as well.
(Lawyers can come up with conclusions like that.)
Does Amendment One Protect Church from Government?
Certainly. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that any law
giving one denomination or one religion preference over another, or
even giving faith preference over non-faith is, in effect, an
"establishment of religion" and is unconstitutional.
But what about non-faith over faith? Well, it doesn't seem to work
that way.
Are Church and State Protected Equally from Each Other? Well, if so,
who gets to enforce the law? Churches?
Is Government Protected from Churches?
Asked in another way; do we have freedom of political speech and the
press EXCEPT for churches? (It's the first step in dictatorships.)
The First Amendment doesn't even suggest this, and neither does
Article Six, the only other place religion is mentioned in the
Constitution (it prohibits religion being a test for holding public
office).
The Constitution leaves churches completely free to influence
government and even the Americans United website doesn't say otherwise.
Clearly, government is owned by the people, and that includes the
people's legal organizations, such as labor unions, polka clubs,
manufacturer's councils, cub scout packs, Sunday School classes, and
thousands of others, and most of them (unlike religion) don't even
have a constitutional amendment specifically protecting them. A
democracy doesn't "protect" its government from its own people.
Do Churches Have Freedom of Political Speech?
According to the First Amendment, certainly, and also the freedom of
the press and to petition government. But suddenly the Internal
Revenue Service rears its ugly head. The power to tax = the power to
control, and churches are tax exempt as long as they do not endorse or
oppose specific candidates for office. (Note this is the tax rule for
charitable giving and has nothing to do with the First Amendment or
even with the "Separation" slogan).
Tax-exempt organizations (which also includes Americans United) still
have the right of "Issue Advocacy." They're free to speak out on
social and political issues, though not on individual candidates.
And that IRS Rule Against Politicking by Non-Profits. Is it Enforced?
VERY loosely, apparently. The Americans United website says they
report egregious violations to the IRS and reported 11 in 2004.
Triumphantly they say an IRS report shows that IRS investigated (only)
132 cases that year, of which "fewer than half" were religion-related.
Of the 132:
55 cases-a warning was issued.
3 cases- revocation of tax-exempt status was "proposed."
1 case- IRS excise tax was applied.
Some of these may, or may not, have been religion-related.
And this in a nation of hundreds of millions of people.
Their website continues "This report should lay to rest Religious
Right claims that houses of worship have a right to engage in partisan
politicking," said Lynn. "They don't, and any that ignore the law and
do so anyway could face severe sanctions."
And they could also get hit by a meteor.
Was America Founded as a God-Fearing Nation? Well, it was, though not
officially and that's not what this website is about. But since the
question often comes up I'll turn to a source that knows more about it
than I do or Rev. Lynn does. In his farewell address of Sept. 19, 1796
(delivered not on TV but in the American Daily Advertiser,
Philadelphia) George Washington told Americans what made them a great
nation, including "With slight shades of difference, you have the same
Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principals."
Nevertheless one's sectarian beliefs are none of the government's
business. Let's let it go at that.
What's Your Own Relationship to Christian Conservatives?
RhymeCon sometimes disagrees with Christian Conservatives. For example
I see no reason an omnipotent God couldn't have used the laws of
nature he himself had created to cause species to evolve. But unlike
Rev. Lynn I'm comfortable with religious diversity. I'm not going to
pile abuse on them, as Rev.Lynn does.
But there's something offensive about a statement I once read in a
letter-to-the-editor- "There's no such thing as a liberal Christian."
Does this mean that God, through his infinite love for us, chose to
become incarnate to come to Earth to walk among us and die in agony on
a cross in order to promote a political philosophy?
What's Your Own Opinion of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State?
To the extent that they try to enforce the First Amendment, that is,
to free religion from being influenced by government, three cheers!
But to the extent they try to promote their "Separation" slogan which
intrinsically says that religion must not influence government, in a
nation where people MUST take part in their government, then thumbs down.
But they pretend that non-establishment of religion and separation
of the church from the state mean the same thing when they sometimes
mean just the opposite. They say things like (Sen.) Inhofe, like
(Congressman) Jones, has spent years trying to destroy the First
Amendment principle of church-state separation. It is a principle they
both loathe."
Well, say what you mean; which of the two principles do they
loathe, the real one or your own worn-out slogan?
As another example: "Beyond blaming feminists and gays for America's
alleged moral decline, Dobson has long argued that the First Amendment
principle of church-state separation has been wielded by 'secular
humanists' to strip the nation of its Christian identity. In 1993,
Dobson helped launch the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which funds
litigation aimed at weakening the First Amendment."
I do not believe that statement. Why would James Dobson downgrade
the First Amendment, much less try to weaken it, when it places
absolutely no limitations on religion in the first place?
