In this thread, PD and Nintenho discuss religion

[GilloD]

Now get the fuck out of my GAF thread.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

PM YOU DUMB FUCKS. I'm  sick of your shitty discussion, your distinguished mentally-challenged replies and your complete inability to realize that you ARE TREADING THE SAME FUCKING GROUND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. RELIGION AND THE INTERNET ARE SHITTY PARTNERS.

Fuck yes I'm posting the same shit over and over because people are too stuck up to concede they're wrong. Case in point:

So that would make them considered a business but please at least give us a few hours of you not posting about religion.

See GilloD? Didn't I already explain quite clearly what a business is - IE an organization who's main goal is to make profit - and why churches cannot be classified as such?

Now am nintenho will follow up with a post along the lines of "well charities aren't a business either, but they still fall under the same rules!" To which I will say once again that "yes, I could agree with the notion that churches might have to document their yearly financial statements (if they can be called that). But taxing would violate the constitution". To which he'll retort "well what about charities!", at which point I'll say "charities are not exclusively religious".

It goes in a fucking circle, and he keeps losing ground.

Understand now?

[Phoenix Dark]

I've explained the issue to a T, and it's quite clear. It's not even a debate: these are the facts. If you want to play dumb and keep your biases while continuing to make blatantly FALSE statements such as

"churches can be classified as businesses"

than I can't help you. You're far off the mark, and it's sad that you cannot concede the folly of such statements and MOVE ON in the discussion

[brawndolicious]

The only thing a church should be required to do that is "ethical" in my opinion is release bills of their expenses.  If all of the moeny that they're using isn't for charitable purposes then they should be taxed like a business, do you see a problem with this?

[makaveli]

[Phoenix Dark]

The only thing a church should be required to do that is "ethical" in my opinion is release bills of their expenses.  If all of the moeny that they're using isn't for charitable purposes then they should be taxed like a business, do you see a problem with this?

Back to square fucking one. I'm done with this shit. If you can't even grasp what I'm saying - and why you're dead wrong - than there's no point in going on. The discussion hasn't moved one inch since it started. We're still talking about taxes despite the lack of legal grounds for it.

[max_cool]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

[Phoenix Dark]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

Um, no. The first amendment would cover it pretty well, and is used to justify the tax exemption.

It's hilarious just how random some constitutional rights are. Ever heard of...the commerce claus lol?

[TVC15]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

Um, no. The first amendment would cover it pretty well, and is used to justify the tax exemption.

It's hilarious just how random some constitutional rights are. Ever heard of...the commerce claus lol?

You're kind of full of shit:

"   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."

That is the entirety of the text of the first amendment.  Show me where it even makes an implication about taxes.

[Phoenix Dark]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

Um, no. The first amendment would cover it pretty well, and is used to justify the tax exemption.

It's hilarious just how random some constitutional rights are. Ever heard of...the commerce claus lol?

You're kind of full of shit:

"   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."

That is the entirety of the text of the first amendment.  Show me where it even makes an implication about taxes.

You're full of shit TVC, seriously

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

That should fucking end the tax discussion but I have a feeling you'll refuse to concede anything.

[brawndolicious]

Back to square fucking one. I'm done with this shit. If you can't even grasp what I'm saying - and why you're dead wrong - than there's no point in going on. The discussion hasn't moved one inch since it started. We're still talking about taxes despite the lack of legal grounds for it.

So you have no problem with:

The Family

They have no fundraisers, they get all of their money through private donations (more then 12 million in 2003), and has six congressional representatives live in a group residence they operate near Capitol Hill and pay below-market rent because the organization is registered as a church.

It even freely admits to having a political agenda as the reason it was started and it's still comparable to a non-profit charity that is releasing bills for every cent they spend?

[TVC15]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

Um, no. The first amendment would cover it pretty well, and is used to justify the tax exemption.

It's hilarious just how random some constitutional rights are. Ever heard of...the commerce claus lol?

You're kind of full of shit:

"   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."

That is the entirety of the text of the first amendment.  Show me where it even makes an implication about taxes.

You're full of shit TVC, seriously

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

That should fucking end the tax discussion but I have a feeling you'll refuse to concede anything.

What does this have to do with you making an incorrect statement about the first amendment?  That's the only thing I called you on in here.

[Phoenix Dark]

Back to square fucking one. I'm done with this shit. If you can't even grasp what I'm saying - and why you're dead wrong - than there's no point in going on. The discussion hasn't moved one inch since it started. We're still talking about taxes despite the lack of legal grounds for it.

So you have no problem with:

The Family

They have no fundraisers, they get all of their money through private donations (more then 12 million in 2003), and has six congressional representatives live in a group residence they operate near Capitol Hill and pay below-market rent because the organization is registered as a church.

It even freely admits to having a political agenda as the reason it was started and it's still comparable to a non-profit charity that is releasing bills for every cent they spend?

I explained that already: religious organizations who enter the political realm should lose their tax exempt status, under the law.

Might as well post it again:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

[max_cool]

my point is that if I were to start a religion then I would have to fight to the death to get tax exemption for my religion, so what makes chritsianity, judaism, islam, etc so special? Oh they have money and power that's what.

So basically, it's unconstitutional to tax an organization that calls itself a religion if it has money and power but it's not unconstitutional to tax an organization that calls itself a religion if it's small and weak.

