• The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions in the United States: $71,000,000,000
    350 replies, posted
I don't understand why people think that they know better than a graduate student of law.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364211]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.[/QUOTE] You're dodging all of my arguments lol. Not in one of your last couple posts have you actually provided a straightforward rebuttal to any of my points. Hint: aimlessly blathering about Zorach won't do you any good. Why don't you come up with and argument that doesn't include Zorach?
Walz v. Tax Commission: "There is a line between what a State may do in encouraging "religious" activities, Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, and what a State may not do by using its resources to promote "religious" activities, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, or bestowing benefits because of them. Yet that line may not always be clear. Closing public schools on Sunday is in the former category; subsidizing churches, in my view, is in the latter." [editline]17th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364226]You're dodging all of my arguments lol. Not in one of your last couple posts have you actually provided a straightforward rebuttal to any of my points. Hint: aimlessly blathering about Zorach won't do you any good. Why don't you come up with and argument that doesn't include Zorach?[/QUOTE] Because Walz v. Tax Commission references Zorach directly about seventy times. Also from Walz v. Tax Commission: "Hence, the question in the present case makes irrelevant the "two centuries of uninterrupted freedom from taxation," referred to by the Court. Ante at 397 U. S. 678. [B]If history be our guide, then tax exemption of church property in this country is indeed highly suspect, as it arose in the early days when the church was an agency of the state.[/B] See W. Torpey, Judicial Doctrines of Religious Rights in America 171 (1948). The question here, though, concerns the meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause made applicable to the States for only a few decades, at best."
[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] I'm pretty sure Catholics priests are more likely to molest a child than the general population. IIRC something like 4% of all US priests have been accused of molesting a child between 1950 and 2002. [quote]The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to conduct a comprehensive study based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The product of the study, titled the John Jay Report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950–2002).[16][/quote] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_United_States[/URL] I think that number is even higher in Ireland. The percentage of child molesters in the general population is far less than 1%. 0.001% or something. That's a pretty significant gap, and it makes me wonder if child molestation is part of the Catholic dogma.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364229]Walz v. Tax Commission: "There is a line between what a State may do in encouraging "religious" activities, Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, and what a State may not do by using its resources to promote "religious" activities, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, or bestowing benefits because of them. Yet that line may not always be clear. Closing public schools on Sunday is in the former category; subsidizing churches, in my view, is in the latter." [/QUOTE] The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. 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.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364250]The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. 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.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363848]Actually, you retard, the idea behind religious tax exemption is that taxing religion would create a relationship between religion and government and thus destroy the idea of separation of church and state[/QUOTE] So, you're telling me on one hand that the First Amendment cannot be rigidly enforced, but on the other that it [I]should[/I] be rigidly enforced when it means not-taxing churches. Hey, look at that! You cited something that completely contradicts you! Did you think I didn't remember what you said twenty minutes ago?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36364240]I'm pretty sure Catholics priests are more likely to molest a child than the general population. IIRC something like 4% of all US priests have been accused of molesting a child between 1950 and 2002. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_United_States[/URL] I think that number is even higher in Ireland. The percentage of child molesters in the general population is far less than 1%. 0.001% or something. That's a pretty significant gap, and it makes me wonder if child molestation is part of the Catholic dogma.[/QUOTE] That's kind of framing the issue. Post a more generalized statistic and use a different source than wikipedia and then I could take you seriously. But even then, those are bad people. It's not like their religion TEACHES them to molest people. There are other factors, probably the fact that they can't marry and all this other crazy stuff that I don't think is right, that can cause these guys to just go crazy, no matter how "In tune with God" they act. This sexual frustration they build up isn't natural and is released that way... in some rare cases (You have to consider how large the catholic church is too)
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36364283]It's not like their religion TEACHES them to molest people.[/QUOTE] But the dogma encourages it. They cannot marry or have sex with a woman. If you actively prevent someone from working out their sexual urges, they [I]will[/I] fuck [I]something.[/I]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364271]So, you're telling me on one hand that the First Amendment cannot be rigidly enforced, but on the other that it [I]should[/I] be rigidly enforced when it means not-taxing churches. Hey, look at that! You cited something that completely contradicts you! Did you think I didn't remember what you said twenty minutes ago?[/QUOTE] Lmfao. How does that contradict me? It says that although constitutional neutrality cannot possibly be an "absolutely straight line" they should do their best to make it as straight as they can. I'm not sure how they let you graduate law school without being able to understand basic context. [editline]17th June 2012[/editline] Here's another cool quote from the Walz decision: [B]The legislative purpose of the property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its "moral or mental improvement," should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes.[/B]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364291]But the dogma encourages it. They cannot marry or have sex with a woman. If you actively prevent someone from working out their sexual urges, they [I]will[/I] fuck [I]something.[/I][/QUOTE] It also says not to take part in homosexual acts. So...
