Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:04:30 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

There are no Constitutional restrictions on taxing churches.

“The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.�
? James A. Garfield

There are, of course, many legitimate opinions on this subject. My own
is that religion should not even be mentioned in the Constitution.

Yours is not a "legitimate opinion," peterson, since you base your opinions on false premises.


Of
course, making such a change (or any change) in the Constitution is
nearly impossible now.

That is a good thing.

That said, there is a vigorous debate going on around the country now
regarding taxing churches.

No, actually there isn't.

After all, a reasonable reading of the
First Amendment arguably suggests that allowing them to be tax exempt
is a violation, since it treats them differently than other
organizations.

Strawman argument. A church is not analogous to an astronomy club or to a business.

I think we will see states starting to remove
exemptions from property taxes- this is eminently reasonable given
that churches utilize the same public services as other businesses and
organizations,

Strawman argument. A church is not analogous to a business.

and are therefore seen as being subsidized by those
others.

In fact, they are not being "subsidized." Churchgoers have paid plenty enough taxes to cover the cost of their common meeting place.

There is no federal law that prevents states from taxing
churches.

There is a Constitutional Amendment that prevents states from taxing churches.

I have little doubt that if states start doing this, we will
see churches suing, and it will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS if the
First Amendment does or does not allow such taxation-

It does not. Read it, peterson.

a determination
that has not yet been made and incorporated into legislation or case
law.

Such a law will be found to be unconstitutional, assuming a court not packed with liberal clowns.

On 16/09/2016 11:34, wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:12:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:

US governments cannot do anything that would prohibit free exercise of
religions. A tax on the property or activities would affect the free
exercise of religion. A government, which could potentially be
displeased with a particular religion or religions, is prohibited from
using its powers to persecute religion in general. That is as it should be.

Things might be different in your country, but certainly not better.

Garbage.

Not garbage. Just common sense, which seems to be sorely lacking in the UK.


Exempting religions from a tax paid by non religious organisations is
"respecting an establishment of religion and therefore unconstitutional.

No, the religion is established by people, not by their government.

The phrase "respecting and establishment of religion" means that there is to be no -state- religion.
That is something that children in the US are taught in early
elementary school.

Along with US flag worship - a clear example of idolatory.

Things might be different in your country and certainly worse.

UK is largely secular these days. Although at the last census nearly
180,000 people stated their religion as "Other (Jedi Knight)"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/databl...ensus-religion


Why do you think the Dianetics became Scientology?

If followers of Scientology wish to call it a religion, then it's a religion and should
get automatic exemption from government interference, as provided for
by the US Constitution for example.


How about some con merchant running one of the many give me your money
TV evangelism scams whilst spending it on fast cars and loose women/men?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/five-us-pre...ob-coy-1444595

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 7:17:11 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

Along with US flag worship - a clear example of idolatory.

Children are not taught to "worship" the flag, but they do learn to respect it and appreciate the country it represents, the country that saved your sorry little *** from the Nazis and the USSR.

UK is largely secular these days.

So?

How about some con merchant running one of the many give me your money
TV evangelism scams whilst spending it on fast cars and loose women/men?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/five-us-pre...ob-coy-1444595

Most pastors live very modestly, some in poverty. You are making a strawman argument with your mis-characterization of the ministry.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:01:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:44:02 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:19:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Dissension within the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the
interpretation of law. Once SCOTUS rules, it does not matter what the
individual justices argued for.

If fact it does matter and it becomes part of public record.

So what? It doesn't become a matter of law, which is what we're
talking about here.

Quoting out of context. You deleted the rest of my comment:

"If we are smart we vote for candidates who will correct blatant misinterpretation of the Constitution by appointing judges and justices who -respect- the Constitution instead of urinating on it."

I didn't respond to that because it is nothing more than a statement
of opinion I disagree with, not relevant to the issue of what defines
law in the U.S.

Regardless of whether you agree with it, you quoted me out of context, one of your usual tricks.

I did not quote you out of context. If you knew what you were trying
to say, you'd realize that.

No, they cannot. They are only tax exempt because their tax exemption
is defined under IRC 501(c)(3), complete with its special exceptions
for churches.

NO, it is NOT. 501(c)(3) might just happen to -describe- the exemptions that Churches have long been recognized to have, but it does not -prescribe- those exemptions.

You simply don't understand the law.

You will have to prove otherwise, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations

That isn't proof, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics

That isn't proof either, peterson.

Both links are directly to the IRS regulations regarding taxation and
churches.

Neither link does that.

The rocks in my fields are smarter than you.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:50:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 7:17:11 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

Along with US flag worship - a clear example of idolatory.

Children are not taught to "worship" the flag, but they do learn to respect it and appreciate the country it represents, the country that saved your sorry little *** from the Nazis and the USSR.

It is pretty standard practice in the U.S. to indoctrinate children
with flag worship.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:49:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:04:30 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

There are no Constitutional restrictions on taxing churches.

“The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.”
? James A. Garfield

There are, of course, many legitimate opinions on this subject. My own
is that religion should not even be mentioned in the Constitution.

Yours is not a "legitimate opinion," peterson, since you base your opinions on false premises.

Your dogma, of course, makes it impossible for you to accept that not
everyone believes what you believe.

That said, there is a vigorous debate going on around the country now
regarding taxing churches.

No, actually there isn't.

Factual error.

There is a Constitutional Amendment that prevents states from taxing churches.

Factual error.

I have little doubt that if states start doing this, we will
see churches suing, and it will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS if the
First Amendment does or does not allow such taxation-

It does not. Read it, peterson.

