Ssm And Byu Tax Exempt

[thesometimesaint]

There is nothing in the first amdendment about taxes.

 

The US Constitution gives Congress the power to lay taxes.

SEE Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

 

The First Amendment precludes Congress from taxing religions.

SEE The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ... .

 

 

For context

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

[tonie]

Actually it is in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

No one has demonstrated that tax exempt status is in the 1st Amendment.

Tax exempt status for religion is not absolute, the Bob Jones case shows us that.

[tonie]

"If Congress shall make no law...respecting religion or prohibiting the practices thereof",

then religious ssm is legal, religious human sacrifice is legal.

There are limitations on religion, even under the 1st Amendment.

[jwhitlock]

You haven't established that. Laws that exempt religions live in the tax code, not the constitution.

 

Your claim is only valid if IRS tax codes are exempt from constitutional scrutiny.

 

Since they aren't, neither is your claim.

[jwhitlock]

No one has demonstrated that tax exempt status is in the 1st Amendment.

Tax exempt status for religion is not absolute, the Bob Jones case shows us that.

 

Actually, it's been well demonstrated. You are simply choosing to ignore evidence contrary to what you think.

 

Also, the Bob Jones case more properly shows that government is capable of willfully ignoring constitutional principles by ignoring them. That has been more than adequately demonstrated by lvjd66.

 

Ultimately, the point made in the OP - that government uses taxation as a tool to force compliance with its will - has been demonstrated as valid. There's a very good chance that it will be applied against those who do not support SSM in order to try to force them to change religious beliefs.

[tonie]

Actually, it's been well demonstrated. You are simply choosing to ignore evidence contrary to what you think.

 

I am not the one here ignoring evidence. You, lvjd66, and maybe thesometimesaint are the one ignoring the evidence.

 

The current legal precedent is that tax exempt status is not an absolute right.  Again, ad nauseum, Bob Jones v United States demonstrates quite clearly that tax exempt status is not an absolute right.

 

lvjd66 has not presented any evidence. The only thing lvjd66 has present is a portion of the 1st Amendment of the United States. Lvjd66 has not presented any evidence which demonstrate that tax exempt status is an absolute right.

 

The best you and and lvjd66 have going for yourselfs, at present, is ONLY your opinions. On the other hand I have cited legal precedent. I have not adopted a dogmatic stance which is not supported by law or precedent.

 

Tax exempt status of religion is not a absolute right, that is legal fact. (See Bob Jones v Untied States)

 

Here is another legal fact for you and lvjd66:

 

"To maintain an organized society that guarantees religious freedom to a great variety of faiths requires that some religious practices yield to the common good." - United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 259

[jwhitlock]

I am not the one here ignoring evidence. You, lvjd66, and maybe thesometimesaint are the one ignoring the evidence.

 

The current legal precedent is that tax exempt status is not an absolute right.  Again, ad nauseum, Bob Jones v United States demonstrates quite clearly that tax exempt status is not an absolute right.

 

lvjd66 has not presented any evidence. The only thing lvjd66 has present is a portion of the 1st Amendment of the United States. Lvjd66 has not presented any evidence which demonstrate that tax exempt status is an absolute right.

 

The best you and and lvjd66 have going for yourselfs, at present, is ONLY your opinions. On the other hand I have cited legal precedent. I have not adopted a dogmatic stance which is not supported by law or precedent.

 

Tax exempt status of religion is not a absolute right, that is legal fact. (See Bob Jones v Untied States)

 

Here is another legal fact for you and lvjd66:

 

"To maintain an organized society that guarantees religious freedom to a great variety of faiths requires that some religious practices yield to the common good." - United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 259

 

Yep, you're pretty much ignoring or dismissing anything you don't agree with - and then declaring victory.

 

I do see you ignored my point about taxation being used as a government tool for conformity, without regard to whether such use is constitutional or lawful. There were quite a few points made about that in the thread, but evidently it falls under your category of "we haven't provided any evidence". That was the whole point of the OP, of course.

 

Interestingly enough, you're demonstrating rather vividly the attitude the government has with regard to taxation. Just like what you've done in this thread, the government ignores the constitution and instead re-interprets things to suit itself. Evidence or arguments that are inconvenient to its agenda are either ignored or dismissed.

