I wasn't trying to be snide with anything I wrote. I think you're misreading my voice. As far as secular organizations; yes, and they're called 501c3 non-profits. Who also don't pay tax. Should we be demanding they all pay their "fair share" as well? I also never conceded anything. I basically said you brought up some points, but failed to realize the full implications of them - such as forgetting about the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause in the 1st Amendment. And the thing is... I still don't think you grasp that part. Taxation is a form of control. If they tax the church, they prohibit the free exercise of religion when they do so. Therefore, churches being tax exempt is explicitly written in the 1st Amendment, and this is why the Supreme Court has always ruled in favor of no church taxation. To suggest otherwise is to be utterly ignorant of 200 years of this republic's legislative history. The only way you could ever tax the churches is if you held a Constitutional convention and completely rewrote the 1st Amendment. And, let's face it: that will never happen.
I see. So when you explained that you weren't going to "go through and list, line-by-line, the religious status of all 200 charities for purposes of brevity", you were being sincere, not snide. I find it hard to believe that you seriously thought that I expected that of you, and thus needed to explain that you wouldn't. I think you were being snide. But that's okay, I won't let it bother me. And the whole purpose of 501c3 organizations is to cut taxes on organizations that serve a public benefit. All 501c3 organizations serve a demonstrable public benefit but one. Guess which. And you can't fall back on the charity thing again, because even if churches to support a great deal of charity that is not at all their primary purpose, and much of their tax-free dollars are spent on building luxury churches and mega-salaries for their pastors. Thank you also for condescending to tell me what I do and don't understand. I have stated up front that I am, as you say "ignorant" of 200 years of this republic's legislative history. I have about as much knowledge of legislative action as the average layperson. I understand very clearly how you believe that taxation should be interpreted as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. What I am saying is that I, as a layperson, am not certain that taxation necessarily must be interpreted as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And what I am saying is that if the courts of this country have seen fit to weigh the issue at all, then it must not be quite so clearly, so explicitly, so definitely written as you say it is. The language sounds a bit loose to me, and I can see a couple ways of looking at it. But again, I am not a lawyer or a politician, and I am unversed in the subtleties of law and the language used to express it. At the very least, it seems to me that the amendment says nothing about forcing other citizens to pay for the benefits that religious organizations enjoy from the government, such as, again, fire departments, etc. (a point I made earlier). We could go on, but honestly, I'm starting to lose interest. As you say, nothing I can do about it anyway. Too deeply ingrained in our culture and, as you pointed out, legislative history. I will continue to pay money I worked hard to earn to support some stranger's Sunday pastime, and he will continue to regard that as my personal obligation.
If you're going to go to church, find one that doesn't pay their pastors. Incidentally, the figures on mormon and/or methodist charitable giving are not only inaccurate but couldn't be verified unless you know some one inside either organization.much of their tax-free dollars are spent on building luxury churches and mega-salaries for their pastors.
>I think you were being snide. Alright, whatever. Think what you want. >tax-free dollars are spent on building luxury churches and mega-salaries for their pastors. You are aware that all church employee salaries are taxed, right? I love how I cite specific Supreme court cases, and quote the judicial record, and you respond with: > And what I am saying is that if the courts of this country have seen fit to weigh the issue at all, then it must not be quite so clearly, so explicitly, so definitely written as you say it is. I think the issue is quite clear for those who want to look at it. >At the very least, it seems to me that the amendment says nothing about forcing other citizens to pay for the benefits that religious organizations enjoy from the government, such as, again, fire departments, etc. Why should the government force anyone to pay for these services? These weren't laid out in a constitutional manner. Why don't we pay private fire brigades and police forces, like they do in Brazil? I don't think you should have to subsidize anyone either, but it's not the church's fault the the government is robbing you.
I've enjoyed being a fly on the wall for this conversation. The markup can be accessed at the bottom right of the comment box. It's written in light blue and is a bit difficult to see. Hope that helps.