General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

36. Posters on DU keep citing stats about X-percent of Catholics using BC

Tue Feb 14, 2012, 10:11 AM

Feb 2012

It seems no one is being prevented from anything.

The whole separation of church and state thing means churches cannot ask me to fund their religious practices. I would imagine that it is a two-way street and the institution supported by my taxes will not dictate to churches.

It would be wrong to tell a religious institution they could not fire an employee for adultery. One recent ase involved a teacher who took her grievance to a civil court rather than leaving the church elders to adjudicate an internal dispute. the court upheld the firing because the church (not catholic) could show an established doctrine.

This entire DU-based Anti-Catholic League is an embarrassment especially considering how many people CORRECTLY were outraged by the rank bigotry of Oklahoma's anti-Sharia amendment to their state constitution. Sadly, it seems religious liberty is a selective principle.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The rationale for tax-free religion is a real problem [View all] SoCalDem Feb 2012 OP

k and r--this ought to make for interesting comment. niyad Feb 2012 #1

Since churches are becoming so political the tax exemption should be lifted. They say it's "war" nanabugg Feb 2012 #29

If I ran a church, I would NOT want to be tax free FrodosPet Feb 2012 #39

Which rights should be taxed and which rights should be free of taxation? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #2

Shhhh! You're confusing the prejudice with facts gratuitous Feb 2012 #3

Here's a fundie preacher who got all political and should've been taxed into silence -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #6

He paid his taxes. Sparkly Feb 2012 #10

Maybe personal income tax Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #12

Um, that hasn't happened. Sparkly Feb 2012 #14

Well, if religiously motivated political speech is exempt Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #16

"Religiously motivated speech" is different from setting policy as a church representative. Sparkly Feb 2012 #18

Posters on DU keep citing stats about X-percent of Catholics using BC Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #36

being against child rapists embarrasses you? DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2012 #58

That's as absurd and bigoted as saying Islam breeds terrorists. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #59

I think they should be treated like other non-profits. Sparkly Feb 2012 #5

The courts have long recognized religious exemptions even to CR law Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #7

They aren't above civil rights laws, labor laws, etc. Sparkly Feb 2012 #9

As I just pointed out -- yes, they are as established by case law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #11

You're talking about hiring practices. Sparkly Feb 2012 #15

"all other laws" is rather broad Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #33

This Sunday there was a great article in the Detroit Free Press Union Scribe Feb 2012 #4

Why do you think people want to "stick it to the churches"? Aerows Feb 2012 #21

Generally, "tax 'em all" threads are not limited to Catholic churches Union Scribe Feb 2012 #28

I wasn't just referring to the Catholic church Aerows Feb 2012 #30

And, from what you've described, for no good reason Union Scribe Feb 2012 #31

If they act like a business Aerows Feb 2012 #32

What if they're not acting like a business but acting like a charity or service provider? n/t Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #34

That's different Aerows Feb 2012 #41

K&R just to spite the "power to tax is the power to destroy" crowd. Zalatix Feb 2012 #8

That crowd includes Justice Thurgood Marshall. former9thward Feb 2012 #17

You said it before. I'd give another K&R just for you. Zalatix Feb 2012 #19

The SC may be flawed former9thward Feb 2012 #23

Taxation curtails the free exercise of religion HOW? Zalatix Feb 2012 #24

good point bongbong Feb 2012 #25

Newspaper publishers are taxed, but that doesn't break the 1st Amendment muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #27

Newspapers are run for the express purpose of making a profit. former9thward Feb 2012 #38

There's nothing in the amendment about 'profit', either muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #40

No there is nothing about profit in the First Amendment. former9thward Feb 2012 #42

Wrong; it says 'prohibiting', not 'inhibit' muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #43

Ohhh the typo police just gave me a ticket. former9thward Feb 2012 #44

You were arguing on the wording muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #45

Go ahead, side step the issue. former9thward Feb 2012 #48

Facts? I'm the one who's had to point out to you, 3 times, what is and isn't in the amendment muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #49

I agree with the Walz decision of the Supreme Court directly on this issue. former9thward Feb 2012 #50

The Walz decision was that tax exemption did not break the 1st Amendment muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #55

Since you seem to think the SC would allow taxation if they had the right case former9thward Feb 2012 #57

You're moving the goalposts muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #61

Your analogy to the death penalty is poor. former9thward Feb 2012 #64

Your quote from Walz doesn't say say taxation is not constitutional muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #65

As I said no comment from the SC will convince you. former9thward Feb 2012 #67

You just negated your own argument. Yo_Mama Feb 2012 #54

There is a difference; donations to Greenpeace are not tax-deductible muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #56

Taxation curtails the free exercise of religion... how? Zalatix Feb 2012 #46

Yeah, the heads of the RCC live in adject poverty. n/t Goblinmonger Feb 2012 #47

Which means what in relation to this issue? former9thward Feb 2012 #51

I thought it was you Goblinmonger Feb 2012 #63

It was another poster who brought up profit and newspapers. former9thward Feb 2012 #66

No, it was you who brought up profit and newspapers muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #68

You brought up newspapers former9thward Feb 2012 #69

The 1st amendmnt includes freedom of the press, and no law prohibiting the free practice of religion muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #70

Spite is often... LanternWaste Feb 2012 #20

Often, but not always. Zalatix Feb 2012 #22

I think your understanding is incorrect. And also before the "faith based initiatives"... JVS Feb 2012 #13

Separation of church and state? (nt) Kellerfeller Feb 2012 #26

1st amendment is pretty clear Puzzledtraveller Feb 2012 #35

It clearly doesn't mention tax at all muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #37

A problem, a consistent problem quaker bill Feb 2012 #52

It's based on a constitutional protection Yo_Mama Feb 2012 #53

And why should 'advancement of religion' be considered a charitable purpose? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #62

I'm With You, (Be Ready For Some Backlash) we can do it Feb 2012 #60