 

You are indeed an expert on how the government really operates.

[tonie]

Yep, you're pretty much ignoring or dismissing anything you don't agree with - and then declaring victory.

 

I have addressed almost every "arguement" used to claim that tax exempt status of religious organization is and absolute right - i.e. BYU or Notre Dame are ensured tax exempt status regardless of public policy. I have addressed the uniformed claim, put forth by many in this this thread, that "Congress shall make no law" means BYU & Notre Dame are ensured tax exempt status.

 

I have repeatedly sited the EXISTING case law, Bob Jones v United States, which clearly shows tax exempt status for religious private schools is not an absolute.

 

You, and lvjd66 just keep repeating the same uniformed rhetoric.  You have only posted your opinions. Lvjd66 has contradicted himself/herself several times in this thread.

 

Neither of you have put forth anything OTHER THAN YOUR OPINIONS.  You both claim superiority over 8 Supreme Court Justices, claiming they were wrong. Yet, neither of you provide anything for the observer to consider. You each have posted your opinions.  Your opinions are not the current law of the land.

 

The current law of the land is that the IRS has authority to grant/deny/revoke tax exempt status to religious private schools, when said school has policy that contradicts public policy.

 

You both can keep claiming the 1st Amendment, but even the 1st Amendment did not prevent Bob Jones from loosing its tax exempt status.

 

 

Show something, other than you opinion, that tax exempt status is an absolute for BYU, Notre Dame; and that the IRS can not revoke the status of either school.

[jwhitlock]

I have addressed almost every "arguement" used to claim that tax exempt status of religious organization is and absolute right - i.e. BYU or Notre Dame are ensured tax exempt status regardless of public policy. I have addressed the uniformed claim, put forth by many in this this thread, that "Congress shall make no law" means BYU & Notre Dame are ensured tax exempt status.

 

Except you don't seem to want to address the clear use of taxation by the government as a tool for forcing compliance with its will - something that is pretty much unconstitutional by any reasonable interpretation.

[Sleeper Cell]

"If Congress shall make no law...respecting religion or prohibiting the practices thereof",

then religious ssm is legal, religious human sacrifice is legal.

There are limitations on religion, even under the 1st Amendment.

 

I was not aware that any SSM opponent was in favor of prohibiting churches from performing a SSM ceremony.  I thought the argument was over whether the government should recognize it.  

 

Human sacrifice is not protected by the first amendment because if conflicts with another self evident unalienable right -- the right to life. So, in that sense, one can say there are limitations on religious freedom.  But a religious school discriminating on the basis of religious doctrine with respect to its own students (who, after all, have voluntarily chosen to attend that school) is hardly comparable to human sacrifice.  I fail to see how anyone has a self evident unalienable right to attend a church owned school.  

[Sleeper Cell]

"To maintain an organized society that guarantees religious freedom to a great variety of faiths requires that some religious practices yield to the common good." - United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 259

 

So how does penalizing a church owned school for discriminating on the basis of religious doctrine -- against those who have voluntarily chosen to attend -- help maintain an organized society, let alone help guarantee religious freedom?

 

Should the draft ever be reinstated, wouldn’t the same argument be far more applicable to denying exemptions to conscientious objectors?  After all, maintaining an organized society that guarantees religious freedom has, from time to time, required this country to go to war, and, even in peacetime, required this country to be willing and able to go to war.  

[Stargazer]

Well, I don't see anything in the constitution that gives any particular group automatic exemption from taxation. But I appreciate that some people feel strongly about taxation and that it should be much more limited. I'm not really prepared to debate theories of taxation on that level. 

 

The problem, Gray, is that you've got it backwards.  You are presuming that there is first of all a universal power to tax everything, and then there are exemptions granted.  I learned many years ago (and I don't have access to the correct materials at the moment, nor much in the way of time) that it is exactly the other way around.  When the government wishes to lay a tax it must be quite specific on what it will tax.  And there are limitations on what the government can tax. It can't tax rights -- thus it was that poll taxes were eventually declared unconstitutional.  Freedom of religion is a right, not a privilege granted by the government, and thus the government cannot tax the exercise of religion.

