Temple Land Tax?

[thesometimesaint]

Nope, that is not the basis for tax exempt status. And history should teach us, that the 1st Amendment isn't regarded as a complete bar to Congress.

 

There are no complete rights if you mean absolute rights. You(we) are free to believe anything we want. You(we) have always been subject to the interpretation of that law either by Congress, the Courts, and even by the President when it comes to our actions.

 

Moreover the Freedom of Religion is the reason for our tax exempt status. Patrick Henry of all people wanted to use tax monies to further the church. Thomas Jefferson objected. Thomas Jefferson won that debate.

http://www.history.org/media/podcasts_transcripts/JeffersonvsHenry.cfm

[foster]

Sometimesaint, read the paper on the history of tax exempt status I posted. Tax exemption nationally started in about 1894. Churches are not guaranteed tax exempt status under the United States Constitution.

[foster]

So is your argument:

Is that the cases Robert cited are not about Churches being guaranteed tax exempt status

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimesaint, read the paper on the history of tax exempt status I posted. Tax exemption nationally started in about 1894. Churches are not guaranteed tax exempt status under the United States Constitution.

 

The cause of the tax exempt status goes back even further than 1894.

[foster]

The cause of the tax exempt status goes back even further than 1894.

Not relevant to the present discussion. The US Constitution does not guarantee tax exempt status for religions/churches.

Edited September 1, 2013 by foster

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, the power to tax is the power to destroy, McCulloch v. Maryland was not about church and tax exemption. The was about Maryland imposing taxes on the Federal Government - religion is not mentioned in the case.

 

Walz, on the other hand,  was about whether the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law" prohibited tax exemption for Churches, the Court ruled the 1st Amendment does not prohibit tax exemption for religious organizations. The Court did not rule that the 1st Amendment is a complete bar to taxing Churches.

You have a penchant, foster, for misstating what people say to you. I noticed that above when you said "Can you show from either decision where tax exempt status is guaranteed?"  And now in your statement that " the power to tax is the power to destroy, McCulloch v. Maryland was not about church and tax exemption."  I did not say that either case "guaranteed" any "tax exempt status."  Nor did I say that "McCulloch v. Maryland was . . . about church and tax exemption."  Nor did I say that Walz was a ruling that " that the 1st Amendment is a complete bar to taxing Churches."  Walz is about separation of church and state (as I stated above, and which you deliberately ignored).

 

You clearly do not understand the Law.  Precedent setting decisions are about principles, not the specific ingredients of an individual case, and the legal philosophy which I and many others entertain happens to include both cases as basic principles which make the tax exempt status of religious groups very firm.  That is why the citations I provided argued precisely with those cases.  The fact that you don't agree has little to do with the way legal principles are argued.

 

In future, I would appreciate you quoting my actual statements, rather than falsely claiming that I said something which I did not.  Moreover, when I provide a citation, I expect that you will sincerely consider the arguments made and to acknowledge that your POV is not the only one in town.  If that is the case, I expect you to interact with those views in a reasonable manner, and if need be reject them for cause.  That is what "discussion" means, and that is the intent of this Board (Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board).

Edited September 2, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................Tax exemption nationally started in about 1894...............................

No it didn't.  It was part of the law from before the founding of our nation, and was even practiced in the Roman Empire.

[foster]

I'll play your game then Robert.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the First Amendment therefore gives religion a special status.Read the decision at http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=21 .

Call for reference that in Mcculloch the 1st Amendment gives special status to religions.

According to that same high court, in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 1970, the First Amendment establishment clause guaranteeing separation of church and state likewise justifies tax exempt status.See http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/ .

Call For References on this claim.

What is important about this back and forth, is that you have admitted those cases only philosophically stand for what you claim they stand for. Mccullock was about Maryland taxing the Federal Government, Walz was about the 1st Amendment not being offended by tax exempt status given to religions. You presentation of the cases is philosophical and thus not established precedent or fact.

Now we can proceeded. There is not an established Constitutional guarantee of tax exempt status for religions.

Edited September 2, 2013 by foster

[Robert F. Smith]

I said:

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland,  1819, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the First Amendment therefore gives religion a special status.

Read the decision at http://www.ourdocume...ash=true&doc=21 .

According to that same high court, in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 1970, the First Amendment establishment clause guaranteeing separation of church and state likewise justifies tax exempt status.

See http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/ .

 

I'll play your game then Robert.

Call for reference that in Mcculloch the 1st Amendment gives special status to religions.

Call For References on this claim.

It  may be a game for you, foster, and that may be why you don't take it seriously.  I don't play games.

Indeed in both instances, I cited my sources, and then provided an additional one in another post on this thread:

 

 

Here is another summary of the issue which concludes with a view different from mine, but a good summary nonetheless:  http://books.google....emption&f=false .

It is from Paul A. Djupe and Laura R. Olson, Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics (Checkmark, 2008), 432.

Had you read those citations, you'd have noted that two of them discuss the very cases which you do not understand.  Why do you suppose that legal scholars cite such case if they are not applicable?  Why are you calling for a CFR, when you already have the discussions of those cases cited by me above?

 

Well, I guess for you, it is indeed just a "game."

Edited September 2, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[foster]

You cited sources, under the guise that your assessment of the source was fact. Your opinion of those is your opinion and not established legal or otherwise fact. But now that you have admitted your assessment is a scholarly one, then it established you are no longer presenting your opinion as established legal or otherwise fact. The acknowledgement of your stance is appreciated.

