Posts for: Kombiguy
Jan 31, 2017 13:20:26 #
Frosty wrote:
******
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970) 397 U.S. 664 (1970) was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
A grant of exemption of tax is not the same as a prohibition.
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970) 397 U.S. 664 (1970) was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
A grant of exemption of tax is not the same as a prohibition.
No, really? They must have forgotten to teach me that in law school. Read the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, and the Debates of the Continental Congress for an explanation of why we have the First Amendment and what it means. They will also explain why churches have been exempt from taxation since before there was a constitution. Then, if you'd like to know more, read Blackstone's Commentaries to see how it was a carryover from English common law, and heavily influenced by the Magna Carta.
But you are right, the court has never explicitly said that the first amendment prohibits taxing churches. Nor has the court said that the sun rises in the east, water is wet, etc. Some things the court knows in the same way you do.
Jan 31, 2017 12:50:50 #
Frosty wrote:
........but does not prevent it.
Yea, according to the Supreme Court, the first amendment does prohibit taxing churches.
Jan 31, 2017 12:42:35 #
green wrote:
serious question, in the eyes of the IRS, what constitutes a church?
Generally speaking, the IRS considers a number of factors, most commonly whether the organization has a a distinct legal existence and religious history, a recognized creed and form of worship, established places of worship, a regular congregation and regular religious services, and an organization of ordained ministers.
There may be others, but these are the biggest ones the IRS looks for.
Remember, this is not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is intended nor established.
Jan 31, 2017 12:38:17 #
Frosty wrote:
What does this, ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." have to do with taxation?
That's the part of the constitution that has been interpreted as exempting churches from taxation.
Jan 31, 2017 12:18:05 #
green wrote:
Kombiguy, what do I have to do to have my right to not pay taxes protected by the Constitution?... Is it as simple as starting a business and calling it a religion? I see some people are doing that very successfully.
Go ahead. Start one. Nobody's stopping you. Make it a real church and it will be non-taxed.
Jan 31, 2017 12:17:05 #
BigWahoo wrote:
What does having the U.S. government subsidizing churches, by making them not have to pay taxes, have to do with the first amendment.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe the part about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." You know, the whole freedom of religion thing.
Jan 31, 2017 11:58:08 #
dljen wrote:
This is one of the reasons I don't believe in churches receiving tax benefits. This "man" who serves as a leader is unstable.
Take that any way you want!
Take that any way you want!
So, you're anti-first amendment?
Jan 19, 2017 16:08:38 #
3 more from the bridge.
Dec 26, 2016 11:20:08 #
[quote=Frosty]
Close. Time is, in one definition, the duration of all existence. So you are right, but incomplete. Not all that exists is "matter." Some things exist as energy, some as incorporeal res.
boberic wrote:
This is not an accurate statement. A beginning implies that there is an end.
********
The is no end of time and there was no beginning of time. Time cannot exist without matter as matter cannot exist without time.
********
The is no end of time and there was no beginning of time. Time cannot exist without matter as matter cannot exist without time.
Close. Time is, in one definition, the duration of all existence. So you are right, but incomplete. Not all that exists is "matter." Some things exist as energy, some as incorporeal res.
Dec 26, 2016 07:33:34 #
John_F wrote:
By moving the event back and back we will come to ... (show quote)
And where did that "stuff" that bumps into each other come from?
Dec 26, 2016 07:31:41 #
boberic wrote:
A beginning implies that there is an end.
Not correct.
Dec 24, 2016 21:16:33 #
Keenan wrote:
Bless your heart.
Always the original one.
Dec 24, 2016 21:10:53 #
Keenan wrote:
So...you are saying that you claimed the Church was perfect?
Grow up.
Dec 24, 2016 21:07:55 #
Texcaster wrote:
You mean ... "The One True, Holy, Catholic And Apostolic Church"? I had 12 years of that dogma. The same church found time, during 7 centuries of Inquisition, to have a trial to determine if Africans and New World Indians had souls. The Indians won, the Africans lost. All the while fostering a culture of child abuse. Those enlightened men?
Nobody ever claimed the Church was perfect. Except, of course, those who try to build straw men and ad hominem arguments.
Dec 24, 2016 14:51:05 #
green wrote:
This becomes an issue of recursive creation... that no major religion will want to tackle.
This becomes an issue of recursive creation... that no major religion will want to tackle.
You're clearly unfamiliar with Catholicism. Rely in large part on Aristotle and Aquinas, the Church long ago tackled the problem of a prime mover and first causes.
If Tyson is correct, and that's an incredibly long shot, he merely moves, as you note, the origin problem back one level. Sooner or later, one is forced to confront a creation event. That is either a God, or an accident.
The Church long ago figured this out.