{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
8/13/2013 6:45:29 PM
2
Half of those things have literally nothing to do with religion, and one of them is tyranny (taxing churches).
English
-
Of course they have nothing to do with religion, they are cynically included here to illustrate that it is highly unlikely that I will be made to believe a lie. And no, taxing churches is not tyranny.
-
It is tyranny. You don't see any theists advocating for taxing churches, it's only atheists that hate religion so much that anything that hurts religion is good and acceptable to them.
-
Edited by dr0cx: 8/14/2013 2:13:39 PMThat's not an argument, it's an accusation. You claim taxation of churches would be tyranny, so prove it. All you've given me so far is opinion. Exempting churches from taxation is a violation of the establishment clause. [quote][b]Amendment I[/b] [u]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[/u], 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.[/quote] Exempting religious organizations from taxation IS an establishment of religion. The "free exercise thereof" means that Congress will not prevent you from exercising your religion. Free does not mean "without taxation". It also is counter-intuitive for religious organizations to be "tax exempt" because that requires a higher degree of government oversight than the alternative. [url=http://www.idealist.org/info/Nonprofits/Basics4]Non profits are subject to taxation[/url], yet none is claiming tyranny. [url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=cragun_32_4]71 billion a year[/url], that is what religious tax exemption is costing the American tax-payer. This would resolve some fiscal issues, be invested in education, or take out [url=http://www.policymic.com/articles/46915/graduation-2013-massive-student-loan-debt-stifles-innovation-and-creativity]7% of our student loan debt[/url].
-
How is taxing churches different from taxing other businesses? [spoiler]Yes, a church [i]is[/i] a business.[/spoiler]
-
Because we have a right to the free practice of religion, and taxing a Church infringes upon that right. And a Church is not a business, excluding some cults.
-
'Free' there means without infringement on the basis of it being religious, not without cost or consequence.
-
Define it however you like, it's still tyrannical and immoral to tax religions.
-
You have a nasty habit of being refuted, then proceeding to argue the exact same refuted claims.
-
It's the only way his belief can be preserved.
-
There is no Christianity tax, And there is no assembly tax. There should, however, be property tax, Revenue tax(8¢ for each US dollar) And other taxes businesses must pay.
-
It is, by definition, not tyrannical. You probably only think it's 'immoral' because you want people to be religious, though.
-
Please explain how it is not tyrannical to steal money from non-profit organizations while also infringing on the right to free practice of religion. You can say whatever you want, but I know you only want the Church to be taxed because it hurts religion.
-
Taxation is theft huh? That's a nice libertarian line of bullshit you've appropriated there. Either don't ignore the things I'm saying, like you always do, or don't say anything at all.
-
[quote]Church is not a business[/quote]Agreed. Just the ones that take donations.
-
Maybe in America you do.
-
Just saying, the reason America exists was because England put restrictions on religions (yes a tax is a restriction, churches are rarely wealthy) causing people to come here for religious freedom. Had the British Empire allowed more freedoms then, it is likely we'd still be Brits today.
-
Churches are actually very wealthy. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/charity/2008-10-07-charity-faith_N.htm
-
Super churches. I personally don't believe so much in those for various reasons. Smaller churches tend to be more focused on the actual teachings of the bible, instead of money grubbing...
-
The source isn't restrictive to super churches.
-
I'm going from personal experience from 10 or 20 churches, not one to trust studies I know things about...
-
To convince anyone apart from yourself that the source above is indicative of only "super churches", you will have to provide evidence.
-
Well personally, every small, localized church I have gone to has had at least moderate money problems. Be it debt from expansion or just spending more than they have on missionary work and their congregation, good small churches tend to run themselves as such. Large churches tend to run themselves more like businesses, tending not to leave their money in god's hands so much. Not that I'm speaking out against large churches, there is just a lot more legalism involved.
-
And how many of those localized churches are completely independent? You will find that there is a governance and reporting structure, and all those tithes go up to the top.
-
All of them I have been to. Just because two churches share a denomination does not mean the money from one goes to the other.
-
Ask yourself this question: Who decides where the pastor/priest/guy in robes gets relocated to, and who decides which new one to hire? You may find that it is less independent than you think it is.
