Should churches, synagogues & mosques etc. be taxed?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So "free" in the Establishment Clause means "free from taxation", yet you cannot provide any source to corroborate your interpretation.

But "free" in the Second Amendment does not mean "free from taxation".

Because you say so?

Well yes, I have said repeatedly, and you have not refuted, the first amendment says Congress can't pass laws to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Free means it must be free from restriction of any kind, including burden of taxation. There was no limits placed on the term "free exercise" in the constitution, no clarification that this didn't include the ability of government to tax the religious exercise. You have absolutely NO constitutional authority to levy a tax on a fundamental inalienable right!

You keep wanting to bring up the second amendment, and it does contain the word "free" in reference to the states, but it has a different meaning. Nothing "free" is being prohibited in the second, so it doesn't relate to the same meaning inferred by the first. It's cute that you were able to find another instance of the word "free" (which can have 36 different meaning depending on usage) but that's about it. This doesn't make your case or prove your point. What you are attempting to do, is twist something I said into a logical pretzel and regurgitate it back out at me, and it's not going over too well, I feel bad for you.

 

[Cancel8]

Second Amendment, US Constitution:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Is a "free state" a state in which no taxes are levied?

 

[Cancel8]

Free means it must be free from restriction of any kind, including burden of taxation.

This is the part of your position that I find unusual.

Can you help me understand how you arrived at the conclusion that "free" means free from taxation?

 

[Good Luck]

So "free" in the Establishment Clause means "free from taxation", yet you cannot provide any source to corroborate your interpretation.

But "free" in the Second Amendment does not mean "free from taxation".

Because you say so?

Are you really going to pretend not to understand the basic difference in how the word "free" is used between the 1st and 2nd Amendments, just because the answer did not come from Dixie?

The word "free" does not stand alone. Adjectives can never stand alone. In the 1st Amendment "Free" modifies the noun phrase "exercise thereof". "Exercise thereof" clearly refers to the people exercising their expression of religion. Since the entire amendment is about what GOVERNMENT may not do, the easily understood connotation fo the word "free" is to be free from government encumbrance or interference, of which taxation can arguably be a part since taxation is considered a government encumbrance.

However, in the 2nd Amendment, the word "free" modifies the noun "state", thus giving the adjective a completely different connotation. With regards to comparing how the adjective is used in the 1st Amendment, how can the STATE be "free" of government encumbrances? It cannot, therefore "free does NOT mean "free from government encumbrances" as it does in the 1st Amendment, and therefore has nothing to do with taxation (or any other fiscal concern).

 

[Schadenfreude]

Are you really going to pretend not to understand the basic difference in how the word "free" is used between the 1st and 2nd Amendments, just because the answer did not come from Dixie?

The word "free" does not stand alone. Adjectives can never stand alone. In the 1st Amendment "Free" modifies the noun phrase "exercise thereof". "Exercise thereof" clearly refers to the people exercising their expression of religion. Since the entire amendment is about what GOVERNMENT may not do, the easily understood connotation fo the word "free" is to be free from government encumbrance or interference, of which taxation can arguably be a part since taxation is considered a government encumbrance.

However, in the 2nd Amendment, the word "free" modifies the noun "state", thus giving the adjective a completely different connotation. With regards to comparing how the adjective is used in the 1st Amendment, how can the STATE be "free" of government encumbrances? It cannot, therefore "free does NOT mean "free from government encumbrances" as it does in the 1st Amendment, and therefore has nothing to do with taxation (or any other fiscal concern).

any religion can practice its religion freely without buildings and vestments

if buildings and/or paraphernalia are wanted, then they should be taxed

 

[Good Luck]

dixie....are you free to walk on public streets?

Doesn't work. Public streets are provided by government via taxation. Religion is specifically prohibited from being provided by government.

Again, the adjective "free" has many possible connotations. Trying to disprove the idea that the phrase "free exercise thereof" includes freedom from the encumbrance of taxation simply does not work by trying to apply the word "free" in instances with obviously different connotations.

 

[Cancel8]

Are you really going to pretend not to understand the basic difference in how the word "free" is used between the 1st and 2nd Amendments, just because the answer did not come from Dixie?

The word "free" does not stand alone. Adjectives can never stand alone. In the 1st Amendment "Free" modifies the noun phrase "exercise thereof". "Exercise thereof" clearly refers to the people exercising their expression of religion. Since the entire amendment is about what GOVERNMENT may not do, the easily understood connotation fo the word "free" is to be free from government encumbrance or interference, of which taxation can arguably be a part since taxation is considered a government encumbrance.