In Your Own Opinion has Americans United Misled the Nation?
I don't claim Americans United intentionally cofuses the issue of
First Amendment violations with the totally unrelated issue of IRS
violations. I don't accuse them of saying "Political speech in a
church is unconstitutional." But certainly they push their Separation
slogan that says exactly that, and huge numbers of people believe
them. I believed it myself till I spent a dime in a garage sale for an
old book on the subject and read the whole Constitution without
finding a word limiting the activities of churches.
Then, years ago our church literally split apart because the words
Democrat and Republican had been uttered (without criticism) from the
pulpit . (Several people were mad at the minister anyway and things
took off from there). But I was astonished at how many people actually
believe we have a law against discussing politics in a church. A man
in our adult Sunday School class formed a "wall" with one hand and
with the other hand pointed first on one side and then the other.
"Separation means we are to keep the state on one side and religion on
the other and there is to be NO contact between the two."
I responded "Well, it's true government must not influence the
church but to say a church can't speak out about their government
would be ridiculous."
"Not ridiculous at all," he grumbled.
The unfortunate end of this true story is described in the Case
History page.
navigation links
Wall of Separation Between Church and State Cut through the lies and
intolerance behind 'separation of church and state'.
http://www.wall-of-separation.com/
Thomas Jefferson's Other Letter
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/id9.html
Ann Coulter versus Barry Lynn
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/id10.html
The Villains
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/id1.html
Rev.Lynn Battles Dr. Dobson
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/id2.html
Campaign Signs at Church?
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/id4.html
A Crummy Slogan?
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/id3.html
A Case History
http://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/id6.html
RhymeCon
Suggestions Welcome! email me at
Separation of Church & State = Freedom of Speech Except for Churches
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
08 May 2007 08:25:29 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 8:59 am, wrote:
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
I'd best start with my conclusions or nobody will read any farther.
Opponents of the slogan "Separation of Church and State" are not
necessarilly theocrats-in-the-making; they may accept implicitly the
First Amendment's governmental non-establishment of religion but be
concerned about the slogan's silencing of political debate by
churches. Which it says. The word "Separation" is meaningless unless
the slogan, in preventing the government from influencing religion,
doesn't also prevent religion from influencing government. And the
man-on-the-street, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, has interpreted
it to say just that. But the Constitution just plain doesn't.
Arrant nonsense. Chuches and church people are perfectly free to say
whatever they want about Government. Their constitutional rights are
fully assured. The fact that a chuch which is openly political
forfeits its tax benefit is utterly irrelevant to any issues involving
the Bill of Rights.
The Tax Benefit for churches itself should be examined as
unconstitutional. Churches are, in effect, businesses. If they profit,
they should be made to bear the same burden of taxes that every other
business bears. They should pay their fair share of property taxes and
state and local taxes as well, since they benefit from all the
services and protections the state and localities provide.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
08 May 2007 11:20:06 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 8:25 am, t1gercat <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:59 am, wrote:
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
I'd best start with my conclusions or nobody will read any farther.
Opponents of the slogan "Separation of Church and State" are not
necessarilly theocrats-in-the-making; they may accept implicitly the
First Amendment's governmental non-establishment of religion but be
concerned about the slogan's silencing of political debate by
churches. Which it says. The word "Separation" is meaningless unless
the slogan, in preventing the government from influencing religion,
doesn't also prevent religion from influencing government. And the
man-on-the-street, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, has interpreted
it to say just that. But the Constitution just plain doesn't.
Arrant nonsense. Chuches and church people are perfectly free to say
whatever they want about Government. Their constitutional rights are
fully assured. The fact that a chuch which is openly political
forfeits its tax benefit is utterly irrelevant to any issues involving
the Bill of Rights.
The Tax Benefit for churches itself should be examined as
unconstitutional. Churches are, in effect, businesses. If they profit,
they should be made to bear the same burden of taxes that every other
business bears. They should pay their fair share of property taxes and
state and local taxes as well, since they benefit from all the
services and protections the state and localities provide.
So, Christians don't have the other first amendment rights...speech,
assembly...etc?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not
one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
after God.
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
08 May 2007 12:29:49 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 12:20 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:25 am,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:59 am, wrote:
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
I'd best start with my conclusions or nobody will read any farther.
Opponents of the slogan "Separation of Church and State" are not
necessarilly theocrats-in-the-making; they may accept implicitly the
First Amendment's governmental non-establishment of religion but be
concerned about the slogan's silencing of political debate by
churches. Which it says. The word "Separation" is meaningless unless
the slogan, in preventing the government from influencing religion,
doesn't also prevent religion from influencing government. And the
man-on-the-street, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, has interpreted
it to say just that. But the Constitution just plain doesn't.