[Robert F. Smith]

You cited sources, under the guise that your assessment of the source was fact. Your opinion of those is your opinion and not established legal or otherwise fact. But now that you have admitted your assessment is a scholarly one, then it established you are no longer presenting your opinion as established legal or otherwise fact. The acknowledgement of your stance is appreciated.

That's the best non-reply I've ever seen.  Well, one of the best.

I can see that you didn't bother to read those sources.  Too bad.  It might have helped you to be less truculent.

[foster]

Robert I accept your opinion of what those cases COULD MEAN in a future case. I appreciate that you made your point clear on those cases.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert I accept your opinion of what those cases COULD MEAN in a future case. I appreciate that you made your point clear on those cases.

Thanks, foster.  No problem.

[thesometimesaint]

Not relevant to the present discussion. The US Constitution does not guarantee tax exempt status for religions/churches.

Yes it does. As the Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry discussions prove.

[foster]

Yes it does. As the Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry discussions prove.

Where in the dialogue you posted is the discussion about Churches not having to pay taxes?

What legal precedent expressly garuntees tax exempt status.

[thesometimesaint]

Bill Barker as Thomas Jefferson: Mr. Henry, once more, if you will, your plan, your bill is a tax. Your bill is a bill of assessment. We are calling for a tax once more to be placed upon a certain religious opinion. That is that an individual is free to allow their tax monies, their supports, Mr. Henry, in essence a tithing, to be given to the church of their choice, and furthermore, Mr. Henry, a particular church, all encompassed it is the Protestant Christian Church, Mr. Henry. This ignores the Catholic and their equal opportunity, their right, their freedom in nature and nature’s God to put forth monies for the support of their churches, their cathedrals. Mr. Henry, it ignores the Hebrew, as well, to be allowed to put forth money to the support of their temples. Now, I will agree, Mr. Henry, that you have a point that an individual – should they desist from putting forth their money to the support of Protestant Christian churches – may be able to put their monies to the support of academies of

learning, and I am very much in favor of that.

[foster]

Sometimesaint what I believe you are reading might be a debate about Henry try to pass a bill “Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion”, which would have assessed a tax on every virginian. Said monies being paid to the religion of the persons choice. This was not a debate about not taxing Churches.

Henry wanted to promote the teaching of Christianity, and the tax he would impose on citizens would go toward that purpose.

[thesometimesaint]

Yet Patrick Henry leaves out Catholic Christians and non Christian Jews from recieving such monies. The principle here is that governments shouldn't and don't have an interest in promoting or diminishing religion(s) of any sort.

[foster]

Yet Patrick Henry leaves out Catholic Christians and non Christian Jews from recieving such monies. The principle here is that governments shouldn't and don't have an interest in promoting or diminishing religion(s) of any sort.

So what does a state specific bill have to do with the US Constitution? Their debate was not about the Constitution of the United states.

[USU78]

Yet Patrick Henry leaves out Catholic Christians and non Christian Jews from recieving such monies. The principle here is that governments shouldn't and don't have an interest in promoting or diminishing religion(s) of any sort.

 

Exactly wrong.

 

This is a disestablishment debate:  Virginia's official state religion had been (until the 1780s, if my memory is correct) Anglican/Episcopalian.  The disestablishment of that there church by the state (not the federal government, which never had an established church before or after the Bill of Rights) was a thoroughly hashed-out decision.  Most of the colonies/states had state religions, all eventually abandoned them.

 

It took a very late interpretation of the XIVth Amendment to prohibit states from having established religions . . . i.e., post-Civil War.

[USU78]

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland,  1819, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the First Amendment therefore gives religion a special status.

Read the decision at http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=21 .

According to that same high court, in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 1970, the First Amendment establishment clause guaranteeing separation of church and state likewise justifies tax exempt status.

See http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/ .

 

A quibble:

 

The First Amendment does no such thing:  it merely recognizes a previously-existing status for Churches.  In other words, the state has no jurisdiction/power to tax churches.

[Robert F. Smith]

A quibble:

 

The First Amendment does no such thing:  it merely recognizes a previously-existing status for Churches.  In other words, the state has no jurisdiction/power to tax churches.

Well, of course, you are correct, and as I said in post #32 above, religious tax exemption "was part of the law from before the founding of our nation, and was even practiced in the Roman Empire."

 

The important point is that the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize laws extant before the founding of the nation.  The Declaration of Independence, for example, has no legal standing in this nation.

[thesometimesaint]

So what does a state specific bill have to do with the US Constitution? Their debate was not about the Constitution of the United states.

 

The US Constitution didn't exist at the time. Their debate was about the use of a tax once more to be placed upon a certain religious opinion. The US Constitution follows in the debate about the role of government in religion. The US Constitution specifically prohibits it.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, of course, you are correct, and as I said in post #32 above, religious tax exemption "was part of the law from before the founding of our nation, and was even practiced in the Roman Empire."

 

The important point is that the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize laws extant before the founding of the nation.  The Declaration of Independence, for example, has no legal standing in this nation.

 

Technically true, but the writers of the US Constitution were deeply aware of their English traditions, and history.

[USU78]

Well, of course, you are correct, and as I said in post #32 above, religious tax exemption "was part of the law from before the founding of our nation, and was even practiced in the Roman Empire."

 

The important point is that the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize laws extant before the founding of the nation.  The Declaration of Independence, for example, has no legal standing in this nation.

 

Another quibble:  the "common law" clause of the constitution (VIIth Amendment) makes it inevitable that then existing (1770s-80s) English law be adopted in specific cases.