The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions in the United States: $71,000,000,000
350 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363948]Well one important part of the decision (paraphrased by Oyez.org) goes a little like
The Court noted that "benevolent neutrality" toward churches and religions was "deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life."
which basically means "To do otherwise would go against the fabric of our Constitution."[/QUOTE]
No, that isn't what it "basically means" at all. Stop trying to interpret Supreme Court decisions. They said exactly what they meant and nothing more. It means that so long as you apply the same laws to everyone, it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause.
It means that if you give tax-exempt status to mosques and synagogues as well as churches, you have not violated the separation of church and state.
Which means if you tax [I]all[/I] religious organizations whose revenue puts them into a tax-paying bracket, then you have not violated the Establishment Clause.
Way to not fucking understand how precedence works!
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363908]In fact, the precedence set by Walz v. Tax Commission would SUPPORT the taxation of churches, as its reasoning is that so long as a standard is applied for ALL religious organizations indiscriminately, then it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
You do realize we impose law upon religious organizations even when it conflicts with their beliefs, right? If they want to sacrifice a newborn to the blood god, their religious freedom does not override the law. If they want to make a profit, their religious freedom does not override the law.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363974]No, that isn't what it "basically means" at all. It means that so long as you apply the same laws to everyone, it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause.
It means that if you give tax-exempt status to mosques and synagogues as well as churches, you have not violated the separation of church and state.
Which means if you tax [I]all[/I] religious organizations whose revenue puts them into a tax-paying bracket, then you have not violated the Establishment Clause.
Way to not fucking understand how precedence works![/QUOTE]
Thanks for not reading the actual text from the decision, which I will re-post here, which is clearly against "government interference with religion":
[QUOTE]The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts, there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.[/QUOTE]
Oy vey, I'm sensing this massive clot of bullshit and hate all over this entire thread.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363995]Please explain the existence of the Catholic League as a tax-exempt lobbying entity.[/QUOTE]
It's a church and a religious organization.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363992]Thanks for not reading the actual text from the decision, which I will re-post here, which is clearly against "government interference with religion":[/QUOTE]
I read it.
You don't know what "government interference with religion" means.
If a church decides to sacrifice a child, a government can fucking intervene, because they are enforcing the "no human sacrifices" law indiscriminately.
If [I]all[/I] religious organizations are taxed, then it does not violate the separation of church and state because it is not a religious decision; it is a fiscal one.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=F T;36364002]It's a church and a religious organization.[/QUOTE]
Which lobbies national and local legislative bodies around the country and pursues civil suits on behalf of the catholic church.
They participate in politics.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364003]I read it.
You don't know what "government interference with religion" means.
If a church decides to sacrifice a child, a government can fucking intervene, because they are enforcing the "no human sacrifices" law indiscriminately.
[/QUOTE]
Holy shit. you are seriously fucking begging the question here lol.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364003]
Which lobbies national and local legislative bodies around the country and pursues civil suits on behalf of the catholic church.[/QUOTE]
Even if it does seem like a nation all on it's own to you, it's still considered by many to be a major religious organization.
Also, just as you said earlier on the subject of interpreting the words of the decision on your own: "government interference with religion" means exactly "government interference with religion". And nothing more and nothing less.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364014]Holy shit. you are seriously fucking begging the question here lol.[/QUOTE]
Interference means targeting BECAUSE they are a religion
Sponsorship means targeting BECAUSE they are a religion
Taxes would be indiscriminate regardless of them being a religion.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36364041]Interference means targeting BECAUSE they are a religion
Sponsorship means targeting BECAUSE they are a religion
Taxes would be indiscriminate regardless of them being a religion.[/QUOTE]
Seeing as the case decided upon was specifically [B]about[/B] the taxing of religions, I'm 100% sure that they were including "taxing" as part of "interference".
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364014]Holy shit. you are seriously fucking begging the question here lol.[/QUOTE]
Hey.
Stop dodging and stop twisting precedence to suit your argument.
The Walz v. Tax Commission precedent clearly states that so long as tax-status is granted indiscriminately regardless of [I]which[/I] religion it is, then it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Zorach v. Clauson
"[B]We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group[/B], and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma."
As long as all religions are treated by the same standard, the government can tax them or not tax them without violating the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363718]Also FYI the Vatican gets its money from churches around the world, property transactions (of things they fucking stole during their historical conquests) and funding from multiple nations around the world.
The Vatican also plays the stock market. Do you know of any charities that have $312,000,000 in stocks and bonds (circa 1994)? Because that doesn't really sound like how a charitable organization conducts itself![/QUOTE]
Everything everybody owns today is because of things stolen during war.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364058]Seeing as the case decided upon was specifically [B]about[/B] the taxing of religions, I'm 100% sure that they were including "taxing" as part of "interference".[/QUOTE]
No, for the fifth time:
That case was about whether NOT taxing them would qualify as unconstitution. It holds [I]absolutely[/I] no bearing on whether or not the indiscriminate and fair taxation of all religious institutions would be constitutional.
Its precedence, in fact, [I]supports[/I] the argument for taxation so long as [I]all[/I] religious institutions are treated equally and fairly.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;36364072]Everything everybody owns today is because of things stolen during war.[/QUOTE]
And the rest of us pay taxes.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364064]Hey.
Stop dodging and stop twisting precedence to suit your argument.
The Walz v. Tax Commission precedent clearly states that so long as tax-status is granted indiscriminately based upon [I]which[/I] religion it is, then it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
[/QUOTE]
It actually says none of that. It specifically mentions nothing about taxing all religions equally, because that issue didn't even fucking come up. Also, Zorach v. Clauson was decided 20 years earlier than Walz was, so bringing that up was completely vain since anything Zorach said on that subject was overturned by Walz. This is simple shit dude.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364003]
If a church decides to sacrifice a child, a government can fucking intervene, because they are enforcing the "no human sacrifices" law indiscriminately.