Arrant nonsense. Chuches and church people are perfectly free to say
whatever they want about Government. Their constitutional rights are
fully assured. The fact that a chuch which is openly political
forfeits its tax benefit is utterly irrelevant to any issues involving
the Bill of Rights.
The Tax Benefit for churches itself should be examined as
unconstitutional. Churches are, in effect, businesses. If they profit,
they should be made to bear the same burden of taxes that every other
business bears. They should pay their fair share of property taxes and
state and local taxes as well, since they benefit from all the
services and protections the state and localities provide.
So, Christians don't have the other first amendment rights...speech,
assembly...etc?
You must have problems with reading comprehension, Ken. I said that
church people have all the constitutional rights and priviledges as
anyone else. I also said that profitable churches should pay taxes.
Hell, Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Swamis, Wizards, whatever,
have to pay income tax. So should the Church corporation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
08 May 2007 12:38:14 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 12:29 pm, t1gercat <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 12:20 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:25 am,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:59 am, wrote:
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
I'd best start with my conclusions or nobody will read any farther.
Opponents of the slogan "Separation of Church and State" are not
necessarilly theocrats-in-the-making; they may accept implicitly the
First Amendment's governmental non-establishment of religion but be
concerned about the slogan's silencing of political debate by
churches. Which it says. The word "Separation" is meaningless unless
the slogan, in preventing the government from influencing religion,
doesn't also prevent religion from influencing government. And the
man-on-the-street, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, has interpreted
it to say just that. But the Constitution just plain doesn't.
Arrant nonsense. Chuches and church people are perfectly free to say
whatever they want about Government. Their constitutional rights are
fully assured. The fact that a chuch which is openly political
forfeits its tax benefit is utterly irrelevant to any issues involving
the Bill of Rights.
The Tax Benefit for churches itself should be examined as
unconstitutional. Churches are, in effect, businesses. If they profit,
they should be made to bear the same burden of taxes that every other
business bears. They should pay their fair share of property taxes and
state and local taxes as well, since they benefit from all the
services and protections the state and localities provide.
So, Christians don't have the other first amendment rights...speech,
assembly...etc?
You must have problems with reading comprehension, Ken. I said that
church people have all the constitutional rights and priviledges as
anyone else. I also said that profitable churches should pay taxes.
Hell, Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Swamis, Wizards, whatever,
have to pay income tax. So should the Church corporation.
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy." Thus, taxing them would be restricting their free
exercise and establishing their alternative. Do you disagree with the
Supreme Court (not current court but early on)?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
08 May 2007 12:57:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1178645894.451530.281520@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On May 8, 12:29 pm, t1gercat <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 12:20 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:25 am,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:59 am, wrote:
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
I'd best start with my conclusions or nobody will read any farther.
Opponents of the slogan "Separation of Church and State" are not
necessarilly theocrats-in-the-making; they may accept implicitly the
First Amendment's governmental non-establishment of religion but be
concerned about the slogan's silencing of political debate by
churches. Which it says. The word "Separation" is meaningless unless
the slogan, in preventing the government from influencing religion,
doesn't also prevent religion from influencing government. And the
man-on-the-street, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, has interpreted
it to say just that. But the Constitution just plain doesn't.
Arrant nonsense. Chuches and church people are perfectly free to say
whatever they want about Government. Their constitutional rights are
fully assured. The fact that a chuch which is openly political
forfeits its tax benefit is utterly irrelevant to any issues involving
the Bill of Rights.
The Tax Benefit for churches itself should be examined as
unconstitutional. Churches are, in effect, businesses. If they profit,
they should be made to bear the same burden of taxes that every other
business bears. They should pay their fair share of property taxes and
state and local taxes as well, since they benefit from all the
services and protections the state and localities provide.
So, Christians don't have the other first amendment rights...speech,
assembly...etc?
You must have problems with reading comprehension, Ken. I said that
church people have all the constitutional rights and priviledges as
anyone else. I also said that profitable churches should pay taxes.
Hell, Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Swamis, Wizards, whatever,
have to pay income tax. So should the Church corporation.
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
I suppose. I mean, assuming that you think the Bank of the
United States is a church. I suspect that some televangelists
might well go along with you on that one.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
08 May 2007 12:58:24 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 12:38 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy." Thus, taxing them would be restricting their free
exercise and establishing their alternative. Do you disagree with the
Supreme Court (not current court but early on)?
Please don't lie. The Court never made this statement about taxing
churches. The statement was made by Chief Justice John Marshall in
McCullough v. Maryland, which involved the constitutionality of state
taxation of bank notes issued by the Bank of the United States. The
Court has never held that churches have a constitutional right to be
tax-exempt.