Do you see what I'm saying. It's inconsistent. What about equal protection of the law, what about subtantive due process?

[Phoenix Dark]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

Um, no. The first amendment would cover it pretty well, and is used to justify the tax exemption.

It's hilarious just how random some constitutional rights are. Ever heard of...the commerce claus lol?

You're kind of full of shit:

"   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."

That is the entirety of the text of the first amendment.  Show me where it even makes an implication about taxes.

You're full of shit TVC, seriously

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

That should fucking end the tax discussion but I have a feeling you'll refuse to concede anything.

What does this have to do with you making an incorrect statement about the first amendment?  That's the only thing I called you on in here.

What was the statement that's incorrect? Churches are exempt from paying taxes due to the first amendment and the seperation of church and state? Did you look at the link?

I've called you on two bluffs here and you've refused to concede anything, which I expected sadly.

[TVC15]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

Um, no. The first amendment would cover it pretty well, and is used to justify the tax exemption.

It's hilarious just how random some constitutional rights are. Ever heard of...the commerce claus lol?

You're kind of full of shit:

"   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."

That is the entirety of the text of the first amendment.  Show me where it even makes an implication about taxes.

You're full of shit TVC, seriously

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

That should fucking end the tax discussion but I have a feeling you'll refuse to concede anything.

What does this have to do with you making an incorrect statement about the first amendment?  That's the only thing I called you on in here.

What was the statement that's incorrect? Churches are exempt from paying taxes due to the first amendment and the seperation of church and state? Did you look at the link?

I've called you on two bluffs here and you've refused to concede anything, which I expected sadly.

You called me on 2 bluffs?  Amazing since I made only 1 short post.

The first amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.  Did you read the PDF you linked me to?  The tax exempt status of churches is established in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, NOT THE CONSTITUTION.

[brawndolicious]

What does taxing a church have to do with the first amendment?

A. Without records of their spending, you can't tell if they're supposed to be taxed.
B. If they're not spending all of their money on religious/charitable causes then fuck them, they have to be taxed.

[max_cool]

btw, the PDF you linked to states as the very first words

"Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to
churches, religious organizations, and ministers in
recognition of their unique status in American society
and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States."

What this tells me is that the governemt granted a special tax status to churches etc... and that their justification for this is the first amendment. I does not tell me that the congress has no authority to tax them, just that congress is making an effort to stay out of their business due to respect of the first amendment.

The key to all of this is the first part "Congress has enacted special tax laws..." this right here tells me that congress has the authority to issue tax laws concrening churches etc...

[Phoenix Dark]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

Um, no. The first amendment would cover it pretty well, and is used to justify the tax exemption.

It's hilarious just how random some constitutional rights are. Ever heard of...the commerce claus lol?

You're kind of full of shit:

"   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."

That is the entirety of the text of the first amendment.  Show me where it even makes an implication about taxes.

You're full of shit TVC, seriously

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

That should fucking end the tax discussion but I have a feeling you'll refuse to concede anything.

What does this have to do with you making an incorrect statement about the first amendment?  That's the only thing I called you on in here.

What was the statement that's incorrect? Churches are exempt from paying taxes due to the first amendment and the seperation of church and state? Did you look at the link?

I've called you on two bluffs here and you've refused to concede anything, which I expected sadly.

You called me on 2 bluffs?  Amazing since I made only 1 short post.

The first amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.  Did you read the PDF you linked me to?  The tax exempt status of churches is established in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, NOT THE CONSTITUTION.

You made more than one short post.

The first amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES

Is your reasoning this juvenile? I don't believe it is. The first amendment sets up the idea of the seperation of church and state. Idealy the federal and local governments are not supposed to meddle in religious establishments, and vise versa. If you don't see how making indivual churches pay taxes constitutes a breach in that separation, I certainly can't help you.

The tax exempt status of churches is established in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, NOT THE CONSTITUTION.

And this basic justification of this is found in the constitution, as the IRS information states.

[Phoenix Dark]

btw, the PDF you linked to states as the very first words

"Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to
churches, religious organizations, and ministers in
recognition of their unique status in American society
and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States."

What this tells me is that the governemt granted a special tax status to churches etc... and that their justification for this is the first amendment. I does not tell me that the congress has no authority to tax them, just that congress is making an effort to stay out of their business due to respect of the first amendment.

The key to all of this is the first part "Congress has enacted special tax laws..." this right here tells me that congress has the authority to issue tax laws concrening churches etc...

And why does it give you that hint? The wording of "special tax laws", which suggests they're different than other laws? Tell me, what is the right given to churches under the constitution, which the paragraph references?

[brawndolicious]

You're saying the first amendment of the constitution says DON'T TAX CHURCHES?

Or maybe that it's about freedom of speech?

[TVC15]

wait, how in fuck is it unconstitutional for the government to tax a church?

What article/section, or amendment makes it unconstitutional?
Don't give that seperation of church and state crap either since I could start a small organization that collects money from its memebers and calls itself a religion and yet I woulnd have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get a tax exepmt status (similar to what Scientology did).

Um, no. The first amendment would cover it pretty well, and is used to justify the tax exemption.

It's hilarious just how random some constitutional rights are. Ever heard of...the commerce claus lol?