 

Earlier, after the Supreme Court's dictum, "the power to tax is the power to destroy", was quoted to you, you flippantly said that you had been paying taxes for decades and still didn't feel destroyed.  But if the government laid a 100% tax on your earnings, I think this would make life difficult for you, if not destroy your ability to feed yourself and your family.  Don't say "but that could never happen", because even if you're correct, the potential power is there even if currently unused.  When Abraham Lincoln instituted a naval blockade of the South, his Secretary of War congratulated him on having just recognized the South as an independent nation.  Upon Lincoln's inquiry, Stanton informed him that you only blockade foreign enemies, not your own ports.  The correct procedure would have been simply to declare a 300% duty on all imported goods and ask the Navy to collect it. 

 

When or if the Church's 501©3 status is ever revoked, this would amount to a blockade, actually.  Because donations to the church would no longer be deductible for income tax purposes, even if the IRS still did not tax the church's donation income.  Now I would still pay tithing, and perhaps you would do as well, but others might hesitate.  But if 501©3 is revoked then the IRS would certainly tax the church's donation income.  And what would stop a hostile Congress from making opposition to SSM a reason for invoking a confiscatory tax against the church?  You can't say it could never happen, because it did happen once.  The federal government confiscated church property and drove church leaders underground, all because the Church refused to obey a law that Congress had passed -- the law against plural marriage.  The Church faces an implacable foe in the US government, if ever it chooses to AGAIN violate its own Constitution in pursuit of enforcing a form of morality that it believes in strongly enough.  And by the look of things, SSM appears to be just that.

[Gray]

The US Constitution gives Congress the power to lay taxes.

SEE Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

 

The First Amendment precludes Congress from taxing religions.

SEE The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ... .

 

 

I don't know of any supreme court that has taken that interpretation. It certainly cannot be arrived at by any plain reading of the first amendment.

[Gray]

Your claim is only valid if IRS tax codes are exempt from constitutional scrutiny.

 

Since they aren't, neither is your claim.

 

There is a difference between a law being in harmony with the constitution and it being MANDATED by the constittution. There is nothing in the constitution that mandates the government's current generous policy towards churches.

[Gray]

The problem, Gray, is that you've got it backwards.  You are presuming that there is first of all a universal power to tax everything, and then there are exemptions granted.  I learned many years ago (and I don't have access to the correct materials at the moment, nor much in the way of time) that it is exactly the other way around.  When the government wishes to lay a tax it must be quite specific on what it will tax.  And there are limitations on what the government can tax. It can't tax rights -- thus it was that poll taxes were eventually declared unconstitutional.  Freedom of religion is a right, not a privilege granted by the government, and thus the government cannot tax the exercise of religion.

 

Have taxes on churches ever been declared unconstitutional? I mean by the courts, not by anti-tax activists.

[jwhitlock]

There is a difference between a law being in harmony with the constitution and it being MANDATED by the constittution. There is nothing in the constitution that mandates the government's current generous policy towards churches.

 

Oh brother. This is just ridiculous. "Generous"? Give me a break.

[rodheadlee]

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

Give it a few more decades.

[Kenngo1969]

... As for Bob Jones, you want us to accept that you are right and 8 of 9 supreme court justices were wrong. Will you provide more compelling evidence that tax exempt status is a religious absolute?

Did eight of nine Supreme Court justices decide Plessy v. Ferguson wrongly?  If not, why not?  The Supreme Court isn't last because it's right; it's right because it's last.

[thesometimesaint]

Did eight of nine Supreme Court justices decide Plessy v. Ferguson wrongly?  If not, why not?  The Supreme Court isn't last because it's right; it's right because it's last.

 

It was a 7-1 decision. I agree with the rest of your comment. Don't get me started on what I believe were stupid, and counterproductive, decisions  the USSC.

[Kenngo1969]

It was a 7-1 decision. I agree with the rest of your comment. Don't get me started on what I believe were stupid, and counterproductive, decisions  the USSC.

Fair enough.  I probably should have checked.  The fact remains, though, that the lone dissenting justice was the voice crying in the wilderness who didn't gain the following he should have had until more than fifty years later.

[Mystery Meat]

Fair enough.  I probably should have checked.  The fact remains, though, that the lone dissenting justice was the voice crying in the wilderness who didn't gain the following he should have had until more than fifty years later.