[/QUOTE]
Or when a Catholic priest molests a choir boy.
It's probably wide spread enough to outlaw Catholicism in the US as a child molesting cult.
As a Law student you should know that the more recent decision is the one that should be considered valid
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364105]It actually says none of that. It specifically mentions nothing about taxing all religions equally, because that issue didn't even fucking come up. Also, Zorach v. Clauson was decided 20 years earlier than Walz was, so bringing that up was completely vain since anything Zorach said on that subject was overturned by Walz. This is simple shit dude.[/QUOTE]
Uhh, it wasn't overturned.
The Zorach v. Clauson precedence was used to [I]support[/I] the Walz v. Tax Commission ruling. The Zorach precedence on non-partiality was the very basis of allowing tax-exempt status to [I]all[/I] religious organizations.
You do realize you're arguing with someone who does this shit for a living.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364120]As a Law student you should know that the more recent decision is the one that should be considered valid[/QUOTE]
*Graduate.
And that is [I]only[/I] if two decisions contradict one another. Zorach and Walz' cases [I]support[/I] one another. The Zorach decision was a key factor in supporting the Walz decision.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364128]Uhh, it wasn't overturned.
The Zorach v. Clauson precedence was used to [I]support[/I] the Walz v. Tax Commission ruling. The Zorach precedence on non-partiality was the very basis of allowing tax-exempt status to [I]all[/I] religious organizations.
You do realize you're arguing with someone who does this shit for a living.
[/quote]You're not arguing my main point here.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364145]You're not arguing my main point here.[/QUOTE]
Yes I am, you just keep trying to change the point every time I refute it.
Provide a rebuttal:
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364128]Uhh, it wasn't overturned.
The Zorach v. Clauson precedence was used to [I]support[/I] the Walz v. Tax Commission ruling. The Zorach precedence on non-partiality was the very basis of allowing tax-exempt status to [I]all[/I] religious organizations.
You do realize you're arguing with someone who does this shit for a living.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
*Graduate.
And that is [I]only[/I] if two decisions contradict one another. Zorach and Walz' cases [I]support[/I] one another. The Zorach decision was a key factor in supporting the Walz decision.[/QUOTE]
So, tax churches...
What happens to the little ones that just try and stay honest. Just raise money to pay bills and donate to charities and send their people on mission trips (Which cost a TON of money) It's not like a dollar from 10 people in the pews means that churches make loads of money.
Now, those gigantic mega-churches are a different story.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36364154]So, tax churches...
What happens to the little ones that just try and stay honest. Just raise money to pay bills and donate to charities and send their people on mission trips (Which cost a TON of money) It's not like a dollar from 10 people in the pews means that churches make loads of money.
Now, those gigantic mega-churches are a different story.[/QUOTE]
See, there are these things called "tax brackets."
If a company barely has enough to sustain itself, it pays very little in taxes. If it's making fuckloads of money, it pays fuckloads of taxes.
A church that makes no profit would pay no taxes. (Profit being any money that is left over after paying maintenance and employment costs.)
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36364113]Or when a Catholic priest molests a choir boy.
It's probably wide spread enough to outlaw Catholicism in the US as a child molesting cult.[/QUOTE]
Oh, you. Just stop. It's like saying "That atheist killed all those people in the name of being an atheist. Ban atheism."
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36364170]Oh, you. Just stop. It's like saying "That atheist killed all those people in the name of being an atheist. Ban atheism."[/QUOTE]
Atheism isn't a religion. It has no dogma. And if you'd met an atheist, you'd realize that we don't exactly jump to defend our own just because they're another atheist. We don't particularly give a shit about that. That's sort of what atheism means.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364149]Yes I am, you just keep trying to change the point every time I refute it.
Provide a rebuttal:[/QUOTE]
How about you provide a rebuttal for [QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364105]It actually says none of that. It specifically mentions nothing about taxing all religions equally, because that issue didn't even fucking come up.[/QUOTE] first
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364160]See, there are these things called "tax brackets."
If a company barely has enough to sustain itself, it pays very little in taxes. If it's making fuckloads of money, it pays fuckloads of taxes.
A church that makes no profit would pay no taxes. (Profit being any money that is left over after paying maintenance and employment costs.)[/QUOTE]
I was thinking about that. Wasn't so sure people on FP even knew what those were. People on here tend to be 16 year olds who think they know the legal system.
[editline]16th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364176]Atheism isn't a religion. It has no dogma.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say it was a religion...
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364177]How about you provide a rebuttal for first[/QUOTE]
They cited Zorach v. Clauson directly in the hearings as justifying an equal tax-exempt status for all religious organizations.
Now you reply to mine.
oh and you still haven't provided a valid rebuttal to this
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363992]Thanks for not reading the actual text from the decision, which I will re-post here, which is clearly against "government interference with religion":[/QUOTE]
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364191]They cited Zorach v. Clauson directly in the hearings as justifying an equal tax-exempt status for all religious organizations.
Did you read the full case? Or did you just read a Wikipedia summary?[/QUOTE]
You're dodging my argument again. That part had nothing to do with Zorach. Reread it and provide a valid rebuttal.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364196]oh and you still haven't provided a valid rebuttal to this[/QUOTE]
They cited Zorach v. Clauson directly in the hearings as justifying an equal tax-exempt status for all religious organizations.
Stop dodging. Address the Zorach v. Clauson precedence.
If you think Walz v. Tax Commission overrules it, please cite the part directly which overrules it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.