Taxing churches would no more restrict their members' free exercise
than taxing publishing companies restricts the freedom of the press.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr.Know" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 01:36:14 AM |
|
|
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178647104.131112.263980@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 12:38 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy." Thus, taxing them would be restricting their free
exercise and establishing their alternative. Do you disagree with the
Supreme Court (not current court but early on)?
Please don't lie. The Court never made this statement about taxing
churches. The statement was made by Chief Justice John Marshall in
McCullough v. Maryland, which involved the constitutionality of state
taxation of bank notes issued by the Bank of the United States. The
Court has never held that churches have a constitutional right to be
tax-exempt.
Taxing churches would no more restrict their members' free exercise
than taxing publishing companies restricts the freedom of the press.
There is a BIG difference between, "Congress shall make no law *respecting*
an establishment of religion, or *prohibiting* the free exercise thereof;"
and that of "*abridging* the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
The words "respecting" and "prohibiting" vs. "abridging" are key, here. For
example, taxing the press would be to *abridge* the press; however, there is
nothing in the constitution concerning abridging religion -- just
*prohibiting* religion, which is not the same as abridging it.
For example, the government has the power to regulate objects using indirect
means -- through the use of taxes on consumption, which inherently
*abridges* (regulates) that object upon which such a tax is applied; thus,
influencing its consumption, manufacture, etc.
Now, let's look at a consumption tax on gasoline, for example, which cannot
be said to be a law "respecting" an establishment of religion, nor
"prohibiting" the free exercise thereof, since it does neither. However, it
can be shown that such a tax paid by the press to transport their
publications can be an abridgement of the press, as can be a tax on any raw
materials that they require and consume in the process and art of gathering,
publishing and distributing information. Payroll taxes, etc. on the press
would also fall into this category, as would taxes on their corporate
entity, property, etc. -- all of which are forms of *abridgment*.
However, nothing of like kind can be said of "respecting" or "prohibiting"
the establishment of religion because neither is connected with such
indirect power of regulation or abridgment when uniformly applied.
If, on the other hand, a church was singled out and taxed differently than
the rest of the community, for example, then, as such, it may be argued that
a law had been passed that either violated the 14th's "equal protection of
the laws" or the prohibition in the 1st, which states, "Congress shall make
no law *respecting*." depending on the source of such legislation --
regardless as to whether the advantage is for, or against, the church.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
08 May 2007 04:10:50 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 1:38 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 12:29 pm,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 12:20 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:25 am,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 8, 8:59 am, wrote:
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and statehttp://rhymecon.tripod.com/2/
I'd best start with my conclusions or nobody will read any farther.
Opponents of the slogan "Separation of Church and State" are not
necessarilly theocrats-in-the-making; they may accept implicitly the
First Amendment's governmental non-establishment of religion but be
concerned about the slogan's silencing of political debate by
churches. Which it says. The word "Separation" is meaningless unless
the slogan, in preventing the government from influencing religion,
doesn't also prevent religion from influencing government. And the
man-on-the-street, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, has interpreted
it to say just that. But the Constitution just plain doesn't.
Arrant nonsense. Chuches and church people are perfectly free to say
whatever they want about Government. Their constitutional rights are
fully assured. The fact that a chuch which is openly political
forfeits its tax benefit is utterly irrelevant to any issues involving
the Bill of Rights.
The Tax Benefit for churches itself should be examined as
unconstitutional. Churches are, in effect, businesses. If they profit,
they should be made to bear the same burden of taxes that every other
business bears. They should pay their fair share of property taxes and
state and local taxes as well, since they benefit from all the
services and protections the state and localities provide.
So, Christians don't have the other first amendment rights...speech,
assembly...etc?
You must have problems with reading comprehension, Ken. I said that
church people have all the constitutional rights and priviledges as
anyone else. I also said that profitable churches should pay taxes.
Hell, Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Swamis, Wizards, whatever,
have to pay income tax. So should the Church corporation.
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy." Thus, taxing them would be restricting their free
exercise and establishing their alternative. Do you disagree with the
Supreme Court (not current court but early on)?
Ken, I assume you were misinformed. You shouldn't trust Christians who
are trying to push a political agenda. They lie.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
08 May 2007 10:02:07 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
Please provide a cite to the Supreme Court case that said this about
"taxing churches".
Hint: the words come from McCullough v Maryland, and the context was
that of a state attempting to tax the Federally chartered "Bank of the
United States", which was created as a means of funding the Federal
government. The attempt was intended to hamper the operations of that
Bank and put it in competitive disadvantage with state-chartered
banks.
