Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Real establishments of religion plunder wallets, not just ears and eyes
By gamecock Posted in Archived — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One of the two main reasons to elect John McCain is that his judicial nominees will likely understand the english language.
Originally posted at TMR/The HinxSight Report
The Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution knew of what they spoke when they wrote the words prohibiting the federal government from establishing a religion, and as the experience in the Queen City of Charlotte shows, mere prayer in schools nor nativity scenes prompted colonists to declare independence.
On May 21, 1775, Charlotte, N.C. patriots issued the colonies' first declaration of independence from King George III. That was more than a year before Thomas Jefferson's declaration of July 4, 1776.
The Scots-Irish chafed under the royal government for several reasons. To strengthen the Church of England, Gov. Tryon pressured the colonial legislature to enact measures to ensure that tax money would support the Anglicans and to require that to be legally married couples must pay a fee to the Church of England. That rankled the Scots-Irish Presbyterians, who disliked paying taxes to support the king's religion.
The king's denial of Charlotte's petition to establish a seminary because it would help "dissenters" further worsened relations. So did violent confrontations over collection of rents on land owned by Lord George Augustus Selwyn but settled by Scots-Irish squatters. Andrew Morton of the Church of England visited the Catawba-Yadkin region in 1766 and wrote to his superiors in London, "the Inhabitants of Mecklenburg are entire dissenters of the most rigid kind."
This history is instructive, especially when we read the opinions of 5 lawyers beginning with those of Hugo Black through those of Sandra Day O'Connor and their misinterpretations of walls of separation and 14-point lemon "intermingling" of religion tests.
Thankfully, the Roberts-Alito court is about the business of correcting the court's establishment of the secularist's religion, and returning sovereignty to We the People in our localities and states.
Hearing and seeing the precepts of the religious values, prayers, and icons of others didn't prompt colonists to take up arms.
Yet, the left files the legal equivalent when they get offended.
No.
The colonists went to war when their wallets were plundered to fund another's church.
Funding = Establishment
Offending words? The First Amendment protects that.
For those with sensitive ears and eyes.
Grow up.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
As always GC... 5 nt
by RottDawg
Reply To This — User Info — #1
I do find it intersting that
by LanceKates
I do find it intersting that Christians are to not only apologize when we offend others, but also apologize when we are offended by others.
We are all free to be of whatever religion we desire, that is one great aspect of the United States of America.
That is, also, one thing the left works hard to eliminate.
Independence is Freedom. Dependence is Slavery.
can't say it any better than that NT
by aceintx
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Hmmm...
by zroxx
Funding = Establishment
Really?
It seems to me operating as a tax-free entity is to be at least partially funded by the government (i.e., by all citizens whether they support the religious entity or not). The entity certainly benefits financially from this arrangement. Does tax-free status - having the benefit of government services without paying for them - equate with partial funding, and therefore equates to some degree of "establishment"?
I think it'd be great if you wrote a post on the history and current legislation regarding tax free status for religious entities, and whether you think such tax free status is Constitutionally required as a result of a proper interpretation of the first amendment.
For my part, I don't see why tax free status should follow from the first amendment. Doing away with it would seem to clarify the relationship between religious organizations and the government as non-discriminatory. Government would have no cause to regard them differently from any other kind of organization, or apply different standards to them. For example, churches would be free to engage in whatever kind of political speech they want, just like any other entity.
establishments.
You made the left's mistake, when you said "benefit."
Yes, we all "benefit" from all kinds of policies and the constitution itself.
But we are not taxed to fund a national church.
The amendment was narrow!!!!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Hmmm...
by zroxx
The first amendment doesn't seem quite as narrow as you're making it out to be:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't narrowly reject establishing a "national church" or a "national religion". It prohibits laws (by Congress) respecting the establishment of "religion", period.
So you're right that our tax dollars aren't being used to establish a national church. But they're certainly being used to help fund the "establishment of religion", are they not?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
arguement is with the 16th and the irs, not the first amendment.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The 16th...
by zroxx
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I'm not a fan of the income tax but I fail to see what that has to do with tax-free status for religious organizations like a church.
Are you saying that such status is not derived from the Constitution but rather has been legislatively granted by an act of Congress or by directive of the IRS? Do you support such an exemption in light of the greater regulation (such as on political speech) that comes along with it?
No, I meant that politicians did it after the 16th, and yes, I think restrictions on free speech are unconstitutional no matter the status. I would say that it would be ok to swap tax exemption for spending money directly on campaigns but even there it is a problem to enforce, so i see your point, and am not necessarily opposed to eneding the exemption.
My main goal is to end the bs court rulings on establishment as pertains to local schools, etc.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The Congress shall have
by aceintx
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived
Can you tell me what church our non profit is earning an income?
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
First off
by aceintx
I assume you also think the American Red Cross, the United Way and other non profit organizations should be taxed as well since you seem to have a problem with organizations "having the benefit of government services without paying for them"? BTW...what are these benefits that Churches are getting tax free?
Secondly, the separation of church and state cut's both ways. How can you say on the one hand that the church is not allowed to speak on behalf of an issue or a candidate, or have any representation of it's faith in the public square or the court house lawn yet say that the Church should be subject to taxation at the same time. Kind of goes against the founders hell raising about taxation without representation doesn't it?
Finally, if you will look at the history of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America passed in 1913. One of the biggest debates of the time was that the Government, if given this power could use these new powers to regulate and seize the property of Churches. The answer of the time was that this would never happen.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
one could not freely exercise their religion if its taxed out of exisetence.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Outstanding point
by aceintx
I wish I had thought of that...I guess that's why you're there GC
:>)
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
that matters!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
LOL...Ahh to be Philosopher kings of the world we could solve all it's problems!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
but we'll take it from the crazy eight
king
ace
eight
best we can do is two pair
that would beat two of a kind...
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
UNless the Ace is wild...ROFL
by aceintx
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Meanwhile in Finland
by Skanderbeg
GC, don't know if you knew this, but in Finland the Lutheran Church is literally the "official" church - and by law receives a tithing of 2% of the national budget!
Now THAT is what "establishment" means....
surpassed Europe was our free market in religion and prohibition of a national church. Yes, the founders knew what they meant to ban and what they did not ban.
Would that judges knew. Well, they did, but that wanted to impose a secular religion.
Alito is fixing it!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
5*5*5*5*5*5 nt
by aceintx
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Wow
by Darin HTo your point
by bs"superpowerful robotic
by FlagstaffSen. Obama - embarrassed elitist
by Abu El BanatI'm all for it. Efficiency
by Han PritcherNow all they have to overcome is the solar constant
by ehostermanWhat makes more sense is expanded telecommuting.
by ehostermanEnter the Computer Industry
by mobius2702That was my entire point
by David HinzLast time I was in Europe/
by nivlemLooks Good - Now all we need are specifics
by ehostermanHighly recommended. in spite of ...
by skorrentBut...but...but...
by 29VictorI appreciate the sentiment
by mobius2702It's not the "adjustment" so much...
by 29VictorMy favorite part is watching
by RedViper
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
