detlef Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 I am sure there is paperwork you can fill out. Obviously. OK, so say I do. Who looks at that paperwork and says, "Yep, you're a church". Is it the same people who, in turn, have to recognize this new church's exempt status? Is it the tyranny of the majority? Other churches? Seriously, if you're saying that my golf club example is so silly, then you're implying that someone gets to preside over who does and doesn't get to be a church, which, again, sort of flies in the face of freedom of religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) So, I look up the rational for the SC decision in Walz: The Court held that there was no nexus between these tax exemptions and the establishment of religion, and that federal or state grants of tax exemption to churches did not violate the First Amendment: (1) exemptions were granted to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which included hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, and scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups, and the legislative purpose was thus not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and (2) the exemptions for religious organizations created only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less of an involvement than would be created by taxation of churches, and the effect of the exemptions was thus not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The grant of a tax exemption was not sponsorship of the organizations because the government did not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstained from demanding that the churches support the state. The exemption created a more minimal and remote involvement between church and state than did taxation because it restricted the fiscal relationship between church and state and reinforced the desired separation insulating one from the other. I take issue with the bolded part. The government absolutely transfers part of its revenue to the church in the form of services, roads and untilities that the government expends monies on. Edited May 9, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Anywho... Income tax exemptions, fine. Property tax exemptions, I don't like. Property tax exemptions are determined by the state. Currently all 50 states allow for it, but it is not directly affected by the SJC ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Property tax exemptions are determined by the state. Currently all 50 states allow for it, but it is not directly affected by the SJC ruling. Ummm.... The entire case was based on Walz's challenge of property tax exemptions... Walz was an owner of real estate in Richmond County, New York. He sued the tax committee to challenge the property tax exemption for churches. He claimed that the exemption indirectly placed tax payers in the position of contributing to the churches. http://religiousfree...alz_v_taxc.html and more: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_135 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=397&invol=664 Edited May 9, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Ummm.... The entire case was based on Walz's challenge of property tax exemptions... http://religiousfree...alz_v_taxc.html and more: http://www.oyez.org/...9/1969/1969_135 http://caselaw.lp.fi...l=397&invol=664 My mistake. You are correct. try this. Seems like it would tell Detlef how to qualify the United Church of the Sacred 18 Green. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 According to the logic of the SC, churches are tax exempt to keep them from being swayed by politics (to put it succinctly.) But, if you look at it from the perspective of ALL churches/Mosques/Synagogues being equally taxed then there is no political sway. Something that may need to be delved into further with regard to the church is this... At the time of the establishment of the constitution you had really two things going on, the bad taste that the framers had for the Anglican church and the church being the major social safety net/charity that would help a community or individuals during rough times. The church was seen as an integral part of a "social service" system since the fledgling government did not have the mechanisms in place to provide entirely for the welfare of communities and individuals. Seeing as how the church performed this public service it was seen as essential that they not be taxed. Not doubting this could have been a factor but do you have any sources I could read to reaffirm your post? I teach this period of American history and i do not recall ever seeing this. TIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 My mistake. You are correct. try this. Seems like it would tell Detlef how to qualify the United Church of the Sacred 18 Green. Nice link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Detlef, for a guy with no religious beliefs you sure spend a hell of a lot of time talking about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundaynfl Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Do you think I can get a tax exemption since I call my basement "The Church of the NFL." ? I worship several Sundays throughout the year and with the NFL network I am a year around practitioner. Amen, several Hail Mary's and an Immaculate Reception! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 United Church of the Sacred 18 Green. Reverend Billy at your service Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Detlef, for a guy with no religious beliefs you sure spend a hell of a lot of time talking about it That isn't actually a fair characterization of my beliefs. I'm pretty sure there's a god of some sort. I'm just put-off by the political power structure that is at the core of so many religions and how they hide behind their protective status and inflict their will on the populace at large. I'm annoyed by how the status quo is that they're off limits despite the fact that they fail to show the secular citizenry the same courtesy. With that in mind, I think it's important for more and more people to challenge that status quo until enough people realize that what is happening is unjust. Trust me, if the church was to mind its own business, I'd mind mine. Yesterday, however, here in the state of NC, they very much didn't. Ironic, really. I don't go to church, yet seemingly have a higher opinion of "god" than a lot of very religious people in this state. Because I'm going to assume that any entity great enough to do what we give god credit for would be above the petty crap that these soul-less a-holes who would rather blame someone else for their own pathetic shortcomings than take care of their own business allege is "his" bidding. Edited May 9, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Not doubting this could have been a factor but do you have any sources I could read to reaffirm your post? I teach this period of American history and i do not recall ever seeing this. TIA. I will seek out what you request... First, a preface. To fully understand the rationale behind the Separation clause one needs to understand the history, tennets and formation of the Anglican church. The church was established by British Royalty to comabat the peceived power and threat of the Catholic church. With the church came, what amounted to, loyalty oaths to the British crown. You basically had an intermixing of church and politics. By dissenting against the British crown, you were dissenting against God. Leading up to the revolution, the Anglican church began to play a powerful role in quelling dissent as it and the crown were seemingly one entity. Not only did you have the nation of Britain fighting against you (taxation, quartering troops, etc...) but your church began to fight against you. This lead to many of the framers, a majority of whom were of the Anglican faith, to come to the POV that an intermingling of church and state created too powerful of an alliance. The separation clause also came about due to the proliferation of religions that sprang up in the colonies. This was a place where Quakers, Baptists and other protestants could come to express their beliefs outside of the Anglican faith. Further, Catholics could come to the colonies and worship free from persecution form the Anglican Church. In order to assemble the necessary resources, people, to overthrow the British Crown, there needed to be inclusivity of people, of all religions. To establsih this trust, one needed to establish the tennet that all be allowed to freely worship. To us it may not seem like a major issue, but at the time, religious beliefs held a great deal more sway than they do now. Fundamentally, in order to execute a popular rebellion, people had to be assured of their abiltiy to freely practice their religion. Compound this with the fact that the Anglican Church demanded loyalty to the British crown and one can see how the establishment clause became the First Amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I will seek out what you request... First, a preface. To fully understand the rationale behind the Separation clause one needs to understand the history, tennets and formation of the Anglican church. The church was established by British Royalty to comabat the peceived power and threat of the Catholic church. With the church came, what amounted to, loyalty oaths to the British crown. You basically had an intermixing of church and politics. By dissenting against the British crown, you were dissenting against God. Leading up to the revolution, the Anglican church began to play a powerful role in quelling dissent as it and the crown were seemingly one entity. Not only did you have the nation of Britain fighting against you (taxation, quartering troops, etc...) but your church began to fight against you. This lead to many of the framers, a majority of whom were of the Anglican faith, to come to the POV that an intermingling of church and state created too powerful of an alliance. The separation clause also came about due to the proliferation of religions that sprang up in the colonies. This was a place where Quakers, Baptists and other protestants could come to express their beliefs outside of the Anglican faith. Further, Catholics could come to the colonies and worship free from persecution form the Anglican Church. In order to assemble the necessary resources, people, to overthrow the British Crown, there needed to be inclusivity of people, of all religions. To establsih this trust, one needed to establish the tennet that all be allowed to freely worship. To us it may not seem like a major issue, but at the time, religious beliefs held a great deal more sway than they do now. Fundamentally, in order to execute a popular rebellion, people had to be assured of their abiltiy to freely practice their religion. Compound this with the fact that the Anglican Church demanded loyalty to the British crown and one can see how the establishment clause became the First Amendment. Indeed! My admiration for your historical accumen has increased manifold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 http://www.academicamerican.com/colonial/topics/religion.html This kind of states, though more eloquently and with some variation/contradiction, what I said above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I see Sec got it already but when the framers started they wanted nothing like what was going on in Europe. The church and the Monarchy/governments of Europe were intertwined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 SOme interesting corresondences with regard to Religion and the American Revolution: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Separation of church and state is a sham. If the church wants to play lobbyist, they should get taxed. Because I use Quickbooks, people I have written checks to auto-fill on the computer when I write checks. I have a vendor called Dionysus Wine that I write checks to often. But, when I enter Dio... it autofills to Diocese of Raleigh because, several years ago, we did a fundraiser for a friend who was going to Guatamala with some doctors to provide medicine for people down there. Apparently, the Diocese of Raleigh was the one raising the money. I'm reminded of this every time I write a check to pay for wine. Maybe you can contact Quickbooks support and see if there's a way to edit out that Diocese of Raleigh entry so you never have to see it again. Seems that gets you aggravated and then you need to start a topic suggesting that we start taxing churches after 200+ years of precedent for not taxing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Maybe you can contact Quickbooks support and see if there's a way to edit out that Diocese of Raleigh entry so you never have to see it again. Seems that gets you aggravated and then you need to start a topic suggesting that we start taxing churches after 200+ years of precedent for not taxing them. One must remember, it took a civil war and much political jousting to abolish the precedent of decades/hundreds of years of slavery in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Maybe you can contact Quickbooks support and see if there's a way to edit out that Diocese of Raleigh entry so you never have to see it again. Seems that gets you aggravated and then you need to start a topic suggesting that we start taxing churches after 200+ years of precedent for not taxing them. Seems to me Det's more understandably pissed about the anti-gay-marriage bill being passed by the aid of churches who lobby but don't pay taxes into the system they try to influence. The government has no business determining what a marriage is anyway. They should only be involved for contract enforcement, so just call them all civil unions, and let the churches or whoever is performing the ceremony decide what they consider a marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Seems to me Det's more understandably pissed about the anti-gay-marriage bill being passed by the aid of churches who lobby but don't pay taxes into the system they try to influence. The government has no business determining what a marriage is anyway. They should only be involved for contract enforcement, so just call them all civil unions, and let the churches or whoever is performing the ceremony decide what they consider a marriage. He referenced something that the church was getting involved in in NC, but that wasn't clear, so I didn't know specifically what he was talking about. However his typing DIO for a payment regularly and it bringing up some group he doensn't like is apparently what is setting him off. I know ther religious zealots are often involved in these gay marriage bans, and I disagree with them. (Heck one of them done in Ohio basically gave the state and election to Bush.) But I don't think that's a reason to revoke tax exempt status from churches (and every other non-profit group). Since the state has jurisdiction for providing marriage licenes, it is actually their job to decide what is a legal marriage. I agree that marriage between same sex couples should be allowed everywhere. They should have all the same rights allowed to any other married couple. If churches don't want to perform the marriage, that is their right, completely agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 He referenced something that the church was getting involved in in NC, but that wasn't clear, so I didn't know specifically what he was talking about. However his typing DIO for a payment regularly and it bringing up some group he doensn't like is apparently what is setting him off. I know ther religious zealots are often involved in these gay marriage bans, and I disagree with them. (Heck one of them done in Ohio basically gave the state and election to Bush.) But I don't think that's a reason to revoke tax exempt status from churches (and every other non-profit group). Since the state has jurisdiction for providing marriage licenes, it is actually their job to decide what is a legal marriage. I agree that marriage between same sex couples should be allowed everywhere. They should have all the same rights allowed to any other married couple. If churches don't want to perform the marriage, that is their right, completely agree. They have the same rights allowed to any other person, they can marry any person of the opposite sex. And just like a gay male, I'm not allowed to marry another man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) They have the same rights allowed to any other person, they can marry any person of the opposite sex. And just like a gay male, I'm not allowed to marry another man. But they don't want to marry people of the opposite sex. They do not have the same rights, because there are people they want to marry which the law won't allow. So how do they have the same right? What if the law said you could only marry people of the same race or religion? Would people be ok with that? Not sure if you had a point, or not. Maybe just Edited May 9, 2012 by stevegrab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) But they don't want to marry people of the opposite sex. They do not have the same rights, because there are people they want to marry which the law won't allow. So how do they have the same right? What if the law said you could only marry people of the same race or religion? Would people be ok with that? Not sure if you had a point, or not. Maybe just They absolutely have the same right: I can not marry a dude. Neither can a gay dude. My wife could not marry a wommen. Neither can a Lesbian. People under the age of 18 can't marry... Edited May 9, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 They absolutely have the same right: I can not marry a dude. Neither can a gay dude. My wife could not marry a wommen. Neither can a Lesbian. People under the age of 18 can't marry... Not really http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/teenus.htm I only browsed through these and almost every state allows people under 18 to get married, with certain provisions (parent/guardian consent sometimes in person, brith certificates, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.