 

Agreed.

 

Alas, however, Tonie is likely going to win this argument in what will be the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court (he/she will lose the argument ultimately, however). The USSC will likely hold that the government does have the power to tax (which is what I have been saying is scary throughout this thread and that they SHOULD not have such power as it contradicts with the 1st Amendment) religions and faith based entities. As a result the day is soon coming when the IRS will dare to strip BYU (among others) of its tax exempt status for a good faith adherence to scriptural, eternal and historical precedent. Religious groups are likely to follow shortly thereafter. 

 

What is yet to be seen is how many of these schools/faiths will be forced to comply or go the way of Bob Jones. The LDS Church will survive. Some churches will capitulate and their members will leave in droves, as we have seen with the Episcopalians. Others will refuse to give in and they will be taxed out of existence. Others, such as the LDS Church, will remain. How many will fall into the third group is hard to say, but it won't be many. You could not have come up with a more deviant, despicable and evil way to destroy religion in America than what we have in the works.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.

 

Alas, however, Tonie is likely going to win this argument in what will be the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court (he/she will lose the argument ultimately, however). The USSC will likely hold that the government does have the power to tax (which is what I have been saying is scary throughout this thread and that they SHOULD not have such power as it contradicts with the 1st Amendment) religions and faith based entities. As a result the day is soon coming when the IRS will dare to strip BYU (among others) of its tax exempt status for a good faith adherence to scriptural, eternal and historical precedent. Religious groups are likely to follow shortly thereafter. 

 

What is yet to be seen is how many of these schools/faiths will be forced to comply or go the way of Bob Jones. The LDS Church will survive. Some churches will capitulate and their members will leave in droves, as we have seen with the Episcopalians. Others will refuse to give in and they will be taxed out of existence. Others, such as the LDS Church, will remain. How many will fall into the third group is hard to say, but it won't be many. You could not have come up with a more deviant, despicable and evil way to destroy religion in America than what we have in the works.

 

BJU is alive and well.

[Mystery Meat]

BJU is alive and well.

 

Indeed it is. The Dodo then.

[Tacenda]

If there is a thread already somewhere on this topic I'm sorry, just need to post this. Yesterday a friend told me her neighbor was "stripped" (my word), of 18 months of school credit in the LDS Business College. Why? Because apparently during a bishops interview, it's a requirement for students who attend there to have an ecclesiastical endorsement, she made the mistake of saying she didn't believe in the church anymore. All of it was taken from her, as if the 18 months didn't exist. So I guess if the church can do what they do, like in this case, maybe they shouldn't be pointing fingers like this, maybe their tax exempt status should be scrutinized. That poor girl didn't have any idea about this as a possibility. If she had, she probably wouldn't have been so forthcoming. I attended that school and don't recall this policy in the past.

Edited to add, I guess there is a thread called Free BYU, but could this fit here also? Can BYU or LDSBC have this tax exempt status and strip students like this for non belief or a FC? Where they didn't do that before, and it's a newer policy, that to me is quite unfair and to the extreme.

[Garden Girl]

If there is a thread already somewhere on this topic I'm sorry, just need to post this. Yesterday a friend told me her neighbor was "stripped" (my word), of 18 months of school credit in the LDS Business College. Why? Because apparently during a bishops interview, it's a requirement for students who attend there to have an ecclesiastical endorsement, she made the mistake of saying she didn't believe in the church anymore. All of it was taken from her, as if the 18 months didn't exist. So I guess if the church can do what they do, like in this case, maybe they shouldn't be pointing fingers like this, maybe their tax exempt status should be scrutinized. That poor girl didn't have any idea about this as a possibility. If she had, she probably wouldn't have been so forthcoming. I attended that school and don't recall this policy in the past.

Edited to add, I guess there is a thread called Free BYU, but could this fit here also? Can BYU or LDSBC have this tax exempt status and strip students like this for non belief or a FC? Where they didn't do that before, and it's a newer policy, that to me is quite unfair and to the extreme.

 

Tacenda..

I don't remember anything like this policy when I attended... also, we had non-members attending who obviously did not believe in the Church... I'm sure there must be some non-members attending today...  or is this incorrect?  Is the student body 100% LDS?  Anyone know for sure? 

 

GG