The actual words used were "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy" and Marshall explained that this was because a sufficiently
high tax could so impede something that was created, as to make it
unable to survive.
There was no mention of churches in the decision, and the decision
would not be relevant to the question of taxing churches.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 12:47:46 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 10:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
Please provide a cite to the Supreme Court case that said this about
"taxing churches".
Hint: the words come from McCullough v Maryland, and the context was
that of a state attempting to tax the Federally chartered "Bank of the
United States", which was created as a means of funding the Federal
government. The attempt was intended to hamper the operations of that
Bank and put it in competitive disadvantage with state-chartered
banks.
The actual words used were "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy" and Marshall explained that this was because a sufficiently
high tax could so impede something that was created, as to make it
unable to survive.
There was no mention of churches in the decision, and the decision
would not be relevant to the question of taxing churches.
lojbab
Follow logic, Bob. If the "power to tax is the power to destroy" and
the Government is (by the "wall" you so adore) banned from destroying
or harming the free exercise of churches, can the government tax
(destroy) churches?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 11:33:32 AM |
|
|
In article <1178689666.059186.179290@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
On May 8, 10:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
Please provide a cite to the Supreme Court case that said this about
"taxing churches".
Hint: the words come from McCullough v Maryland, and the context was
that of a state attempting to tax the Federally chartered "Bank of the
United States", which was created as a means of funding the Federal
government. The attempt was intended to hamper the operations of that
Bank and put it in competitive disadvantage with state-chartered
banks.
The actual words used were "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy" and Marshall explained that this was because a sufficiently
high tax could so impede something that was created, as to make it
unable to survive.
There was no mention of churches in the decision, and the decision
would not be relevant to the question of taxing churches.
lojbab
Follow logic, Bob. If the "power to tax is the power to destroy" and
the Government is (by the "wall" you so adore) banned from destroying
or harming the free exercise of churches, can the government tax
(destroy) churches?
A pretty thin attempt to make this case appear in any
way to be "The Supreme Court [saying] of taxing churches"...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 07:44:21 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 11:47 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 10:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
Please provide a cite to the Supreme Court case that said this about
"taxing churches".
Hint: the words come from McCullough v Maryland, and the context was
that of a state attempting to tax the Federally chartered "Bank of the
United States", which was created as a means of funding the Federal
government. The attempt was intended to hamper the operations of that
Bank and put it in competitive disadvantage with state-chartered
banks.
The actual words used were "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy" and Marshall explained that this was because a sufficiently
high tax could so impede something that was created, as to make it
unable to survive.
There was no mention of churches in the decision, and the decision
would not be relevant to the question of taxing churches.
lojbab
Follow logic, Bob. If the "power to tax is the power to destroy" and
the Government is (by the "wall" you so adore) banned from destroying
or harming the free exercise of churches, can the government tax
(destroy) churches?
The First Amendment doesn't protect the free exercise of churches. It
protects the free exercise of religion, which needn't involve a church
at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 09:10:52 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 7:44 am, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
On May 8, 11:47 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 10:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
Please provide a cite to the Supreme Court case that said this about
"taxing churches".
Hint: the words come from McCullough v Maryland, and the context was
that of a state attempting to tax the Federally chartered "Bank of the
United States", which was created as a means of funding the Federal
government. The attempt was intended to hamper the operations of that
Bank and put it in competitive disadvantage with state-chartered
banks.
The actual words used were "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy" and Marshall explained that this was because a sufficiently
high tax could so impede something that was created, as to make it
unable to survive.
There was no mention of churches in the decision, and the decision
would not be relevant to the question of taxing churches.
lojbab
Follow logic, Bob. If the "power to tax is the power to destroy" and
the Government is (by the "wall" you so adore) banned from destroying
or harming the free exercise of churches, can the government tax
(destroy) churches?
The First Amendment doesn't protect the free exercise of churches. It
protects the free exercise of religion, which needn't involve a church
at all.
You are finally hitting on the truth...took long enough. So, if the
1st amendment is about the free exercise of religion but the
establishment of churches, the government cannot restrict
religion....only church establishment in your view. Right?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 10:00:27 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 9:10 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are finally hitting on the truth...took long enough. So, if the
1st amendment is about the free exercise of religion but the
establishment of churches, the government cannot restrict
religion....only church establishment in your view. Right?
Since you lied about the McCullough case, it's ironic that you should
talk about the truth. Yes, the government can restrict religion in
the sense that it can restrict certain religious practices that
violate generally applicable laws. For example, Aztec blood
sacrifices can be prohibited, as can the use of peyote. In addition,
it can apply other generally applicable laws, including tax laws, to
religious organizations without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 10:08:25 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 10:00 am, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
On May 9, 9:10 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are finally hitting on the truth...took long enough. So, if the
1st amendment is about the free exercise of religion but the
establishment of churches, the government cannot restrict
religion....only church establishment in your view. Right?
Since you lied about the McCullough case, it's ironic that you should
talk about the truth. Yes, the government can restrict religion in
the sense that it can restrict certain religious practices that
violate generally applicable laws. For example, Aztec blood
sacrifices can be prohibited, as can the use of peyote. In addition,
it can apply other generally applicable laws, including tax laws, to
religious organizations without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
Didn't want your words in the pos?...I'll quote it for you...
"The First Amendment doesn't protect the free exercise of churches.
It
protects the free exercise of religion, which needn't involve a church
at all."
So, first, you say that the government can tax churches, since the
Constitution protects "religion" not churches. Then, I point out
that, if the government protects "religion" then it cannot restrict
"religion."...thus the protection. So, when you realize you shot
yourself in the foot, you change your words to say the Government CAN
restrict religion (a contradiction of your own claim..."it protects
the free exercise of religion"). Make up your mind.
You were right the first time. The government cannot "destroy" what
it "protects."
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr.Know" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 11:53:37 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178723305.495251.179740@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 10:00 am, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
On May 9, 9:10 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are finally hitting on the truth...took long enough. So, if the
1st amendment is about the free exercise of religion but the
establishment of churches, the government cannot restrict
religion....only church establishment in your view. Right?
Since you lied about the McCullough case, it's ironic that you should
talk about the truth. Yes, the government can restrict religion in
the sense that it can restrict certain religious practices that
violate generally applicable laws. For example, Aztec blood
sacrifices can be prohibited, as can the use of peyote. In addition,
it can apply other generally applicable laws, including tax laws, to
religious organizations without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
Didn't want your words in the pos?...I'll quote it for you...
"The First Amendment doesn't protect the free exercise of churches.
It
protects the free exercise of religion, which needn't involve a church
at all."
So, first, you say that the government can tax churches, since the
Constitution protects "religion" not churches. Then, I point out
that, if the government protects "religion" then it cannot restrict
"religion."...thus the protection. So, when you realize you shot
yourself in the foot, you change your words to say the Government CAN
restrict religion (a contradiction of your own claim..."it protects
the free exercise of religion"). Make up your mind.
You were right the first time. The government cannot "destroy" what
it "protects."
There is nothing in the constitution that protects the church, religion or
the establishment of religion -- only the free exercise of religion.
Further, the prohibition on Congress from making any law respecting an
establishment of religion goes hand-in-hand with the free exercise of
religion. For, to make a law respecting an establishment of religion is to
inherently favor one religion over another.
Consider what Madison said in the 1st Congress.
"Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that
Congress should NOT ESTABLISH a religion, and ENFORCE the legal OBSERVATION
of it by law, nor COMPEL men to WORSHIP God in any manner contrary to their
conscience."
So, to say that Congress is empowered or has the responsibility to *protect*
religion would be repugnant to the 1st amendment; because, Congress cannot
*protect* an object for which it has been prohibited the power to make any
law *respecting* that object. You cannot have it both ways.
This makes more sense when you understand that the 1st amendment's religious
clause has no affect on Congress anyway, because, as Mr. Sherman correctly
pointed out.
"Mr. Sherman thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as
Congress had NO AUTHORITY WHATEVER DELEGATED TO THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
*MAKE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS*; he would, therefore, move to have it struck
out."
Pay special attention to what Mr. Sherman said here, to wit, "make religious
establishments." This is consistent with what Madison said and what everyone
else understood as being the true meaning of the amendment, and what is
meant by "an establishment of religion" within the context of the amendment.
Mr. Carroll alludes to that which Mr. Sherman said, with.
"As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar
delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and
as many sects have concurred in *OPINION* that they are not well secured
under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the
words. He thought it would tend more towards *CONCILIATING THE MINDS* of the
people to the Government than almost any other amendment he had heard
proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his
object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes
of the honest part of the community."
So, its true intent is simply to that of CONCILIATING THE MINDS of the
people to the new government.
Now, get this! Mr. Huntington brings to bear exactly that which he feared
would come to fruition and which is now happening this present day; proving,
beyond any doubt that we have run into that lawless extreme that he feared,
which was never intended and is as repugnant to the "true" meaning of the
clause today as it would have been back then....
"Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on
this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be
extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to
mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Madison];
but OTHERS might FIND IT CONVENIENT TO PUT ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION UPON IT. The
ministers of their congregations to the Eastward were maintained by the
contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of
building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner. These things
were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a Federal Court on
any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements
could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, or building of
places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment."