You're kind of full of shit:

"   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."

That is the entirety of the text of the first amendment.  Show me where it even makes an implication about taxes.

You're full of shit TVC, seriously

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

That should fucking end the tax discussion but I have a feeling you'll refuse to concede anything.

What does this have to do with you making an incorrect statement about the first amendment?  That's the only thing I called you on in here.

What was the statement that's incorrect? Churches are exempt from paying taxes due to the first amendment and the seperation of church and state? Did you look at the link?

I've called you on two bluffs here and you've refused to concede anything, which I expected sadly.

You called me on 2 bluffs?  Amazing since I made only 1 short post.

The first amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.  Did you read the PDF you linked me to?  The tax exempt status of churches is established in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, NOT THE CONSTITUTION.

You made more than one short post.

The first amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES

Is your reasoning this juvenile? I don't believe it is. The first amendment sets up the idea of the seperation of church and state. Idealy the federal and local governments are not supposed to meddle in religious establishments, and vise versa. If you don't see how making indivual churches pay taxes constitutes a breach in that separation, I certainly can't help you.

The tax exempt status of churches is established in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, NOT THE CONSTITUTION.

And this basic justification of this is found in the constitution, as the IRS information states.

1) Even if you do use the first amendment of your argument, how would taxation affect the separation of Church and state?  Easy, it wouldn't.

2) The basis is from a congressional law that points to the first amendment.  This law is ARCHAIC and needs to be dismantled.

You're saying the first amendment of the constitution says DON'T TAX CHURCHES?

Or maybe that it's about freedom of speech?

I know, am, note the backpeddling.  At first he was adamantly stating the first amendment declared it.  Then he realized the first amendment is like 2 lines long and has nothing to do with taxes.  Oops!

[Phoenix Dark]

1) Even if you do use the first amendment of your argument, how would taxation affect the separation of Church and state?  Easy, it wouldn't.

2) The basis is from a congressional law that points to the first amendment.  This law is ARCHAIC and needs to be dismantled.

1) There should be no contact between church and state. A quick glance at precident cases with respect to the interpetation of "establishment" makes this very clear. With this in mind, how would the government be able to legally justify taxing a local churches offerings? Easy, it wouldn't.

2) Is that a fact or an opinion?

[max_cool]

btw, the PDF you linked to states as the very first words

"Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to
churches, religious organizations, and ministers in
recognition of their unique status in American society
and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States."

What this tells me is that the governemt granted a special tax status to churches etc... and that their justification for this is the first amendment. I does not tell me that the congress has no authority to tax them, just that congress is making an effort to stay out of their business due to respect of the first amendment.

The key to all of this is the first part "Congress has enacted special tax laws..." this right here tells me that congress has the authority to issue tax laws concrening churches etc...

And why does it give you that hint? The wording of "special tax laws", which suggests they're different than other laws? Tell me, what is the right given to churches under the constitution, which the paragraph references?

my lord, it's right in front of you and you can't see it.

yes "special tax laws" means they are different from other tax laws. It doesn't mean that these special tax laws are not tax laws and if congress can enact tax laws against churches then they have the power to tax churches. How can you not see that?

our congress has wisely decided to not tax most religions, it does not mean that they don't have the power to tax them. Scientology was taxed until they broke into the IRS for gods fucking sake!

---edit---
PD, are you studying political science? if so, I have confidence that you will eventually understand constitutions and court decisions, if not, I would recommend that you not even bother because I will be much more well versed in the topic than you.

Did I mention I'm 8 PBR's drunk right now?

[TVC15]

1) Even if you do use the first amendment of your argument, how would taxation affect the separation of Church and state?  Easy, it wouldn't.

2) The basis is from a congressional law that points to the first amendment.  This law is ARCHAIC and needs to be dismantled.

1) There should be no contact between church and state. A quick glance at precident cases with respect to the interpetation of "establishment" makes this very clear. With this in mind, how would the government be able to legally justify taxing a local churches offerings? Easy, it wouldn't.

2) Is that a fact or an opinion?

1. There should be no contact between Government Venture and Private Venture, either.  No corporation should have influence over the government just as no religion should.  Note that religions are effectively proto-corporations.  If the situation were different when the first amendment was written, there would've been broader language used.  Even though there shouldn't be contact between govt and private ventures, it's still cool for the government to tax em.  Why?  Because the private ventures are holed up on the gov'ts land, thus they have to let the IRS in on their racket.  Same should apply for religion. 

2.  Um, it's an opinion of course.  The law is archaic and if religion wants to play dice, they need to ante up.  Our bloated government needs the cash if it's to operate efficiently.

[Phoenix Dark]

I know, am, note the backpeddling.  At first he was adamantly stating the first amendment declared it.  Then he realized the first amendment is like 2 lines long and has nothing to do with taxes.  Oops!

I haven't backpedaled at all, and I am still "admantly" declaring this. Your point about "the first amendment doesn't have anything to do with taxes" is completely juvenile. The commerce clause has nothing to do with...nearly anything yet the government uses it as a basis of hundreds of legislation acts. See how easy that is?

[brawndolicious]

1) There should be no contact between church and state. A quick glance at precident cases with respect to the interpetation of "establishment" makes this very clear. With this in mind, how would the government be able to legally justify taxing a local churches offerings? Easy, it wouldn't.
2) Is that a fact or an opinion?