It is not possible to determine if something is Constitutional by
reading the Constitution. If you had a clue how our system works,
you'd understand that.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 02:55:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Odd, that seems to directly contradict what he quoted from the IRS.

He is correct that they are not necessarily required to make annual
filings (which I subsequently noted).

IOW, you were wrong and you are failing to admit that.

I thought I just did admit that.

And regardless of any possible filing requirements, their
tax exempt status is provided only by IRC 501(c)(3),

NO, it is NOT.

Saying something wrong with capital letters doesn't make it right.

and as such they
are required to operate under the rules for 501(c)(3) organizations,

NO, they are NOT.

Again.

which provides certain exemptions for churches,

NO, the exemptions were RECOGNIZED long before 501(c)(3).

Only by convention, not by written law.

but no exemption from
the restriction on engaging in political speech or action.

Such restrictions quite definitely infringe upon free speech and free exercise of religion. That is damage done by LBJ in the '50s for ulterior motives.

Or this is a healthy law.

wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:12:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:56:06 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 2:40:21 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:47:35 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

That link has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. So

Incorrect. It shows that the IRS does not understand its own "laws"
well enough to explain them.

It is well known that the tax code is so complex that even the IRS
isn't always consistent in its interpretation.

IOW, the IRS is confused.

We're not talking about
subtle things here, however.

To citizens raising a legitimate dispute with the IRS there are no
"subtle things," peterson.

We're talking about who has to file.

Churches do not have to file.

Good
luck finding misinterpretations there.

From IRS 1828:

"Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically
considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain
recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS."

They may be granted automatic 501(c)(3) status. As such, they are
required to file annual paperwork.

Word salad. What you meant to say was that they would -qualify- for
501(c)(3) status. They do not actually have to -seek- 501(c)(3) status.

Failure to do so can result in loss of tax exempt status.

Incorrect. They would be tax exempt anyway.

Also,
failure to maintain filings can cause a church to lose any local tax
exemptions (property, sales) that it grants to non-profit entities.

Also incorrect. Local tax laws are subject to the same Constitutional
restrictions as federal laws.


Surely exempting religions from tax is "respecting an establishment of
religion" and therefore unconstitutional.

No, individuals get together and establish or observe their own
religions, form congregations, build churches, etc. US governments can
have no part in that under the US Constitution.

US governments cannot do anything that would prohibit free exercise of
religions. A tax on the property or activities would affect the free
exercise of religion. A government, which could potentially be
displeased with a particular religion or religions, is prohibited from
using its powers to persecute religion in general. That is as it should be.

Things might be different in your country, but certainly not better.


Garbage.

Not garbage. Just common sense, which seems to be sorely lacking in the UK.


Exempting religions from a tax paid by non religious organisations is
"respecting an establishment of religion and therefore unconstitutional.

No, the religion is established by people, not by their government.

The phrase "respecting and establishment of religion" means that there is
to be no -state- religion. That is something that children in the US are
taught in early elementary school. Things might be different in your
country and certainly worse.


Why do you think the Dianetics became Scientology?

If followers of Scientology wish to call it a religion, then it's a
religion and should get automatic exemption from government interference,
as provided for by the US Constitution for example.


The founder of Scientology was of the opinion that the best way to become
rich was to found a religion.

The theology of Scientology is a ridiculous as the FSM but less funny.

Care to rethink?

wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:04:30 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

There are no Constitutional restrictions on taxing churches.

“The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to
be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the
nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the
property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax
upon the whole community.�
? James A. Garfield

There are, of course, many legitimate opinions on this subject. My own
is that religion should not even be mentioned in the Constitution.

Yours is not a "legitimate opinion," peterson, since you base your
opinions on false premises.


Of
course, making such a change (or any change) in the Constitution is
nearly impossible now.

That is a good thing.

That said, there is a vigorous debate going on around the country now
regarding taxing churches.

No, actually there isn't.

After all, a reasonable reading of the
First Amendment arguably suggests that allowing them to be tax exempt
is a violation, since it treats them differently than other
organizations.

Strawman argument. A church is not analogous to an astronomy club or to a business.

Of course they are analogous. Both have members who look at the universe
and it's origins. But Astronomical Societies don't threaten their members
with eternal torture (cruel and unusual punishment) if they break the
rules.

I think we will see states starting to remove
exemptions from property taxes- this is eminently reasonable given
that churches utilize the same public services as other businesses and
organizations,

Strawman argument. A church is not analogous to a business.

Both take money from the public but the churches don't offer a product in
exchange and don't pay taxes.

and are therefore seen as being subsidized by those
others.

In fact, they are not being "subsidized." Churchgoers have paid plenty
enough taxes to cover the cost of their common meeting place.

Non churchgoers pay the same taxes without a meeting place. Why should they
subsidise freeloaders.

There is no federal law that prevents states from taxing
churches.

There is a Constitutional Amendment that prevents states from taxing churches.

I have little doubt that if states start doing this, we will
see churches suing, and it will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS if the
First Amendment does or does not allow such taxation-

It does not. Read it, peterson.

a determination
that has not yet been made and incorporated into legislation or case
law.

Such a law will be found to be unconstitutional, assuming a court not
packed with liberal clowns.


Your constitution seems very badly written if you need so many lawyers to
fight over its interpretation.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:31:55 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Your constitution seems very badly written if you need so many lawyers to
fight over its interpretation.

Or maybe it's well written because of that. Much of it is arguably
obsolete if interpreted as originally written. But as an
_interpretable_ document, given a judiciary empowered to reinterpret
it as society has changed, it has generally done a pretty good job.