 |
|
| Religion Forum Index » Deism Forum » Point counter point church tax excempt... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| buckeye... |
 Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suneditorials/la-oew-lynn-stanley23-2008sep23,0,7436695.story
Why don't churches pay taxes?
Erik Stanley says the power to tax enables the government to destroy the
free exercise of religion. Barry Lynn says that it isn't unreasonable for
organizations that pay no taxes to accept some federal oversight.
September 23, 2008
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in the first place?
Wouldn't it be a better approach to deny the tax exemption to all churches?
Previously, Stanley and Lynn debated whether federal tax law chills free
speech in churches.
Hands off our churches, IRS
Point: Erik Stanley
Tax exemption is a privilege, not a right
Counterpoint: Barry W. Lynn
***************************************************************
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 ˇ 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
**************************************************************** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
buckeye wrote:
Quote: Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today is: Why should any
organization be tax exempt in the first place?
Once that question is answered, if there are any that should be tax
exempt, then we can better discuss church tax exempt status. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today is: Why should any
organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service with the would-be
tax money than the government can.
Quote:
Once that question is answered, if there are any that
should be tax exempt, then we can better discuss church
tax exempt status.
The soup kitchens, distaster relief, etc done by churches should be tax
exempt. The stained glass windows and gilded crosses should be subject to
tax like any luxury. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack wrote:
Quote: Peter Franks wrote:
buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today is: Why should any
organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service with the would-be
tax money than the government can.
If true, I think that point applies to /any/ organization. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack wrote:
Quote: Peter Franks wrote:
buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today is: Why should any
organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service with the would-be
tax money than the government can.
If true, I think that point applies to /any/ organization. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| buckeye... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
panamfloyd at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
Quote: :|On Sep 25, 11:50 am, "Jack" <furgfurgf... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
 > cpt banjo wrote:
> >> Erik Stanley says the power to tax enables the
> >> government to destroy the free exercise of religion.
> > By that line of reasoning, we shouldn't tax the media
> > because it enables the government to destroy the freedom
> > of the press.
> > Anyone can say anything from the pulpit; they just can't
> > do it on the taxpayers' nickel.
> If a church paid taxes, they wouldn't have to censor political speech at
> all.
:|Holy cow...I actually agree with Jack! If churches were taxed, they'd
:|start whining about how they should have even *more* influence in
:|government, now that they're helping to pay for it. They sure are a
:|tempting target, but I think it'll lead to more trouble.
Once upon a time in many if not most western countries church and state
were pretty much one and the same,
Governments tend to frown upon the idea of taxing itself. Thus churches
were not taxed.
Keeping tax exempt status for churches fits the principle of church state
***************************************************************
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 ˇ 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
**************************************************************** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today is:
Why should any organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service
with the would-be tax money than the government can.
If true, I think that point applies to /any/ organization.
Well, it's hard to privatize, say, highway construction--not enough
opportunity for competition, how are highways to compete with each other? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
buckeye wrote:
Quote: Peter Franks <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
:|buckeye wrote:
> Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in the first place?
:|Wrong question to be asking.
:|
So you say.
Yes, so I say.
I see that you aren't interested in a rational and orderly discussion.
Have fun with your one-sided propaganda 'discussions' with the
feeble-minded that swarm to your posts... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack wrote:
Quote: Peter Franks wrote:
Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today is:
Why should any organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service
with the would-be tax money than the government can.
If true, I think that point applies to /any/ organization.
Well, it's hard to privatize, say, highway construction--not enough
opportunity for competition, how are highways to compete with each other?
So, are you saying that government-controlled highway construction
provides more of a service than private construction could? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:35:29 -0700, Peter Franks
<none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Quote: buckeye wrote:
Peter Franks <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
:|buckeye wrote:
> Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt in the first place?
:|Wrong question to be asking.
:|
So you say.
Yes, so I say.
I see that you aren't interested in a rational and orderly discussion.
Have fun with your one-sided propaganda 'discussions' with the
feeble-minded that swarm to your posts...
Franks, you're the one who tries to set up strawmen
arguments, based on your silly theories and conclusions
about constitutiobnal law
ALL your crap is "belief" in something, or someway the
law is wrong, or how it "should be" (according to you)
Then you expect "argument"
If you don't see how stupid that kind of game is, then
go pout in some other place. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:29:55 -0700, Peter Franks
<none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Quote: Well, it's hard to privatize, say, highway construction--not enough
opportunity for competition, how are highways to compete with each other?
So, are you saying that government-controlled highway construction
provides more of a service than private construction could?
Government does't build highways, Franks
No one advocates government building highways
What we say, is that when :PUBLIC MONEY is expended, it
is regulatable, accountable, and NOT done for profit.
When PROFIT is the primary motivation for things that
societies need, then the public good is secondary.
WE build highways with OUR money
WE use those highways and maintain them with OUR money
PROFIT is not a consideration----
When a private corporaton builds a highway, WE pay lots
of money to oversee it, (inspectors, etc) then we pay
through our ass to use that highway at an inflated
price over a lifetime. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alex W.... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Franks" <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote in message
news:TYXDk.534$595.162 at (no spam) newsfe01.iad...
Quote: Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt
in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today
is:
Why should any organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service
with the would-be tax money than the government can.
If true, I think that point applies to /any/
organization.
Well, it's hard to privatize, say, highway
construction--not enough opportunity for competition, how
are highways to compete with each other?
So, are you saying that government-controlled highway
construction provides more of a service than private
construction could?
Government-funded and -directed interstate road network is
arguably the single most profitable enterprise every
undertaken by the American government, and possibly the
single most profitable venture in American history. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:28:54 +0100, "Alex W."
<ingilt at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Quote:
"Peter Franks" <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote in message
news:TYXDk.534$595.162 at (no spam) newsfe01.iad...
Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt
in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today
is:
Why should any organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service
with the would-be tax money than the government can.
If true, I think that point applies to /any/
organization.
Well, it's hard to privatize, say, highway
construction--not enough opportunity for competition, how
are highways to compete with each other?
So, are you saying that government-controlled highway
construction provides more of a service than private
construction could?
Government-funded and -directed interstate road network is
arguably the single most profitable enterprise every
undertaken by the American government, and possibly the
single most profitable venture in American history.
Most important was the fact that it was not done out of
greed, but to serve the nation.
Moving goods and services across America to make it a
better place, as opposed to building something to
profit from is worlds apart. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nicklas at (no spam) Click.com wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:28:54 +0100, "Alex W."
ingilt at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote in message
news:TYXDk.534$595.162 at (no spam) newsfe01.iad...
Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt
in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today
is:
Why should any organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service
with the would-be tax money than the government can.
If true, I think that point applies to /any/
organization.
Well, it's hard to privatize, say, highway
construction--not enough opportunity for competition, how
are highways to compete with each other?
So, are you saying that government-controlled highway
construction provides more of a service than private
construction could?
Government-funded and -directed interstate road network is
arguably the single most profitable enterprise every
undertaken by the American government, and possibly the
single most profitable venture in American history.
Most important was the fact that it was not done out of
greed, but to serve the nation.
Moving goods and services across America to make it a
better place, as opposed to building something to
profit from is worlds apart.
Actually, the highway system was developed for military purposes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:48:24 -0700, Peter Franks
<none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Quote: Nicklas at (no spam) Click.com wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:28:54 +0100, "Alex W."
ingilt at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none at (no spam) none.com> wrote in message
news:TYXDk.534$595.162 at (no spam) newsfe01.iad...
Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Jack wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
buckeye wrote:
Today's question: Why should churches be tax exempt
in
the first place?
Wrong question to be asking.
The more appropriate (prefatory) question for today
is:
Why should any organization be tax exempt in the first
place?
Because the organization is providing more of a service
with the would-be tax money than the government can.
If true, I think that point applies to /any/
organization.
Well, it's hard to privatize, say, highway
construction--not enough opportunity for competition, how
are highways to compete with each other?
So, are you saying that government-controlled highway
construction provides more of a service than private
construction could?
Government-funded and -directed interstate road network is
arguably the single most profitable enterprise every
undertaken by the American government, and possibly the
single most profitable venture in American history.
Most important was the fact that it was not done out of
greed, but to serve the nation.
Moving goods and services across America to make it a
better place, as opposed to building something to
profit from is worlds apart.
Actually, the highway system was developed for military purposes.
But not for profit, Franks.
The "profit" was the elevation of society, not lining
the pockets of the wealth class. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:01 pm
|
|