• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

Thrilla said:
well, I guess you'll have to settle for not having momuments..everythign else you listed is allowable. :lol:
Click to expand...
Where did I list anything "allowable"? My post about satanism was sarcastic.

as an aside, what is your position on taxing churches?.... do you like them having tax exempt status, or do you want them to pay taxes?
Click to expand...
I dont have a solid position on this argument. I see the argument for both sides.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Where did I list anything "allowable"? My post about satanism was sarcastic.


I dont have a solid position on this argument. I see the argument for both sides.
Click to expand...

I say tax em. At least here in America churches (some, think of the mega-churches. not all) appear at face value to be profit oriented.
 
Swit said:
Lol.... yeah I actually always wanted some flying spaghetti monster ones but never got them.
Can you explain a little more than it's extreme? I mean it is Federally recognized. I understand its a very offensive religion to the Christians.... but by the same note Christianity is probably extremely offensive to Satanists. Are you implying that just because its a "fringe" (low population?) religion, the governement should be allowed to discriminate against it (i.e. denying their permit for placement of their display whilst granting the Christian one)?
Click to expand...

it's fringe becasue it doesn't have the social standing of the 3 major religions... and no, i'm not saying that would justify discrimination
if he looking for hypocrisy, which he most certainly is, he could use any other major religion,. he chose the one that has like 8 people following it... the
he's comparing the nations top religion with the very least regliion ... IE ..extreme comparison.

I'm not really an infidel... i just did it becasue i'm an asshole and i thought it would be cool to see if a chaplain would show up to give my my last rites if I put "infidel" down
in 1969,when i enlisted, I was a Mormon... the LDS was not regocnized by the DOD at that time( or so i was told).... it wasn't until the late 70's that i could put my real religion on my tags... it wasn't until the late 80's that I actaully put my real religion in my tags :lol:
 
Swit said:
I say tax em. At least here in America churches (some, think of the mega-churches. not all) appear at face value to be profit oriented.
Click to expand...

spearation of church and state is supposed ot go both ways... why do you only support it going one way and oppose it going the other?
 
Thrilla said:
it's fringe becasue it doesn't have the social standing of the 3 major religions... and no, i'm not saying that would justify discrimination
if he looking for hypocrisy, which he most certainly is, he could use any other major religion,. he chose the one that has like 8 people following it... the
he's comparing the nations top religion with the very least regliion ... IE ..extreme comparison.

I'm not really an infidel... i just did it becasue i'm an asshole and i thought it would be cool to see if a chaplain would show up to give my my last rites if I put "infidel" down
in 1969,when i enlisted, I was a Mormon... the LDS was not regocnized by the DOD at that time( or so i was told).... it wasn't until the late 70's that i could put my real religion on my tags... it wasn't until the late 80's that I actaully put my real religion in my tags :lol:
Click to expand...

OK... i get it now.... I was taking the line of looking at it like this:

Federally recognized religion A's display gets "approved"
Federally recognized religion B's display gets "denied
Government is showing preferential treatment for Federally recognized religion A over Federally recognized religion B

But yes I see what you are saying.... but at least in my eyes (as a non-believer) they are both the same if they both meet whatever qualifications are needed to be Federally recognized.
 
Thrilla said:
spearation of church and state is supposed ot go both ways... why do you only support it going one way and oppose it going the other?
Click to expand...

I don't understand what separation of church and state has to do with taxation. They were given a tax break NOT becuase of the separation of church and state but primarily because they were viewed as humanitarian institutions and basically non-profits. Once the televangelists and the mega-churches used religion as a cover to avoid paying taxes I believe that situation goes out the window. But it doesn't matter what I think. I would just prefer that those persons that are using religion to 1. scam people out of their money and 2. shelter themselves from tax liabilities on those gains should not be allowed to do so. Just my 2 cents.
 
Swit said:
I don't understand what separation of church and state has to do with taxation. They were given a tax break NOT becuase of the separation of church and state but primarily because they were viewed as humanitarian institutions and basically non-profits. Once the televangelists and the mega-churches used religion as a cover to avoid paying taxes I believe that situation goes out the window. But it doesn't matter what I think. I would just prefer that those persons that are using religion to 1. scam people out of their money and 2. shelter themselves from tax liabilities on those gains should not be allowed to do so. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Even before televangelists and such, the Catholic church surely gathered plenty of riches and land instead of pursuing humanitarian issues.
 
Swit said:
I don't understand what separation of church and state has to do with taxation. They were given a tax break NOT becuase of the separation of church and state but primarily because they were viewed as humanitarian institutions and basically non-profits. Once the televangelists and the mega-churches used religion as a cover to avoid paying taxes I believe that situation goes out the window. But it doesn't matter what I think. I would just prefer that those persons that are using religion to 1. scam people out of their money and 2. shelter themselves from tax liabilities on those gains should not be allowed to do so. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

separation of church and state is to ensure neither has dominion over the other....taxing churches gives the government dominion over the churches

the power to tax is the power to destroy.

this is long settled law.

wanting to tax churches is simply saying " I do not believe in the sepearation of church and state".. or " the state should control religion"
 
Summerwind said:
Even before televangelists and such, the Catholic church surely gathered plenty of riches and land instead of pursuing humanitarian issues.
Click to expand...

