Ssm And Byu Tax Exempt

[Gray]

Everything when it is used as a weapon.

 

This is a little vague. 

[Gray]

The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Taxing religion is clearly repressive and hence would be in violation of the Constitution. It will especially be so in this case where the purpose of such taxation is to punish religious belief that homosexual relations are sinful, and that such taxation is only designed to force religious belief to be changed to something the state approves of.

 

Taxation of religion in a case like this would be in fundamental opposition to the Constitution. That should be clear to anyone.

 

The same amendment that guarantees freedom of religious also guarantees freedom of the press. Are newspapers tax exempt? And if not, has freedom of the press been destroyed? 

[tonie]

I don't see any need to justify my comments to someone who's simply going to dismiss them out of hand as "unsupported".

 

 

I'll take that as an admission that you can not, due to a lack of knowledge, explain why the tax exemption status is a unrestricted garuntee for religious organization like Bob Jones University or BYU.

[Gray]

“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy.”  Daniel Webster, 17 U.S. 327 (1819).

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."  Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland.

 

I've been taxed for two decades now. I remain undestroyed.  

[thesometimesaint]

Yet, how many laws do we have from Congress that affect religion?  And how many laws mention religion as exempt from laws?  If the 1st means what it means as you present it, then no law could ever mention religion and no law could restirct religious human sacrifice.

 

Of course laws affect religion all the time but we have no religious laws in this country. You are free to believe anything you want. What you can't legally do is enforce your beliefs on others, without a compelling social(secular) interest. IE; All of Christianity believes in human sacrifice, albeit the only one that matters is one that happened 2000 years ago.

 

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[Mystery Meat]

This is a little vague. 

 

Conform or suffer.

 

That is the threat and the reality of what they are proposing.

[jwhitlock]

I'll take that as an admission that you can not, due to a lack of knowledge, explain why the tax exemption status is a unrestricted garuntee for religious organization like Bob Jones University or BYU.

 

Actually, you can take it as an admission that I'm not going to discuss this with someone who hasn't drawn a valid conclusion in this thread so far.

[Robert F. Smith]

You have not shown how Religious Freedom garuntees tax exemption.

The Supreme Court precedent is the final word on such matters.  You seem to be the only human on the planet who doubts that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  That is why tax exempt status is granted to religious institutions, which is at the heart of the 1st amendment, tonie.

 

If you don't understand the concept, you might want to get out the Supreme Court Reporter and read McCullough v Maryland, the landmark case.  I read it and briefed it when I was a young pre-law student.  Got a perfect score.  Made a big impression on me and forever solidified my belief that John Marshall was our greatest Chief Justice.

[tonie]

Will anyone here quote the Article/Section/Amendment of the United States Constitution that GARUNTEES tax exempt status?

 

I am not sure tax exempt status is mentioned in the Constitution. If it is not, are people operating by fiat that tax exempt status is a garuntee?

[Gray]

Conform or suffer.

 

That is the threat and the reality of what they are proposing.

 

By suffer do you mean lose a privilege not guaranteed by the constitution? 

 

I'm happy to have churches be tax exempt, but I don't really care either way. I don't think it's a religious freedom issue.

 

An in any case, we're talking about a university's status, not a church's status. 

[tonie]

Actually, you can take it as an admission that I'm not going to discuss this with someone who hasn't drawn a valid conclusion in this thread so far.

 

 

I have quoted the law, via the United States Supreme Court.  You have relied solely on unsupported rhetoric.  You have not presented any evidence that tax exempt status is a garuntee.

 

As I suggested early, read the Bob Jones. In that case the Supreme Court outlines the history of tax exempt status.

[jwhitlock]

It seems like a special privilege afforded to religious institutions generally, but I don't see the connection to religious freedom. Can you spell it out for me?

 

You're not approaching it from the correct angle. To be exempt from taxes is not a privilege. Freedom of religion is a basic constitutional right. Taxation as it is applied today is repressive in most cases and is being used as a bludgeon by the state to demand conformity. As such, the potential demand by government to recognize SSM and remove opposition to it as part of religious belief, or to be taxed, is a clear violation of that basic constitutional right.

[jwhitlock]

I have quoted the law, via the United States Supreme Court.  You have relied solely on unsupported rhetoric.  You have not presented any evidence that tax exempt status is a garuntee.

 

As I suggested early, read the Bob Jones. In that case the Supreme Court outlines the history of tax exempt status.

 

The concept of cause and effect is being ignored here.

[tonie]

The concept of cause and effect is being ignored here.

Your unwillingness to show how the Constitution and tax exempt status regulations garuntee tax exempt status, is admission enough of your rhetoric.

[ALarson]

An in any case, we're talking about a university's status, not a church's status. 

This.  Why are people making this about religious freedom?  Do they think that after universities loose their tax-free status, it will also happen to the corporation of the church?  Maybe it's a slippery slope.

