Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:03:05 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

I did know what I was trying to say and was successful at saying it. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand what I wrote. That would not be a good reason to not write something.

Here is what I wrote, READ it this time:

"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."


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 simply don't understand the Constitution, peterson.


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.

The rocks in your head are smarter than you, peterson.

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:03:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

They are not "worshiping" the flag, peterson. They are not praying to it.

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:06:16 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

Incorrect. Obviously, I see your opinions as different, and not legitimate because they are based on false premises. True using some valid premises and maybe you can come up with some valid opinions, peterson.


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

No, actually there isn't.

Factual error.

No, the issue isn't even on most people's radar, idiot.

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

Factual error.

If you could actually read and understand the Constitution you would realize that YOU are wrong, peterson.

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.

One would actually have to read the "something" to see if it was un-Constitutional.

For example, a law that required newspapers or radio stations to submit news stories or editorials to a government censor for approval before they were published would clearly be un-Constitutional.

If you had a clue how our system works,
you'd understand that.

Empty insult.

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:09:32 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

You only admitted that I was right, but not that you were wrong.

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.

Saying something right with capital letter makes it more obviously right.


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

NO, they are NOT.

Again.

"Again" what?

which provides certain exemptions for churches,

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

Only by convention, not by written law.

Here is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

We can make this easier for your feeble mind to understand by rephrasing it:

"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

If religion, a church, a ministry, a congregation is taxed, then there is no longer free exercise of religion. Some churches, somewhere will dissolve under the burden of paying a tax. Others will have to eliminate some ministries. Others might not be able to build a fellowship hall.

Absent the First Amendment, if a government wanted to suppress religion, all it would have to do is impose a huge tax on it.

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.

No, LBJ was trying to suppress opposition to his re-election.

wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:09:32 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

You only admitted that I was right, but not that you were wrong.

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.

Saying something right with capital letter makes it more obviously right.


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

NO, they are NOT.

Again.

"Again" what?

which provides certain exemptions for churches,

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

Only by convention, not by written law.

Here is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

We can make this easier for your feeble mind to understand by rephrasing it:

"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

If religion, a church, a ministry, a congregation is taxed, then there is
no longer free exercise of religion. Some churches, somewhere will
dissolve under the burden of paying a tax. Others will have to eliminate
some ministries. Others might not be able to build a fellowship hall.

Absent the First Amendment, if a government wanted to suppress religion,
all it would have to do is impose a huge tax on it.

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.

No, LBJ was trying to suppress opposition to his re-election.


Free exercise of religion. You have to ask yourself what did they mean by
free. If you want to propose that this means no taxes then this should
apply to the press too. It's obvious to anyone with at least half a brain
that "free" in this case means without coercion. It doesn't mean allowing
these organisations to freeload on the taxes of the rest of the population.

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:32:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
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.

Silly argument, collins. These days astronomy clubs seem to be about pushing buttons on GoTo telescopes. Yawn.

Churches and religions are about much more than that sort of thing.


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

That's just your opinion and not a very good one.

and don't pay taxes.

Under the Constitution they don't have to and for good reasons.


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.

So?

Why should they
subsidise freeloaders.

Freeloaders? You mean like government bureaucrats?

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.

Actually it is very well written. It contains sensible limits on government power, a system of checks and balances, and a tacit acknowledgement of the existence of natural rights.

wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:32:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
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.

Silly argument, collins. These days astronomy clubs seem to be about
pushing buttons on GoTo telescopes. Yawn.

Churches and religions are about much more than that sort of thing.


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

That's just your opinion and not a very good one.

and don't pay taxes.

Under the Constitution they don't have to and for good reasons.


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.

So?

Why should they
subsidise freeloaders.

Freeloaders? You mean like government bureaucrats?

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.

Actually it is very well written. It contains sensible limits on
government power, a system of checks and balances, and a tacit
acknowledgement of the existence of natural rights.


It's very well written for an eighteenth century document. But it's now the
21st century and the principles of the constitution are now shrouded in
misinterpretation and circumstances and language have changed.
It needs to be brought up to date.
Does the right to bar arms mean that individuals should be allowed to own
nuclear weapons?
That's just one example.
It needs to be brought up to date and then revised at least every 50 years.

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:43:01 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:32:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Actually it is very well written. It contains sensible limits on
government power, a system of checks and balances, and a tacit
acknowledgement of the existence of natural rights.

It's very well written for an eighteenth century document. But it's now the
21st century and the principles of the constitution are now shrouded in
misinterpretation and circumstances and language have changed.
It needs to be brought up to date.
Does the right to bar arms mean that individuals should be allowed to own
nuclear weapons?
That's just one example.
It needs to be brought up to date and then revised at least every 50 years.

I'm not so sure. While the example you cite is a place where a real controversy
exists, at least of a theoretical kind, in general the Constitution may be an
oldie but a goodie.

However, it is actually rather weak in its acknowledgment of natural rights;
which is why the Declaration of Independence, although unlike the Constitution,
is more emotionally stirring to many Americans particularly because it clearly,
unequivocally, and explicitly acknowledges natural rights.

John Savard

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 04:33:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

"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."

What of it? A juvenile statement that conveys nothing but you complete
lack of respect for everyone who thinks differently than you do. It
isn't worth a reply.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 10:03:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

They are not "worshiping" the flag, peterson. They are not praying to it.

It's often difficult to tell the difference.