Like I said tax em all.... I was just trying to point out that the "televangelists and such" are particularly aggregious do to the fact that they are utilizing religious tax incentives to dodge taxes and garner profit. I believe most religions honestly believe what they are preaching and aren't nessisarily doing it to amass wealth.
 
Swit said:
Like I said tax em all.... I was just trying to point out that the "televangelists and such" are particularly aggregious do to the fact that they are utilizing religious tax incentives to doge taxes and garner profit. I believe most religions honestly believe what they are preaching and aren't nessisarily doing it to amass wealth.
Click to expand...

no, don't tax em... i kinda like hte separation of church and state intact.


if they engage in non-religious commerce, you can tax them... like we do now.
but taxing them on proceeds from religious activites is a big ass no-no.
 
Thrilla said:
separation of church and state is to ensure neither has dominion over the other....taxing churches gives the government dominion over the churches
Click to expand...
No the separation of church and state is to ensure that any particular religion doesn't have dominion over a religious diverse population.
Thrilla said:
the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Click to expand...
No it's not it's the power to regulate.
Thrilla said:
this is long settled law.
Click to expand...
Care to provide som back-up to this claim?
Thrilla said:
wanting to tax churches is simply saying " I do not believe in the sepearation of church and state".. or " the state should control religion"
Click to expand...
No it's not. It's saying that if you are generating profit you should have the same obligation of all other profit generating institutions to provide for infrastructure. Not freeload off it.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Outside of #2 was never a law in the United States.

I mean #2 means don't be an arrogant clownish aristocratic fool. However even #2 could be considered treason, considering those guilty of being treasonous in history have often carried those traits...... Now, obviously in the US it's not illegal to be an arrogant fool, however that arrogance will certainly lead you to break the state laws that are based off the Ten Commandments.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean "make yourself into an idol." It means "make an idol to worship."
 
Summerwind said:
We belie all of them, so I'm figuring they are all pretty useless. Dittohead not! posted this analysis...



But I'd go so far as to say that even the three he thinks are part of our society are not, and are instead conditionally accepted in our modern society, so really none of them apply, and it's an entirely useless list.
Click to expand...
Stealing, murdering, and committing perjury is illegal. It still goes on, of course, but it is illegal.
 
apdst said:
The thing you're missing is that atheists forcing religions to take monuments down is no different than religious groups forcing atheists to put religious monuments up.
Click to expand...

You are performing right up to my expectations of you talking around the q again. Once again, my question. Just answer it. Is that too much to ask, or are you only able to just keep dancing around it instead of giving an answer?

Do you or do you not have a problem if Muslims in a town put verses from the Quran on their government walls?
 
danarhea said:
You are performing right up to my expectations of you talking around the q again. Once again, my question. Just answer it. Is that too much to ask, or are you only able to just keep dancing around it instead of giving an answer?

Do you or do you not have a problem if Muslims in a town put verses from the Quran on their government walls?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth apdst I am interested in your answer to this very straight forward question as well.
 
Swit said:
No the separation of church and state is to ensure that any particular religion doesn't have dominion over a religious diverse population.
Click to expand...
so you are of the opinion the the goverbnment should have dominon over religion ?

so much for the free exercise clause.:roll:

No it's not it's the power to regulate.
Click to expand...
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" Chief Justice John Marshal

Care to provide som back-up to this claim?
Click to expand...
from our inception until 1970, no cases were brought forthchallengeing tax exempt status of churches.... in 1970, tax exemptions were found to be consitutional (Walz v. Tax Comm'n)
this case contains the walz test

the law allowing for the taxation of non-religious commerce/property was upheld in Differderfer v. Central Baptist Church

No it's not. It's saying that if you are generating profit you should have the same obligation of all other profit generating institutions to provide for infrastructure. Not freeload off it.
Click to expand...
if churches engage in nonp0religious commerce, they can be taxed on that profit... otherwise, they hold a non-profit status and are accordingly tax exempt. (see Walz v Tax Comm'n)

there is no "freeloading"... a tax exemption is not a subsidy, no matter how many time some lefty inaccurately argues as much.
subsidies for churches are unconstitutional... tax exemptions are not.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What non religious reason could there be.. let's see.. perhaps the prohibition of adultery is there to remind the pols.. no, that can't be it. Maybe it's the injunction against working on the Sabbath... No, can't be that. It says they're supposed to work six days of the week. Could be the part about no idols, but no, their idol is the almighty dollar.

Nope. Can't think of a single reason other than religion.
Click to expand...

A gift? Donation? Deco? For the hell of it?
 