However, in the 2nd Amendment, the word "free" modifies the noun "state", thus giving the adjective a completely different connotation. With regards to comparing how the adjective is used in the 1st Amendment, how can the STATE be "free" of government encumbrances? It cannot, therefore "free does NOT mean "free from government encumbrances" as it does in the 1st Amendment, and therefore has nothing to do with taxation (or any other fiscal concern).

Therein lies my point of clarification. As you correctly stated, "the easily understood connotation fo(r) the word "free" is to be free from government encumbrance or interference, of which taxation can arguably be a part since taxation is considered a government encumbrance."

Arguably.

I have been unable to locate any corroboration for "Dixie's" inclusion of freedom from taxation in the context of the Establishment Clause, and he hasn't convinced me.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Therein lies my point of clarification. As you correctly stated, "the easily understood connotation fo(r) the word "free" is to be free from government encumbrance or interference, of which taxation can arguably be a part since taxation is considered a government encumbrance."

Arguably.

I have been unable to locate any corroboration for "Dixie's" inclusion of freedom from taxation in the context of the Establishment Clause, and he hasn't convinced me.

It's not my job to convince a retarded person to not be absurd and ignorant. Sorry. You can continue to remain ignorant, and retarded, it's absolutely your right. There doesn't need to be 'corroboration' for rational common sense, it's a given. There needs to be corroboration if you intend to defy rationality and common sense, which you have done, without corroboration.

I gave you the various meanings of "free" and nowhere in there, is it articulated that "free" can mean "subject to taxation by government." Sorry, but that just isn't included in the 36 meanings listed by the dictionary. So unless you have something to offer up, to support the inane stupidity you spewed here, then my point remains unchallenged.

 

[Good Luck]

any religion can practice its religion freely without buildings and vestments

if buildings and/or paraphernalia are wanted, then they should be taxed

Wrong.

Many Christian religions follow Hebrews 10:25 "Do not forsake the assembly" Do you think congregations should assemble for worship in your favorite city park? Or, just maybe, they DO need buildings - especially in areas where it can drop to sub-freezing temperatures for weeks on end.

Second, certain religious ceremonies require wine (or water), bread, etc. Going to make the people hold the wine in their hands? Going to tell them celebrating the Last Supper, as commanded by Jesus ("Do this in memory of me" Luke 22:19b) is unnecessary?

Going to tell Muslims they don't "need" their Mosques, that they can just worship on the sidewalks?

So totally wrong I can only conclude your support of this idea comes from antipathy (and extreme ignorance) toward religion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

any religion can practice its religion freely without buildings and vestments

if buildings and/or paraphernalia are wanted, then they should be taxed

How can you claim it is free if it is being taxed? The tax makes it no longer "free" by definition, it is a right which is paid for through taxation. Buildings and vestments are required for the exercise of religion, it is absurd to attempt buzzard-picking things, and claim you are leaving the right unencumbered. Do you have a right to a fair trial? ...Would it be okay if we instituted a tax on fair trials, and in order for you to get one, you'd have to pay the tax? Would you be receptive to that? I kind of doubt it. What about if we instituted a $1,000 tax on anyone who owns a firearm... you have the freedom to own a gun, but you must pay a $1,000 tax every year to exercise that right. You okay with that one? What about voting? You are free to vote, but only if you paid an income tax this year.... otherwise, you aren't free to vote, and can be prohibited from doing so. Like that one too?

So, you see... pinhead... our inalienable rights are just that... inalienable! They can't be subject to a tax, because what would happen if the tax were not paid? Is the right removed from being inalienable? Kind of defeats the whole purpose of it being inalienable to begin with, doesn't it?

 

[Schadenfreude]

Wrong.

Many Christian religions follow Hebrews 10:25 "Do not forsake the assembly" Do you think congregations should assemble for worship in your favorite city park? Or, just maybe, they DO need buildings - especially in areas where it can drop to sub-freezing temperatures for weeks on end.

Second, certain religious ceremonies require wine (or water), bread, etc. Going to make the people hold the wine in their hands? Going to tell them celebrating the Last Supper, as commanded by Jesus ("Do this in memory of me" Luke 22:19b) is unnecessary?

Going to tell Muslims they don't "need" their Mosques, that they can just worship on the sidewalks?

So totally wrong I can only conclude your support of this idea comes from antipathy (and extreme ignorance) toward religion.

early christian met in the houses of church leaders

as for wine etc., a glass or paper cup is sufficient

bread - you can always bake your own

what did muslims do before there were mosques?

what did christians do before there were churches and cathedrals

jews can celebrate shabbat outside or inside any building of sufficient size

 

[Based Chad]

There doesn't need to be 'corroboration' for rational common sense, it's a given. There needs to be corroboration if you intend to defy rationality and common sense, which you have done, without corroboration.