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364250]The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. 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.[/QUOTE] It should be all or nothing, not 'oh they're a religion so they don't get taxed', either all corporations get taxed regardless of religious status or none get taxed. All walz v. tax commission says is that taxing specific churches more than others is unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364298]Lmfao. How does that contradict me? It says that although constitutional neutrality cannot possibly be an "absolutely straight line" they should do their best to make it as straight as they can. I'm not sure how they let you graduate law school without being able to understand basic context.[/QUOTE] Uhh, no, it says: "[B]The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions[/b]" Stop paraphrasing and framing the issue. When you quote someone directly, you fucking quote them directly. You do not put their words into your own. This directly contradicts: [QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363848]Actually, you retard, the idea behind religious tax exemption is that taxing religion would create a relationship between religion and government and thus destroy the idea of separation of church and state[/QUOTE] It means that the government simply cannot grant religious organizations their own governance, and that they must all obey the letter of the law. The law simply must treat them all equally. [editline]17th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36364309]It also says not to take part in homosexual acts. So...[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. Catholic rapists are sadly some of the only people who [I]realize[/I] it doesn't.
Here's another quote; Oh, and by the way Lankist, if you haven't read my edit again I left you a cool quote from the decision there as well. [B]Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result -- the effect -- is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion.[/B]
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364339]Here's another quote; Oh, and by the way Lankist, if you haven't read my edit again I left you a cool quote from the decision there as well. [B]Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result -- the effect -- is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion.[/B][/QUOTE] Once again, that is referring to granting [I]TAX EXEMPT STATUS,[/I] not taxation of churches. [I]Stop quoting the case out of context.[/I]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364317]Uhh, no, it says: "[B]The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions[/b]" Stop paraphrasing and framing the issue. When you quote someone directly, you fucking quote them directly. You do not put their words into your own. This directly contradicts: [editline]17th June 2012[/editline] No it doesn't. Catholic rapists are sadly some of the only people who [I]realize[/I] it doesn't.[/QUOTE] You realize that Catholics read the Bible. You know what the Bible says about gays... especially the graphic/extreme parts in the Old Testament. DO you honestly believe that their religion teaches them to go molest children... Like actually TEACHES them and not just that their way of life builds up sexual frustration and causes them to lash out?
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36364352]You realize that Catholics read the Bible. You know what the Bible says about gays... especially the graphic/extreme parts in the Old Testament[/QUOTE] so the catholic church murders people who shave their face and hair and touch footballs. that is also in Leviticus dogma =/= bible.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364317] No it doesn't. Catholic rapists are sadly some of the only people who [I]realize[/I] it doesn't.[/QUOTE] Yes it does, it's a sin to commit homosexual acts and they know it better than anyone. [i]why[/i] they do it is another story.