1750Texan said:
Establishment of religion does not mean writing of a law saying that the 10 commandments is the official commandments of the city of Elsewhere...

By the city's OK-ing the monument to be placed in the public square is the city giving tacit acceptance and favor to the monument...ergo the 10 commandments...ergo religion.
Click to expand...

So what? As long as no laws are made or judges rule based on religious ideologies then there is nothing wrong with it.

And fyi...just to save you some time....I don't follow any religious organization so trying to use that isn't going to get you far.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A gift? Donation? Deco? For the hell of it?
Click to expand...

it has ot pass the Wlaz tesrt to be allowed... (the Walz test = secular purpose and effect test )

you'd be hard pressed to win the argument that the 10 commandmants would pass the Walz test....it's not a very secualr list of do's and don'ts
 
Thrilla said:
so you are of the opinion the the goverbnment should have dominon over religion ?

so much for the free exercise clause.:roll:.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. But would be interested to discuss it.

Thrilla said:
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" Chief Justice John Marshal.
Click to expand...
So... you are drawing you conclusion that the ability to tax is the ability to destroy from a singuar USSC opinion from 1819?

Thrilla said:
from our inception until 1970, no cases were brought forthchallengeing tax exempt status of churches.... in 1970, tax exemptions were found to be consitutional (Walz v. Tax Comm'n)
this case contains the walz test

the law allowing for the taxation of non-religious commerce/property was upheld in Differderfer v. Central Baptist Church.
Click to expand...
okay not sure what you are trying to prove here.... can you clarify? Or at least explain what this was in reference to?

Thrilla said:
if churches engage in nonp0religious commerce, they can be taxed on that profit... otherwise, they hold a non-profit status and are accordingly tax exempt. (see Walz v Tax Comm'n)

there is no "freeloading"... a tax exemption is not a subsidy, no matter how many time some lefty inaccurately argues as much.
subsidies for churches are unconstitutional... tax exemptions are not.
Click to expand...
Are you defending televangelists and mega-churches? Are you willing to go on record that they are primarily in the business of doing "God's work"
 
Swit said:
Not at all. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. But would be interested to discuss it.
Click to expand...
taxing religious activites is having dominion over that religion.

So... you are drawing you conclusion that the ability to tax is the ability to destroy from a singuar USSC opinion from 1819?
Click to expand...
uhh.. yeah.. it's a pretty famous "saying" from a supreme court justice... and it's true.
what happend when you get behoind on your taxes?.. tax liens, property siezures, etc.... these are examples of the whole "destroy " thing


okay not sure what you are trying to prove here.... can you clarify? Or at least explain what this was in reference to?
Click to expand...

you asked for something to back up my position... supreme court cases do pretty well in that capacity.
churches being tax exempt has been understood since our inception as a polity.... it's only very recently that the left wing has decided to
attack religion, abnd te separation of church and state, by arguing the govt should be controlling them via taxation....

Are you defending televangelists and mega-churches? Are you willing to go on record that they are primarily in the business of doing "God's work"
Click to expand...
insofar as the governemmnt is concerned.. yes.. i'm defending them.
are they doing my idea of "god's work"? .. no, they aren't.
but neither me nor the govt are arbiters of "god's work".. and we especially don't want govt acting in that capacity, either through legislation or taxation.. it would be unconstitutional.


anyways.. i'm out.. i'm tired and the whiskey is having an effect on my typin'...nite
 
Thrilla said:
taxing religious activites is having dominion over that religion.
Click to expand...
Are you really trying to say that the government, through taxation, can prevent you from believing in God?

Thrilla said:
uhh.. yeah.. it's a pretty famous "saying" from a supreme court justice... and it's true.
what happend when you get behoind on your taxes?.. tax liens, property siezures, etc.... these are examples of the whole "destroy " thing
Click to expand...
I have been behind in my taxes, the government charged me a hefty fee for being behind, I think the fee they charged was onerous and generally unfair. But I am still here.

Thrilla said:
you asked for something to back up my position... supreme court cases do pretty well in that capacity.
churches being tax exempt has been understood since our inception as a polity.... it's only very recently that the left wing has decided to
attack religion, abnd te separation of church and state, by arguing the govt should be controlling them via taxation....
Click to expand...
Not sure that is true, but I dont see how any of this relates to the (once again perhaps only in my opinion) mega-churches and televangelists who definitely seem to be businesses. Hell, I figured religious people would be pissed at this as well. But I guess I was wrong.

Thrilla said:
insofar as the governemmnt is concerned.. yes.. i'm defending them.
are they doing my idea of "god's work"? .. no, they aren't.
but neither me nor the govt are arbiters of "god's work".. and we especially don't want govt acting in that capacity, either through legislation or taxation.. it would be unconstitutional..
Click to expand...
Then don't defend them... if it's a problem provide for the solution not the continuation of the problem

Thrilla said:
anyways.. i'm out.. i'm tired and the whiskey is having an effect on my typin'...nite
Click to expand...
Yeah mee too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom