Catholic bishops conflicted over gays...

Catholic bishops conflicted over gays, immigration

There are 26 comments on the SanLuisObispo.com story from Feb 6, 2013, titled Catholic bishops conflicted over gays, immigration. In it, SanLuisObispo.com reports that:

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops are in a difficult position as the debate over immigration reform gets underway: The immigrant-built American church, known for advocating a broad welcome for migrants and refugees, could end up opposing reform because it would recognize same-sex partners.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at SanLuisObispo.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#22 Feb 7, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
Religous far right thinks 1st amendmendt means people are free to be forced to follow christians ways.....They dont get all people can be any religion they want and dont have to follow other religions.....
Looks like you were paying attention in Civics class. Good on ya.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23 Feb 7, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
Being tax exempt doesn't null & void their 1st amendment rights. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it.
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970) 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to make a law that exempts Religion from taxation. In fact, Congress is prohibit from making ANY laws about religion. The tax-exempt status of churches is unconstitutional.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#24 Feb 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to make a law that exempts Religion from taxation. In fact, Congress is prohibit from making ANY laws about religion. The tax-exempt status of churches is unconstitutional.
Marshall famously said "The power to taxc is the power to destroy".

what would stop a state, locality, or even teh federal government to tax a particular religious institution out of existence ? I doubt too many people would object if that were done to teh WBC wackos or teh FLDS, but how would one draw the line ? Tax exemption of ALL religious institutions is a small price to pay for religious freedom.

Besides, religious institutions are made up of PEOPLE, and teh governmtnt[s] have already taxed teh people, thru income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and innumerable other taxes, so taxing a religious institution is merely taxing the people AGAIN.

And we already have FAR TOO MANY taxes already. we don't have a revenue problem, we have an uncontrollable spending problem led by the Obamaniac.

Don't forget that this country got started by ARMED REBELLION AGAINST TEH LEGAL GOVERNMENT because people did NOT WANT TO PAY THEIR TAXES. ANOTHER reason teh Second Amendment was written.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25 Feb 7, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Marshall famously said "The power to taxc is the power to destroy".
what would stop a state, locality, or even teh federal government to tax a particular religious institution out of existence ? I doubt too many people would object if that were done to teh WBC wackos or teh FLDS, but how would one draw the line ? Tax exemption of ALL religious institutions is a small price to pay for religious freedom.
Besides, religious institutions are made up of PEOPLE, and teh governmtnt[s] have already taxed teh people, thru income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and innumerable other taxes, so taxing a religious institution is merely taxing the people AGAIN.
And we already have FAR TOO MANY taxes already. we don't have a revenue problem, we have an uncontrollable spending problem led by the Obamaniac.
Don't forget that this country got started by ARMED REBELLION AGAINST TEH LEGAL GOVERNMENT because people did NOT WANT TO PAY THEIR TAXES. ANOTHER reason teh Second Amendment was written.
They couldn't, per se, tax a religion out of existence. That would require making a law specific to them. Again, unconstitutional.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#26 Feb 8, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<
Besides, religious institutions are made up of PEOPLE, and teh governmtnt[s] have already taxed teh people, thru income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and innumerable other taxes, so taxing a religious institution is merely taxing the people AGAIN.
That ignores the charitable deduction, which means that the people have not already been taxed. And since the majority of church donations go to maintenance of the church's property and salaries of the clergy--not to good works--there is no more reason to grant tax deductions than there is for a book club (or a sex club, for that matter). Churches are organized primarily to satisfy the spiritual needs of their membership, so those donations are self-serving.

As for property taxes: People pay taxes on the property that they actually own. The church property is untaxes, even though the church enjoys police protection, civil protections through the courts, maintenance of the roads that parishioners use to access said church, etc. If the members of the church desire all that protection, they should pay for it just like the Elks or the American Legion.

To the extent that donations are actually spent helping others and doing good works, there may be some reason to provide a tax exemption. But a good portion of those funds is expended proselytizing, and the good works carried out as a side-effect of that proselytizing.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#27 Feb 8, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That ignores the charitable deduction, which means that the people have not already been taxed. And since the majority of church donations go to maintenance of the church's property and salaries of the clergy--not to good works--there is no more reason to grant tax deductions than there is for a book club (or a sex club, for that matter). Churches are organized primarily to satisfy the spiritual needs of their membership, so those donations are self-serving.
As for property taxes: People pay taxes on the property that they actually own. The church property is untaxes, even though the church enjoys police protection, civil protections through the courts, maintenance of the roads that parishioners use to access said church, etc. If the members of the church desire all that protection, they should pay for it just like the Elks or the American Legion.
To the extent that donations are actually spent helping others and doing good works, there may be some reason to provide a tax exemption. But a good portion of those funds is expended proselytizing, and the good works carried out as a side-effect of that proselytizing.
Very true. A church near my home recently caught fire. The police, the fire department, medics, and ambulances showed up. The church, of course, paid no money toward that protection.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min -Dont Panic- 336,976
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min ChristineW 1,265,004
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 31 min woodtick57 194,808
News Obama: Dems getting 'squishy' over Iran deal 32 min goonsquad 115
News Hillary Clinton: Confederate Flag 'Shouldn't Fl... 45 min Die Hippie Scum 190
News Washington battle rages over Iran deal's fate 52 min goonsquad 11
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... (Nov '14) 57 min Hue 2,898
More from around the web