[Gray]

You're not approaching it from the correct angle. To be exempt from taxes is not a privilege. Freedom of religion is a basic constitutional right. Taxation as it is applied today is repressive in most cases and is being used as a bludgeon by the state to demand conformity. As such, the potential demand by government to recognize SSM and remove opposition to it as part of religious belief, or to be taxed, is a clear violation of that basic constitutional right.

 

I don't see anything about taxation in the first amendment, which also mentions speech and the press. Should newspapers be tax exempt? How about money-generating blogs?

 

ETA: In your opinion, is it ever valid for an organization granted tax-exempt status to lose that status?

[jwhitlock]

Your unwillingness to show how the Constitution and tax exempt status regulations garuntee tax exempt status, is admission enough of your rhetoric.

 

Sigh...

 

Perhaps, since you're fixated on it, you can show us in the constitution where the state has the right and power to tax religion, and to override the basic right of freedom of religion by such taxation.

 

And for heaven's sake, please start spelling "guarantee" correctly.

[tonie]

If you don't understand the concept, you might want to get out the Supreme Court Reporter and read McCullough v Maryland, the landmark case.  I read it and briefed it when I was a young pre-law student. Got a perfect score. Made a big impression on me and forever solidified my belief that John Marshall was our greatest Chief Justice.

And since you got a perfect score, maybe you can answer a few questions:

Did the Court discuss in McCullock tax exempt status of religious organization under 501©3 of the IRS Code.

Did the Court discuss 501©3?

Did the Court discuss the authority of the IRS to issue/revoke tax exempt status to religious organizations?

[tonie]

Sigh...

 

Perhaps, since you're fixated on it, you can show us in the constitution where the state has the right and power to tax religion, and to override the basic right of freedom of religion by such taxation.

 

And for heaven's sake, please start spelling "guarantee" correctly.

 

 

You made the initiall claim.  You have not yet supported your claim. I have presented to you numerous times the Bob Jones case. I suspect you are unwilling to inform yourself on that case. If you would inform yourself, and inform yourself on the Courts reasoning, perhaps then we could have a productive discussion.

 

As it stands, there is no legally enforceable right to tax exempt status. You are welcome to use the law, court cases, legislative history to show that there is.

[tonie]

I don't see anything about taxation in the first amendment, which also mentions speech and the press. Should newspapers be tax exempt? How about money-generating blogs?

 

ETA: In your opinion, is it ever valid for an organization granted tax-exempt status to lose that status?

 

If tax exemtion mentioned in the Consitution; if it is not are people opinining via fiat?

[jwhitlock]

I don't see anything about taxation in the first amendment, which also mentions speech and the press. Should newspapers be tax exempt? How about money-generating blogs?

 

ETA: In your opinion, is it ever valid for an organization granted tax-exempt status to lose that status?

 

Taxation has gradually become a tool for government to punish or reward.  Originally there was very little taxation, and that is the base from which we need to work. Over time, government will always seek to expand control over everything, and that includes religion. Taxation is the current tool for doing that, as should be evident by the misuse of the IRS as an enforcement tool by every administration in memory. This is going to be an opportunity for government to try to pull down one of the last bastions of basic freedom - namely, religious freedom - and they're going to use taxation to do that.

 

It is worth noting that BYU does not make doctrinal religious policy; the church does, and the church is the real target.  BYU is not a totally tax exempt organization, in any case, since it participates in a variety of activities which fall outside of religious tax exemptions.

[thesometimesaint]

 

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

 

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.^[4]

[Gray]

If tax exemtion mentioned in the Consitution; if it is not are people opinining via fiat?

 

As far as I'm aware the basis for tax exceptions rests entirely on IRS codes, not in the constitution or any interpretation of the constitution. I could be wrong

[Gray]

Taxation has gradually become a tool for government to punish or reward.  Originally there was very little taxation, and that is the base from which we need to work. Over time, government will always seek to expand control over everything, and that includes religion. Taxation is the current tool for doing that, as should be evident by the misuse of the IRS as an enforcement tool by every administration in memory. This is going to be an opportunity for government to try to pull down one of the last bastions of basic freedom - namely, religious freedom - and they're going to use taxation to do that.

 

It is worth noting that BYU does not make doctrinal religious policy; the church does, and the church is the real target.  BYU is not a totally tax exempt organization, in any case, since it participates in a variety of activities which fall outside of religious tax exemptions.

 

I can see why you would object to the use of taxation as a tool to influence organizations and people (for example, extra taxation on cigarettes, no taxation on charities), but what religious freedom exactly is being effected? Especially since universities are not churches. Tax exempt status seems to be a privilege, not a right. 

[Mystery Meat]

As far as I'm aware the basis for tax exceptions rests entirely on IRS codes, not in the constitution or any interpretation of the constitution. I could be wrong

 

That does not mean that once taxes are implemented that they can tax whomever they want or however they want.