I'm saying don't let a loophole exist.

Where did you get "churches and politics are going to interfere with each other"?

[Phoenix Dark]

1) Even if you do use the first amendment of your argument, how would taxation affect the separation of Church and state?  Easy, it wouldn't.

2) The basis is from a congressional law that points to the first amendment.  This law is ARCHAIC and needs to be dismantled.

1) There should be no contact between church and state. A quick glance at precident cases with respect to the interpetation of "establishment" makes this very clear. With this in mind, how would the government be able to legally justify taxing a local churches offerings? Easy, it wouldn't.

2) Is that a fact or an opinion?

1. There should be no contact between Government Venture and Private Venture, either.  No corporation should have influence over the government just as no religion should.  Note that religions are effectively proto-corporations.  If the situation were different when the first amendment was written, there would've been broader language used.  Even though there shouldn't be contact between govt and private ventures, it's still cool for the government to tax em.  Why?  Because the private ventures are holed up on the gov'ts land, thus they have to let the IRS in on their racket.  Same should apply for religion. 

2.  Um, it's an opinion of course.  The law is archaic and if religion wants to play dice, they need to ante up.  Our bloated government needs the cash if it's to operate efficiently.

1. Religions are not "proto-corporations". We've discussed this aready. Are you suggesting no organization should be tax exempt?

2. I thought it was an opinion.

[TVC15]

Come on, PD, tell us why Separation of Church and State means that Churches shouldn't be taxed.  Individual private business shouldn't be favored by the government either.  Should they not be taxed either?

PD:  I think charitable organizations should be tax exempt.  They are held to harsher IRS standards than religions are.  Read that PDF.  Look at how lax churches are allowed to be in regards to record keeping.  If a church could prove itself as a charitable org, then yeah, they should be tax exempt.

[Phoenix Dark]

Come on, PD, tell us why Separation of Church and State means that Churches shouldn't be taxed.  Individual private business shouldn't be favored by the government either.  Should they not be taxed either?

Why do you continue to compare churches with businesses when this has no logical ground?

As I said already, idealy the idea of separation of church and state suggests that there should be no contact between both entities. They should be separate in every way, and government should not "establish" such a contact. The process of taxing is a government controlled and imposed regulation. If there is to be no intersecting of church and state, how would it be possible for the state of local government to enact governmental regulation on a church's proceeds? It doesn't make sense.

The government taxes individuals (me and you), corparations (businesses), and legal entities (trusts). Where do churches fit into this equation? Also, where would non-profit organizations fit in this equation? They don't

[TVC15]

How does comparing churches to businesses have "no logical ground?"  Churches are at best charitable organizations, at worst they're after the dollars as much as Exxon.

[Phoenix Dark]

How does comparing churches to businesses have "no logical ground?"  Churches are at best charitable organizations, at worst they're after the dollars as much as Exxon.

You are reducing me to that of a parrot.

A business is a organization or entity whos sole function is to produce profit. In other words, make money. Exxon Mobile's goal is no different than any other businesses: they attempt to make a profit while staying within the legal lines provided them by the government through regulations; this could mean that they are not allowed to illegally supress competition. In terms of business they have no responsibility to make products that take global warming into consideration, for instance.

A church's main goal is not to make a profit, and to suggest such would be ignorant. This isn't to say that all churches have the right, Biblical (or whatever belief system they rely on) intentions. Yet for every mega church there are 100 smaller churches. And not all mega churches are "bad". This does not constitute "business"

[max_cool]

2 things

I'd like to point out that PD has completly ignored my last post

Churches provide a service, they ask that one contibutes as much as they can each time they perform this service. Just becuase they don't have a listed price for their service doesn't mean they are not like a corporation.

[brawndolicious]

Here's an idea: Register the place as a charity, not as a church.

[Phoenix Dark]

2 things

I'd like to point out that PD has completly ignored my last post

Churches provide a service, they ask that one contibutes as much as they can each time they perform this service. Just becuase they don't have a listed price for their service doesn't mean they are not like a corporation.

Your post made little sense (perhaps because you're drunk), and has been addressed already. You continue to ask why churches are tax exempt while suggesting that the government has the authority to tax them - but chooses not too; this is not the case, as I have pointed out.

The Red Cross provides a "service" too. Should they be taxed for said service? The Red Cross is not in existance to "make profit". Not even the most cynical of us would suggest such.

[TVC15]

How does comparing churches to businesses have "no logical ground?"  Churches are at best charitable organizations, at worst they're after the dollars as much as Exxon.

You are reducing me to that of a parrot.

A business is a organization or entity whos sole function is to produce profit. In other words, make money. Exxon Mobile's goal is no different than any other businesses: they attempt to make a profit while staying within the legal lines provided them by the government through regulations; this could mean that they are not allowed to illegally supress competition. In terms of business they have no responsibility to make products that take global warming into consideration, for instance.

A church's main goal is not to make a profit, and to suggest such would be ignorant. This isn't to say that all churches have the right, Biblical (or whatever belief system they rely on) intentions. Yet for every mega church there are 100 smaller churches. And not all mega churches are "bad". This does not constitute "business"

Churches DO profit.  The best case is to do some googling on the Catholic Church.  Since they are the big dog of big dogs, there's substantially more information available on them.  Hint:  They are one of the richest organizations on earth.  Sound charitable to you?

Since churches do profit, they should be taxed.  Since the current laws make it easy for them to not report their earnings, they don't have to worry. 

Also, PD, Red Cross is tax exempt as a charity.  What do you not understand?  Charities have to keep more strict records than churches do.  If churches were held to the same level as charities, I would have no problem with their tax exempt status.

[Phoenix Dark]

How does comparing churches to businesses have "no logical ground?"  Churches are at best charitable organizations, at worst they're after the dollars as much as Exxon.

You are reducing me to that of a parrot.

A business is a organization or entity whos sole function is to produce profit. In other words, make money. Exxon Mobile's goal is no different than any other businesses: they attempt to make a profit while staying within the legal lines provided them by the government through regulations; this could mean that they are not allowed to illegally supress competition. In terms of business they have no responsibility to make products that take global warming into consideration, for instance.

A church's main goal is not to make a profit, and to suggest such would be ignorant. This isn't to say that all churches have the right, Biblical (or whatever belief system they rely on) intentions. Yet for every mega church there are 100 smaller churches. And not all mega churches are "bad". This does not constitute "business"

Churches DO profit.  The best case is to do some googling on the Catholic Church.  Since they are the big dog of big dogs, there's substantially more information available on them.  Hint:  They are one of the richest organizations on earth.  Sound charitable to you?

Since churches do profit, they should be taxed.  Since the current laws make it easy for them to not report their earnings, they don't have to worry. 

WHAT?

Churches do not exist to make profit. Is that so hard to understand? The question is not whether they profit or don't. The Red Cross "profits" as well. Under this unfounded belief system which you have given life to (I've never heard anyone suggest this), they should be taxed too

[brawndolicious]

What is comparable about a church giving low-rent housing and a charity that does not care about your religion or race?

[TVC15]

How does comparing churches to businesses have "no logical ground?"  Churches are at best charitable organizations, at worst they're after the dollars as much as Exxon.

You are reducing me to that of a parrot.

A business is a organization or entity whos sole function is to produce profit. In other words, make money. Exxon Mobile's goal is no different than any other businesses: they attempt to make a profit while staying within the legal lines provided them by the government through regulations; this could mean that they are not allowed to illegally supress competition. In terms of business they have no responsibility to make products that take global warming into consideration, for instance.

A church's main goal is not to make a profit, and to suggest such would be ignorant. This isn't to say that all churches have the right, Biblical (or whatever belief system they rely on) intentions. Yet for every mega church there are 100 smaller churches. And not all mega churches are "bad". This does not constitute "business"

Churches DO profit.  The best case is to do some googling on the Catholic Church.  Since they are the big dog of big dogs, there's substantially more information available on them.  Hint:  They are one of the richest organizations on earth.  Sound charitable to you?

Since churches do profit, they should be taxed.  Since the current laws make it easy for them to not report their earnings, they don't have to worry. 

WHAT?

Churches do not exist to make profit. Is that so hard to understand? The question is not whether they profit or don't. The Red Cross "profits" as well. Under this unfounded belief system which you have given life to (I've never heard anyone suggest this), they should be taxed too

Maybe they "do not exist to profit" but THEY DO PROFIT, thus they should be taxed!  Churches need to be held to the same standards as charity orgs.

When a Fortune 500 company exceeds its income goals, that does not mean the extra income does not get taxed.

[Phoenix Dark]

What is comparable about a church giving low-rent housing and a charity that does not care about your religion or race?

Have you ever worked in a soup kitchen for a church or a charity? Have you seen "faith based" charities at work? I have, and I can tell you many do not discriminate. I certainly never refused to give someone a chicken because they had a dot on their forehead.

[FlameOfCallandor]

This argument is worthless, i can guarantee churches will never ever be taxed.

[Phoenix Dark]

How does comparing churches to businesses have "no logical ground?"  Churches are at best charitable organizations, at worst they're after the dollars as much as Exxon.

You are reducing me to that of a parrot.

A business is a organization or entity whos sole function is to produce profit. In other words, make money. Exxon Mobile's goal is no different than any other businesses: they attempt to make a profit while staying within the legal lines provided them by the government through regulations; this could mean that they are not allowed to illegally supress competition. In terms of business they have no responsibility to make products that take global warming into consideration, for instance.

A church's main goal is not to make a profit, and to suggest such would be ignorant. This isn't to say that all churches have the right, Biblical (or whatever belief system they rely on) intentions. Yet for every mega church there are 100 smaller churches. And not all mega churches are "bad". This does not constitute "business"

Churches DO profit.  The best case is to do some googling on the Catholic Church.  Since they are the big dog of big dogs, there's substantially more information available on them.  Hint:  They are one of the richest organizations on earth.  Sound charitable to you?

Since churches do profit, they should be taxed.  Since the current laws make it easy for them to not report their earnings, they don't have to worry. 

WHAT?

Churches do not exist to make profit. Is that so hard to understand? The question is not whether they profit or don't. The Red Cross "profits" as well. Under this unfounded belief system which you have given life to (I've never heard anyone suggest this), they should be taxed too

Maybe they "do not exist to profit" but THEY DO PROFIT, thus they should be taxed!  Churches need to be held to the same standards as charity orgs.

If they "do not exist to profit" then they are not a business, hence their profits are insignifigant. If they are not a business, they should not be treated as one.

Charity orgs make "profits". Yet are they taxed under the more strict guidelines they are forced to follow? Come on TVC, you're going in circles over a point that doesn't help your case

[max_cool]

2 things

I'd like to point out that PD has completly ignored my last post

Churches provide a service, they ask that one contibutes as much as they can each time they perform this service. Just becuase they don't have a listed price for their service doesn't mean they are not like a corporation.

Your post made little sense (perhaps because you're drunk), and has been addressed already. You continue to ask why churches are tax exempt while suggesting that the government has the authority to tax them - but chooses not too; this is not the case, as I have pointed out.

The Red Cross provides a "service" too. Should they be taxed for said service? The Red Cross is not in existance to "make profit". Not even the most cynical of us would suggest such.

you pointed out that the congress wisely give churches special tax laws, but you still have not explained why congress does not have the power to tax churches especially since they did tax scientology. I agree that it would be unwise to tax churches and that the state does not tax churches based on RESPECT for the first amendment, but nowhere have I seen any proof from you that clearly shows that the state doesn't have the AUTHORITY to tax churches. So I re-iterate that the state does in fact have the authority to tax churches, they choose not to. I can't help but say once more. If Congress has the auhtority to make "special tax laws" for churches, then they have authority to make tax law regarding churches. So accepting that congress has authirty to make tax law with regards to churches, I see no reason why they can't make tax laws that actually taxes churches.

I am sorry that you cannnot understand this simple point.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Scientology does exist to make a profit. They arent a religion.

[max_cool]

Scientology does exist to make a profit. They arent a religion.

tell the IRS

[brawndolicious]

Have you ever worked in a soup kitchen for a church or a charity? Have you seen "faith based" charities at work? I have, and I can tell you many do not discriminate. I certainly never refused to give someone a chicken because they had a dot on their forehead.

For a charity, yes.

And doesn't the red cross have like one full time member that gets paid 16K a year?

Pay attention to what max-cool said and ignore FoC.

[TVC15]

What is comparable about a church giving low-rent housing and a charity that does not care about your religion or race?

Have you ever worked in a soup kitchen for a church or a charity? Have you seen "faith based" charities at work? I have, and I can tell you many do not discriminate. I certainly never refused to give someone a chicken because they had a dot on their forehead.

Maybe you didn't refuse a "dot on their forehead" food, but they didn't leave the kitchen without being solicited for your shitty religion.

Charity orgs make "profits". Yet are they taxed under the more strict guidelines they are forced to follow? Come on TVC, you're going in circles over a point that doesn't help your case

I'm not sure whether you are being deliberately daft or what.  In the case of charitable NPOs, if an org doesn't meat the IRS rules, they either have to do something god-damned charitable with the excess, or lose their tax exempt status.

[Phoenix Dark]

2 things

I'd like to point out that PD has completly ignored my last post

Churches provide a service, they ask that one contibutes as much as they can each time they perform this service. Just becuase they don't have a listed price for their service doesn't mean they are not like a corporation.

Your post made little sense (perhaps because you're drunk), and has been addressed already. You continue to ask why churches are tax exempt while suggesting that the government has the authority to tax them - but chooses not too; this is not the case, as I have pointed out.

The Red Cross provides a "service" too. Should they be taxed for said service? The Red Cross is not in existance to "make profit". Not even the most cynical of us would suggest such.

you pointed out that the congress wisely give churches special tax laws, but you still have not explained why congress does not have the power to tax churches especially since they did tax scientology. I agree that it would be unwise to tax churches and that the state does not tax churches based on RESPECT for the first amendment, but nowhere have I seen any proof from you that clearly shows that the state doesn't have the AUTHORITY to tax churches. So I re-iterate that the state does in fact have the authority to tax churches, they choose not to. I can't help but say once more. If Congress has the auhtority to make "special tax laws" for churches, then they have authority to make tax law regarding churches. So accepting that congress has authirty to make tax law with regards to churches, I see no reason why they can't make tax laws that actually taxes churches.

I am sorry that you cannnot understand this simple point.

First off, scientology is not a religion. Let's make that clear.

Second off, I have explained why their tax exemption starts in the first amendment. Read that paragragh again. It talks about "rights guarenteed" to religious organizations under the first amendment. You never answered my question: what do you think that right is?

[Phoenix Dark]

Maybe you didn't refuse a "dot on their forehead" food, but they didn't leave the kitchen without being solicited for your shitty religion.

Now you're being combative, and I'm not willing to go there. Yes he was solicited. But if he didn't take the tract or information or whatever he would still be given food. It's a Christian based event - of course there's going to be some type of solicitation. And if I was starving I certainly wouldn't give a crap; would you?

I'm not sure whether you are being deliberately daft or what.  In the case of charitable NPOs, if an org doesn't meat the IRS rules, they either have to do something god-damned charitable with the excess, or lose their tax exempt status.

And what if they use the money to build another center building in a suburb?

[brawndolicious]

Second off, I have explained why their tax exemption starts in the first amendment. Read that paragragh again. It talks about "rights guarenteed" to religious organizations under the first amendment. You never answered my question: what do you think that right is?

Why would you interpret the first amendment as saying that?

Because it sure as fuck wasn't about taxes or what defines a chairty.

[TVC15]

And what if they use the money to build another center building in a suburb?

I honestly don't know the rules that well.  But again, if that was their loophole, how does it make it better that churches just flat out pocket the cash?

[max_cool]

2 things

I'd like to point out that PD has completly ignored my last post

Churches provide a service, they ask that one contibutes as much as they can each time they perform this service. Just becuase they don't have a listed price for their service doesn't mean they are not like a corporation.

Your post made little sense (perhaps because you're drunk), and has been addressed already. You continue to ask why churches are tax exempt while suggesting that the government has the authority to tax them - but chooses not too; this is not the case, as I have pointed out.

The Red Cross provides a "service" too. Should they be taxed for said service? The Red Cross is not in existance to "make profit". Not even the most cynical of us would suggest such.

you pointed out that the congress wisely give churches special tax laws, but you still have not explained why congress does not have the power to tax churches especially since they did tax scientology. I agree that it would be unwise to tax churches and that the state does not tax churches based on RESPECT for the first amendment, but nowhere have I seen any proof from you that clearly shows that the state doesn't have the AUTHORITY to tax churches. So I re-iterate that the state does in fact have the authority to tax churches, they choose not to. I can't help but say once more. If Congress has the auhtority to make "special tax laws" for churches, then they have authority to make tax law regarding churches. So accepting that congress has authirty to make tax law with regards to churches, I see no reason why they can't make tax laws that actually taxes churches.

I am sorry that you cannnot understand this simple point.

First off, scientology is not a religion. Let's make that clear.

Second off, I have explained why their tax exemption starts in the first amendment. Read that paragragh again. It talks about "rights guarenteed" to religious organizations under the first amendment. You never answered my question: what do you think that right is?

Based off the first amendment, that right would have to deal with freedom of religion. Taxing all religions equally does not violate anyone's freedom of religion. When all organizations that are considered religions are equally treated then I see no sort of establishemnt, nor do I see an interference with one's ablility to pratice their religion. My tax money has no influence on government, IBM's tax money has no influence on government, Bill Gate's tax money has no inlfuence on government. Lobbies, campaing contributions, and votes have influence on government.

Also, Scientology is tax exempt based on its being a religion.

---edit---
gotta get some sleep, I have an intersting discussion on Peronism in the morning
It's been fun 

[Phoenix Dark]

Second off, I have explained why their tax exemption starts in the first amendment. Read that paragragh again. It talks about "rights guarenteed" to religious organizations under the first amendment. You never answered my question: what do you think that right is?

Why would you interpret the first amendment as saying that?

Because it sure as fuck wasn't about taxes or what defines a chairty.

Isn't it obvious? Or does "separation of church and state" suggest something else to you? I find it somewhat amusing that some people are hardline supporters of this notion of the separation...until the issue of tax exemption comes up. It's a glaring contradiction.

I honestly don't know the rules that well.  But again, if that was their loophole, how does it make it better that churches just flat out pocket the cash?

So you don't know the law...are you suggesting your previous statement was also an opinion, and not a fact?

With respect to "pocketing" cash, is this a fact too? Not all churches are run the same way, but offerings are usually split amongst such issues as

-Paying for utilities
-Minister/Pastor salary
-Ministry support
-Church events
-Coffer

Are there churches out there who wind up paying for their pastors second or third Mercedes? Sadly, yes. As I've said before, people like TD Jakes disgust me more than just about anyone in the world.

[brawndolicious]

Isn't it obvious? Or does "separation of church and state" suggest something else to you? I find it somewhat amusing that some people are hardline supporters of this notion of the separation...until the issue of tax exemption comes up. It's a glaring contradiction.

No, it says to "let people be impartial".

No way to spin that to say don't tax churches.

[TVC15]

Second off, I have explained why their tax exemption starts in the first amendment. Read that paragragh again. It talks about "rights guarenteed" to religious organizations under the first amendment. You never answered my question: what do you think that right is?

Why would you interpret the first amendment as saying that?

Because it sure as fuck wasn't about taxes or what defines a chairty.

Isn't it obvious? Or does "separation of church and state" suggest something else to you? I find it somewhat amusing that some people are hardline supporters of this notion of the separation...until the issue of tax exemption comes up. It's a glaring contradiction.

I honestly don't know the rules that well.  But again, if that was their loophole, how does it make it better that churches just flat out pocket the cash?

So you don't know the law...are you suggesting your previous statement was also an opinion, and not a fact?

With respect to "pocketing" cash, is this a fact too? Not all churches are run the same way, but offerings are usually split amongst such issues as

-Paying for utilities
-Minister/Pastor salary
-Ministry support
-Church events
-Coffer

Are there churches out there who wind up paying for their pastors second or third Mercedes? Sadly, yes. As I've said before, people like TD Jakes disgust me more than just about anyone in the world.

PD, even *you* can't deny that there are churches profiteering.  That's NOT an opinion.  Since churches do not have to report their incomes according to any strict rules, MANY of them may be profiteering.  Do you think we should take Churches at their word?  Faith?  Faith doesn't have a place in law.  Hold churches to the same standards as charities, and the problem disappears.