"By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by
law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the
people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the
amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience,
and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but NOT TO PATRONIZE THOSE
WHO PROFESSED NO RELIGION AT ALL."
Furthemore, what this statement by Mr. Huntington also means, in a nutshell,
is that, for example, a pharmacist also has NO constitutional right to
refuse to dispense birth controls on religious or moral grounds; which also
means that the employer (actually) has the right to fire said pharmacist for
refusing to perform her duties and obligations under the conditions of
employment -- unless, of course, someone found it *convenient* to put
*another* (now, obviously repugnant) construction to its true intended
meaning so as to patronize those (on both sides of the isle) that it was
never intended to patronize, or in ways never intended.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 10:30:16 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 10:08 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Didn't want your words in the pos?...I'll quote it for you...
"The First Amendment doesn't protect the free exercise of churches.
It
protects the free exercise of religion, which needn't involve a church
at all."
So, first, you say that the government can tax churches, since the
Constitution protects "religion" not churches. Then, I point out
that, if the government protects "religion" then it cannot restrict
"religion."...thus the protection. So, when you realize you shot
yourself in the foot, you change your words to say the Government CAN
restrict religion (a contradiction of your own claim..."it protects
the free exercise of religion"). Make up your mind.
You were right the first time. The government cannot "destroy" what
it "protects."
And you still don't get it. The reason government can tax churches is
because tax exemption is not guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.
That is, the Clause does not protect an individual, group, or church
from being taxed or from being subject to certain generally applicable
laws simply because the person, group, or church claim that the law is
contrary to or adversely affects their religious beliefs. Bob Jones
University can lose its tax exempt status even though its racially
discriminatory admissions policies were (allegedly) religiously
based. Peyote use may be criminalized even though its use is central
to a Native American religious ritual. Amish employers and employees
can be subjected to Social Security taxes even though it violates
their religious beliefs.
The situation is similar with respect to the other First Amendment
rights. The guarantees of free speech and free press don't mean that
there can't be lawsuits for libel, slander, or copyright infringement
or, in the classic dictum by Holmes, that comeone who falsely shouts
fire in a crowded theatre and causes a panic can't be punished.
Why don't you actually study what the law in this area really is
instead of displaying your abysmal ignorance. Here's a start:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html#3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 04:12:55 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 10:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
Please provide a cite to the Supreme Court case that said this about
"taxing churches".
Hint: the words come from McCullough v Maryland, and the context was
that of a state attempting to tax the Federally chartered "Bank of the
United States", which was created as a means of funding the Federal
government. The attempt was intended to hamper the operations of that
Bank and put it in competitive disadvantage with state-chartered
banks.
The actual words used were "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy" and Marshall explained that this was because a sufficiently
high tax could so impede something that was created, as to make it
unable to survive.
There was no mention of churches in the decision, and the decision
would not be relevant to the question of taxing churches.
Follow logic, Bob.
You don't know the meaning of the word.
If the "power to tax is the power to destroy"
It isn't, necessarily. That is the point. You are ignoring the
context of the original remarks, which had nothing to do with
churches. Indeed you LIED because you said that the original remarks
were a Supreme Court ruling ABOUT taxing churches, which it wasn't.
and
the Government is (by the "wall" you so adore) banned from destroying
or harming the free exercise of churches,
Government is not banned from doing so. Government is banned from
favoring any religion over others, and it is banned from prohibiting
religion. Treating the fiscal manipulations of a religious
institution the same as that of any other business neither prohibits
any religion, nor favors one over another.
can the government tax (destroy) churches?
It can tax them, but it cannot destroy them by taxing them.
Indeed, if a church does not incorporate and own property and practice
business, there would be nothing to tax.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 09:08:54 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 4:12 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 10:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
Please provide a cite to the Supreme Court case that said this about
"taxing churches".
Hint: the words come from McCullough v Maryland, and the context was
that of a state attempting to tax the Federally chartered "Bank of the
United States", which was created as a means of funding the Federal
government. The attempt was intended to hamper the operations of that
Bank and put it in competitive disadvantage with state-chartered
banks.
The actual words used were "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy" and Marshall explained that this was because a sufficiently
high tax could so impede something that was created, as to make it
unable to survive.
There was no mention of churches in the decision, and the decision
would not be relevant to the question of taxing churches.
Follow logic, Bob.
You don't know the meaning of the word.
If the "power to tax is the power to destroy"
It isn't, necessarily. That is the point. You are ignoring the
context of the original remarks, which had nothing to do with
churches. Indeed you LIED because you said that the original remarks
were a Supreme Court ruling ABOUT taxing churches, which it wasn't.
and
the Government is (by the "wall" you so adore) banned from destroying
or harming the free exercise of churches,
Government is not banned from doing so. Government is banned from
favoring any religion over others, and it is banned from prohibiting
religion. Treating the fiscal manipulations of a religious
institution the same as that of any other business neither prohibits
any religion, nor favors one over another.
can the government tax (destroy) churches?
