General Discussion

former9thward

(33,424 posts)

48. Go ahead, side step the issue.

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 14, 2012, 03:07 PM

Feb 2012

If I didn't have any facts I would too.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

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