Tell me, what gets lost if we hold churches to the same standards as charities?  Churches have to hire an accountant?  Ooooh, big loss.  Just another excuse for them to pocket more cash.

[Phoenix Dark]

Isn't it obvious? Or does "separation of church and state" suggest something else to you? I find it somewhat amusing that some people are hardline supporters of this notion of the separation...until the issue of tax exemption comes up. It's a glaring contradiction.

No, it says to "let people be impartial".

No way to spin that to say don't tax churches.

Um, no.

The reasoning behind making churches tax-exempt and unburdened by IRS procedures stems from a First Amendment-based concern to prevent government involvement with religion. By avoiding initial inquiries into churches’ validity as houses of worship, government avoids violating the churches’ free-exercise right to define and regulate themselves. Legislators have also responded to public sentiment that churches provide a valuable function in the community, and therefore should receive benefits that other charitable organizations enjoy.

Specific IRS interpretations and codes distinguish between churches and religious organizations. There are additional rules for religious institutions that engage in business dealings unrelated to their

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=tax_exemptions

What else is there to discuss with respect to this issue?

[brawndolicious]

That's the reason behind the IRS's choice not to tax them, not the founding fathers.

[Phoenix Dark]

Second off, I have explained why their tax exemption starts in the first amendment. Read that paragragh again. It talks about "rights guarenteed" to religious organizations under the first amendment. You never answered my question: what do you think that right is?

Why would you interpret the first amendment as saying that?

Because it sure as fuck wasn't about taxes or what defines a chairty.

Isn't it obvious? Or does "separation of church and state" suggest something else to you? I find it somewhat amusing that some people are hardline supporters of this notion of the separation...until the issue of tax exemption comes up. It's a glaring contradiction.

I honestly don't know the rules that well.  But again, if that was their loophole, how does it make it better that churches just flat out pocket the cash?

So you don't know the law...are you suggesting your previous statement was also an opinion, and not a fact?

With respect to "pocketing" cash, is this a fact too? Not all churches are run the same way, but offerings are usually split amongst such issues as

-Paying for utilities
-Minister/Pastor salary
-Ministry support
-Church events
-Coffer

Are there churches out there who wind up paying for their pastors second or third Mercedes? Sadly, yes. As I've said before, people like TD Jakes disgust me more than just about anyone in the world.

PD, even *you* can't deny that there are churches profiteering.  That's NOT an opinion.  Since churches do not have to report their incomes according to any strict rules, MANY of them may be profiteering.  Do you think we should take Churches at their word?  Faith?  Faith doesn't have a place in law.  Hold churches to the same standards as charities, and the problem disappears.

Tell me, what gets lost if we hold churches to the same standards as charities?  Churches have to hire an accountant?  Ooooh, big loss.  Just another excuse for them to pocket more cash.

Oh, I can't and never have denied that; I brought up TD Jakes for cripes sake lol. Yet that does not mean they should be forced to pay taxes now.

I agreed with am nintenho that documentation would be a good idea. Not really for the government's benefit though: for the church goers. They should know where the money is going, or at least the bishops should know and actually do their job (advise and look after the body)..

[Phoenix Dark]

That's the reason behind the IRS's choice not to tax them, not the founding fathers.

The courts have decided cases based on my reasoning. Did you go to the link?

Should we discuss precident now?

[TVC15]

Second off, I have explained why their tax exemption starts in the first amendment. Read that paragragh again. It talks about "rights guarenteed" to religious organizations under the first amendment. You never answered my question: what do you think that right is?

Why would you interpret the first amendment as saying that?

Because it sure as fuck wasn't about taxes or what defines a chairty.

Isn't it obvious? Or does "separation of church and state" suggest something else to you? I find it somewhat amusing that some people are hardline supporters of this notion of the separation...until the issue of tax exemption comes up. It's a glaring contradiction.

I honestly don't know the rules that well.  But again, if that was their loophole, how does it make it better that churches just flat out pocket the cash?

So you don't know the law...are you suggesting your previous statement was also an opinion, and not a fact?

With respect to "pocketing" cash, is this a fact too? Not all churches are run the same way, but offerings are usually split amongst such issues as

-Paying for utilities
-Minister/Pastor salary
-Ministry support
-Church events
-Coffer

Are there churches out there who wind up paying for their pastors second or third Mercedes? Sadly, yes. As I've said before, people like TD Jakes disgust me more than just about anyone in the world.

PD, even *you* can't deny that there are churches profiteering.  That's NOT an opinion.  Since churches do not have to report their incomes according to any strict rules, MANY of them may be profiteering.  Do you think we should take Churches at their word?  Faith?  Faith doesn't have a place in law.  Hold churches to the same standards as charities, and the problem disappears.

Tell me, what gets lost if we hold churches to the same standards as charities?  Churches have to hire an accountant?  Ooooh, big loss.  Just another excuse for them to pocket more cash.

Oh, I can't and never have denied that; I brought up TD Jakes for cripes sake lol. Yet that does not mean they should be forced to pay taxes now.

I agreed with am nintenho that documentation would be a good idea. Not really for the government's benefit though: for the church goers. They should know where the money is going, or at least the bishops should know and actually do their job (advise and look after the body)..

Cool.  You agree with me, then.