[QUOTE=F T;36364369]Yes it does, it's a sin to commit homosexual acts and they know it better than anyone.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. The Catholic Church doesn't follow any other tenants of Leviticus, and Leviticus is generally not a part of dogma within the priesthood. If you have ever touched a football, then what leviticus says does not matter to your beliefs. The act of touching the impure skin of swine is a sin equal to homosexual conduct according to leviticus.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364376]No it isn't. The Catholic Church doesn't follow any other tenants of Leviticus, and Leviticus is generally not a part of dogma within the priesthood.[/QUOTE] How can you tell me that my own church doesn't know what is wrong and what is right?
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36364283]That's kind of framing the issue. Post a more generalized statistic and use a different source than wikipedia and then I could take you seriously. But even then, those are bad people. It's not like their religion TEACHES them to molest people. There are other factors, probably the fact that they can't marry and all this other crazy stuff that I don't think is right, that can cause these guys to just go crazy, no matter how "In tune with God" they act. This sexual frustration they build up isn't natural and is released that way... in some rare cases (You have to consider how large the catholic church is too)[/QUOTE] You mean like the source Wikipedia links to? [url]http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/[/url] Thats the John Jay study mentioned in the Wiki entry This is the page with the 4% figure. [url]http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/2_2_prev2.pdf[/url] There obviously has to be a reason why Catholic priests molest children at a much higher rate than the general population.
[QUOTE=F T;36364394]How can you tell me that my own church doesn't know what is wrong and what is right?[/QUOTE] Have you ever touched a football? Leviticus 11:8 on pigs: "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
They also believe in the new testament which amends a lot of things in the OT. I could go into how Jesus did that and why he did that but basically, he had authority to amend it. I'm having a hard time grasping why you believe that their religion teaches them to molest kids. You could find nothing in the Bible, nothing in any other texts the Catholic church holds and nothing is going to point towards "GO MOLEST CHILDREN FOR GOD"
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364350]Once again, that is referring to granting [I]TAX EXEMPT STATUS,[/I] not taxation of churches. [I]Stop quoting the case out of context.[/I][/QUOTE] You are obviously an absolute moron who will not and cannot understand anything about the case you are trying to argue with me about. There is literally no hope for me trying to argue with you since you are so far up your militant atheist ass you couldn't provide an actual valid argument on the subject of religion if you tried your best to. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of perma'd user Vladimir Puta etc" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36364400]They also believe in the new testament which amends a lot of things in the OT. I could go into how Jesus did that and why he did that but basically, he had authority to amend it.[/QUOTE] Actually jesus says both "the OT is out" and "the OT still applies fully" multiple times, because Jesus was a crazy person.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36364397]You mean like the source Wikipedia links to? [url]http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/[/url] Thats the John Jay study mentioned in the Wiki entry This is the page with the 4% figure. [url]http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/2_2_prev2.pdf[/url] There obviously has to be a reason why Catholic priests molest children at a much higher rate than the general population.[/QUOTE] And it's kind of obvious, their lifestyle. Pent up sexual frustration. Everybody on Facepunch is so quick to put the blame on the RELIGION and not the stupid law and crap within the religion that wasn't established by the Bible.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364399]Have you ever touched a football? Leviticus 11:8 on pigs: "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."[/QUOTE] Dude, that's Old Testament. That all went away when the New Testament was written. And not to mention, that is part of old jewish law, the same law that Jesus came down to fulfill because we simply cannot.
You seriously should not have graduated Law school and i am insanely surprised you would ever be able to do anything related to Law professionally.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36364405]You are obviously an absolute moron who will not and cannot understand anything about the case you are trying to argue with me about.[/QUOTE] Clearly you know a lot about it because you've decided to [I]stop talking about it[/I] and just insult me.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36364407]Actually jesus says both "the OT is out" and "the OT still applies fully" multiple times, because Jesus was a crazy person.[/QUOTE] I see you're a Bible scholar too on top of a Law student/graduate. Nice to know!
[QUOTE=F T;36364412]Dude, that's Old Testament. That all went away when the New Testament was written.[/QUOTE] There is nothing about homosexual conduct in the New Testament. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say "don't fuck dudes or children."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.