LOL. Dixie says the funniest things. :rotfl:

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

early christian met in the houses of church leaders

as for wine etc., a glass or paper cup is sufficient

bread - you can always bake your own

what did muslims do before there were mosques?

what did christians do before there were churches and cathedrals

jews can celebrate shabbat outside or inside any building of sufficient size

Sorry, the First Amendment says you don't have the authority to prohibit free religious exercise. That would include congregations building churches and owning vestments. I know you hate religion, and wish this was something that you could easily do, but it's just not, and you will never see such a thing come to fruition... unless pinheads like Mojo get elected and completely change the definition of common words as they've always been understood.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Sorry, the First Amendment says you don't have the authority to prohibit free religious exercise. That would include congregations building churches and owning vestments. I know you hate religion, and wish this was something that you could easily do, but it's just not, and you will never see such a thing come to fruition... unless pinheads like Mojo get elected and completely change the definition of common words as they've always been understood.

what about non-sanctioned religions - they cannot freely practice their religion - a religion has to be validated by the irs before in can achieve tax exempt status

 

[Good Luck]

Therein lies my point of clarification. As you correctly stated, "the easily understood connotation fo(r) the word "free" is to be free from government encumbrance or interference, of which taxation can arguably be a part since taxation is considered a government encumbrance."

Arguably.

I have been unable to locate any corroboration for "Dixie's" inclusion of freedom from taxation in the context of the Establishment Clause, and he hasn't convinced me.

Look it up in tax codes. You can find in in numerous places, including IRS. A tax owed is deemed to be an encumbrance against the entity's property or estate.

Here is one of many examples:
http://search.municode.com/html/13928/level2/PTIHORUCH_ARTXTA.html

Note section Section 10.05:

The tax levied by the City is hereby declared to be a lien, charge, or encumbrance upon the property as of January 1st of any year...

In short, as soon as the tax is levied, it is considered an encumbrance, alleviated only by paying said tax.

So, when it comes to religion, the question then posed is what does the government do if a church does not pay their taxes? Do they shut the church down? Do they foreclose on the encumbrance and auction off the building? Do they use law enforcement to come in and forcibly remove donations gathered on a worship day until the tax debt is paid?

Can you imagine the uproar? And while your exercising your imagination, add the reaction of the Muslim world if we were to start telling them they need to pay taxes on their contributions and mosques.

No, given the difficulties inherent in taxing religious institutions, the only available conclusion is that ALL possible means of government intrusion on religion, including taxes, is forbidden.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the only available conclusion is that ALL possible means of government intrusion on religion, including taxes, is forbidden.

No no... you forget the illogical and devoid of common-sense conclusion derived by retarded idiots on the left, who haven't got a clue about what "free" even means.

You are absolutely correct, the right to freely exercise religion, is inalienable, which means it can not be encumbered by taxes from the government. Such taxation, would indeed be government prohibiting free exercise of religion.

 

[Schadenfreude]

No no... you forget the illogical and devoid of common-sense conclusion derived by retarded idiots on the left, who haven't got a clue about what "free" even means.

You are absolutely correct, the right to freely exercise religion, is inalienable, which means it can not be encumbered by taxes from the government. Such taxation, would indeed be government prohibiting free exercise of religion.

only if the religion is irs sanctioned

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

what about non-sanctioned religions - they cannot freely practice their religion - a religion has to be validated by the irs before in can achieve tax exempt status

There is no such thing as a "sanctioned" and "non-sanctioned" religion in America. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If certain religions were "sanctioned" and others weren't, this would violate the 1st Amendment.

Now... the IRS does have criteria which must be met, to qualify as a 501(c) tax exempt church. None of those criteria mention anything about being "sanctioned" by anyone from the outside or in government. So, I am not sure what you are talking about here.

 

[Schadenfreude]

There is no such thing as a "sanctioned" and "non-sanctioned" religion in America. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If certain religions were "sanctioned" and others weren't, this would violate the 1st Amendment.

Now... the IRS does have criteria which must be met, to qualify as a 501(c) tax exempt church. None of those criteria mention anything about being "sanctioned" by anyone from the outside or in government. So, I am not sure what you are talking about here.

try approved instead of sanctioned

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

try approved instead of sanctioned

There is no such thing as an "approved" religion. As I said, the IRS has criteria which must be met, to qualify for "tax exempt" status as a church... is that what you mean?