Down goes NPR

[Col. Klink]

I suspect one could make a pretty good case the definition of PROHIBIT is not of WT's making.  When one reads the word in a dictionary - it is damned near verbatim and an accurate explanation of the word.

Come on, db, you know darn well that my emphasis on YOUR meant it was the definition HE provided, not that he made it up ... He had a link for Cripe's sake.

I have some issue with real estate taxing on a Church Building - and certainly other taxes the pertain to the Church's primary operation of religious teaching.  Not so much on 'business' operations aimed at creating an income stream through 'sales'

This is a stance that you and JG? have both commented on that I don't understand. To me, if you're going to give them exemptions, it's an all or nothing proposition ... and I think it should be nothing ... and a Constitutional Amendment isn't needed.

The point is the word's definition is clear - it is not invented nor expanded by WT

Damn, db, I never said it was ... What part of "it was the definition HE provided, not that he made it up ... He had a link" did I not make clear enough?

As for the other point - it would be fairly easy to separate a commercial venture from one that is related to a Church's/religion's functions I would think.

Building a church - a Church's function
Running a religious school - a Religion's function
Selling religious books - a Religion's function so that text is available
Selling best selling novel's - nope
Buying real estate for investment - nope
Running a radio station and selling ad - nope

Feel free to continue the listing, but for profit activities would/should be taxable if such a separation was needed.  Soliciting donations - no so much.  But the later would be pretty darned evident.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that ... I think they should be treated like any other business and businesses aren't broken down like that.

[The White Tiger]

It's nice that the government issued an exemption - but it was an assumption of a need to defend a right, the additional defense of which was uncessary - interestingly I wonder what happens if you put a sham "protection" in front of an inalienable right?

The fact that it has never been successfully brought before the courts is a good indication of the courts acknowledging getting "the willy's" about this issue.

Political sensitivities ebb and flow - and absolutely affect court decisions - so I don't doubt that it will be challenged, eventually.

However - inalienable rights were intended to be put beyond the reach of government influence.

[Col. Klink]

Interesting article pertaining to this religious exemption thing ... http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/salvation-army-is-part-church-part-charity-part-business/1158156

[dbucfan]

BBB - thought you were debating the definition/usage -

And yea, interesting article - I don't see that one as a qualifier.

[Col. Klink]

BBB - thought you were debating the definition/usage -

And yea, interesting article - I don't see that one as a qualifier.

Not really debating anymore. I believe that taxing churches like any other business doesn't constitute forbidding them the exercising of their particular religion. You, and others, feel differently .... We'll have to agree to disagree.

[dbucfan]

No way - you didn't change your mind?   

[Col. Klink]

No way - you didn't change your mind?   

Nope ... It was an epic inner struggle, though, similar to the one Jerry had over Tawny Kitaen, but common sense won out in the end ... 

[dbucfan]

No way - you didn't change your mind?   

Nope ... It was an epic inner struggle, though, similar to the one Jerry had over Tawny Kitaen, but common sense won out in the end ... 

I'm stunned - about the claim of common sense... LMAO

[Col. Klink]

No way - you didn't change your mind?   

Nope ... It was an epic inner struggle, though, similar to the one Jerry had over Tawny Kitaen, but common sense won out in the end ... 

I'm stunned - about the claim of common sense... LMAO

[The White Tiger]

BucsBoltsBulls = Col Klink...hmmm....?

Shocked am I...

[John Galt?]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that ... I think they should be treated like any other business and businesses aren't broken down like that.

Yes they are depending on the type of tax and the taxing authority.

Income Tax and the IRS don't distinguish between religious and non-religious entities, just between for profit and non-profit orgs.

Some states do distinguish when it comes to sales tax for instance Bibles sold in book stores are subject to sales tax, but Bibles sold to churches for distribution and use during services are tax exempt. And counties exempt Churches and Church owned RE from property tax.

The problem with taxing churches is enforcement. The county can't seize a churches property (!st Amendment) if they don't pay property tax. If you tax a church and they refuse to pay, then what?

And what if the "church" (using this term VERY loosely) actually attacks the taxing authority? It has happened once, and the IRS caved!! http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E7DE1639F93AA35750C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[dbucfan]

No way - you didn't change your mind?   

Nope ... It was an epic inner struggle, though, similar to the one Jerry had over Tawny Kitaen, but common sense won out in the end ... 

I'm stunned - about the claim of common sense... LMAO

I accept the acknowledgement... thanks... LMAO again