It can tax them, but it cannot destroy them by taxing them.
Indeed, if a church does not incorporate and own property and practice
business, there would be nothing to tax.
lojbab
So, your wall of separation is more of a one-sided mirror. Religion
can do nothing in government but the government can do whatever it
wants to religion? You prove your "wall" has never existed.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 01:34:24 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 10:08 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 9, 4:12 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 10:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court said of taxing churches, "the power to tax is the
power to destroy."
Please provide a cite to the Supreme Court case that said this about
"taxing churches".
Hint: the words come from McCullough v Maryland, and the context was
that of a state attempting to tax the Federally chartered "Bank of the
United States", which was created as a means of funding the Federal
government. The attempt was intended to hamper the operations of that
Bank and put it in competitive disadvantage with state-chartered
banks.
The actual words used were "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy" and Marshall explained that this was because a sufficiently
high tax could so impede something that was created, as to make it
unable to survive.
There was no mention of churches in the decision, and the decision
would not be relevant to the question of taxing churches.
Follow logic, Bob.
You don't know the meaning of the word.
If the "power to tax is the power to destroy"
It isn't, necessarily. That is the point. You are ignoring the
context of the original remarks, which had nothing to do with
churches. Indeed you LIED because you said that the original remarks
were a Supreme Court ruling ABOUT taxing churches, which it wasn't.
and
the Government is (by the "wall" you so adore) banned from destroying
or harming the free exercise of churches,
Government is not banned from doing so. Government is banned from
favoring any religion over others, and it is banned from prohibiting
religion. Treating the fiscal manipulations of a religious
institution the same as that of any other business neither prohibits
any religion, nor favors one over another.
can the government tax (destroy) churches?
It can tax them, but it cannot destroy them by taxing them.
Indeed, if a church does not incorporate and own property and practice
business, there would be nothing to tax.
lojbab
So, your wall of separation is more of a one-sided mirror. Religion
can do nothing in government but the government can do whatever it
wants to religion? You prove your "wall" has never existed.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com- Hide quoted text -
How could government ever destroy what God has ordained? Oh, ye of
little faith, oh faithless one. The fires of hell are being stoked for
you even now. Smell the brimstone! The devil is waiting for your muddy
and torpid soul.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 12:13:13 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 9, 4:12 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Government is not banned from doing so. Government is banned from
favoring any religion over others, and it is banned from prohibiting
religion. Treating the fiscal manipulations of a religious
institution the same as that of any other business neither prohibits
any religion, nor favors one over another.
can the government tax (destroy) churches?
It can tax them, but it cannot destroy them by taxing them.
Indeed, if a church does not incorporate and own property and practice
business, there would be nothing to tax.
lojbab
So, your wall of separation is more of a one-sided mirror.
Not at all.
Religion
can do nothing in government but the government can do whatever it
wants to religion?
No, government cannot. Indeed government shouldn't even recognize
that a group is religious (because that requires that the government
decide whether something is bonafide "religious", which government
shouldn't be doing).
Business organizations are taxed. A church is just another business
organization UNLESS the government recognizes it as distinct from a
normal business organization, which it should not.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
09 May 2007 09:18:58 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 12:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 9, 4:12 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Government is not banned from doing so. Government is banned from
favoring any religion over others, and it is banned from prohibiting
religion. Treating the fiscal manipulations of a religious
institution the same as that of any other business neither prohibits
any religion, nor favors one over another.
can the government tax (destroy) churches?
It can tax them, but it cannot destroy them by taxing them.
Indeed, if a church does not incorporate and own property and practice
business, there would be nothing to tax.
lojbab
So, your wall of separation is more of a one-sided mirror.
Not at all.
Religion
can do nothing in government but the government can do whatever it
wants to religion?
No, government cannot. Indeed government shouldn't even recognize
that a group is religious (because that requires that the government
decide whether something is bonafide "religious", which government
shouldn't be doing).
Business organizations are taxed. A church is just another business
organization UNLESS the government recognizes it as distinct from a
normal business organization, which it should not.
lojbab
Fine. I'm a fool (to you). Understood. You are a fool to me. We
are even. This and all discussions with you are over.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
10 May 2007 04:58:31 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Fine. I'm a fool (to you). Understood. You are a fool to me. We
are even. This and all discussions with you are over.
Three times you've posted this so far today. Shall I dig up your
prior assertions of the same thing for fun?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
