Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #161
They cited Zorach v. Clauson directly in the hearings as justifying an equal tax-exempt status for all religious organizations.
Stop dodging. Address the Zorach v. Clauson precedence.
If you think Walz v. Tax Commission overrules it, please cite the part directly which overrules it.
-
-
I don't understand why people think that they know better than a graduate student of law.
-
You're dodging all of my arguments lol. Not in one of your last couple posts have you actually provided a straightforward rebuttal to any of my points. Hint: aimlessly blathering about Zorach won't do you any good. Why don't you come up with and argument that doesn't include Zorach?
-
Walz v. Tax Commission:
"There is a line between what a State may do in encouraging "religious" activities, Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, and what a State may not do by using its resources to promote "religious" activities, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, or bestowing benefits because of them. Yet that line may not always be clear. Closing public schools on Sunday is in the former category; subsidizing churches, in my view, is in the latter."
Edited:
Because Walz v. Tax Commission references Zorach directly about seventy times.
Also from Walz v. Tax Commission:
"Hence, the question in the present case makes irrelevant the "two centuries of uninterrupted freedom from taxation," referred to by the Court. Ante at 397 U. S. 678. If history be our guide, then tax exemption of church property in this country is indeed highly suspect, as it arose in the early days when the church was an agency of the state. See W. Torpey, Judicial Doctrines of Religious Rights in America 171 (1948). The question here, though, concerns the meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause made applicable to the States for only a few decades, at best."
-
I'm pretty sure Catholics priests are more likely to molest a child than the general population.
IIRC something like 4% of all US priests have been accused of molesting a child between 1950 and 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi..._United_States
I think that number is even higher in Ireland.
The percentage of child molesters in the general population is far less than 1%. 0.001% or something. That's a pretty significant gap, and it makes me wonder if child molestation is part of the Catholic dogma.
-
The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion.
-
So, you're telling me on one hand that the First Amendment cannot be rigidly enforced, but on the other that it should be rigidly enforced when it means not-taxing churches.
Hey, look at that! You cited something that completely contradicts you!
Did you think I didn't remember what you said twenty minutes ago?
-
That's kind of framing the issue. Post a more generalized statistic and use a different source than wikipedia and then I could take you seriously.
But even then, those are bad people. It's not like their religion TEACHES them to molest people. There are other factors, probably the fact that they can't marry and all this other crazy stuff that I don't think is right, that can cause these guys to just go crazy, no matter how "In tune with God" they act. This sexual frustration they build up isn't natural and is released that way... in some rare cases (You have to consider how large the catholic church is too)
-
But the dogma encourages it. They cannot marry or have sex with a woman.
If you actively prevent someone from working out their sexual urges, they will fuck something.
-
Lmfao. How does that contradict me? It says that although constitutional neutrality cannot possibly be an "absolutely straight line" they should do their best to make it as straight as they can. I'm not sure how they let you graduate law school without being able to understand basic context.
Edited:
Here's another cool quote from the Walz decision:
The legislative purpose of the property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its "moral or mental improvement," should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes.
-
It also says not to take part in homosexual acts. So...
-
It should be all or nothing, not 'oh they're a religion so they don't get taxed', either all corporations get taxed regardless of religious status or none get taxed. All walz v. tax commission says is that taxing specific churches more than others is unconstitutional.
-
Uhh, no, it says:
"The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions"
Stop paraphrasing and framing the issue. When you quote someone directly, you fucking quote them directly. You do not put their words into your own. This directly contradicts:
It means that the government simply cannot grant religious organizations their own governance, and that they must all obey the letter of the law. The law simply must treat them all equally.
Edited:
No it doesn't. Catholic rapists are sadly some of the only people who realize it doesn't.
-
Here's another quote; Oh, and by the way Lankist, if you haven't read my edit again I left you a cool quote from the decision there as well.
Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result -- the effect -- is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion.
-
Once again, that is referring to granting TAX EXEMPT STATUS, not taxation of churches.
Stop quoting the case out of context.
-
You realize that Catholics read the Bible.
You know what the Bible says about gays... especially the graphic/extreme parts in the Old Testament.
DO you honestly believe that their religion teaches them to go molest children... Like actually TEACHES them and not just that their way of life builds up sexual frustration and causes them to lash out?
-
so the catholic church murders people who shave their face and hair and touch footballs.
that is also in Leviticus
dogma =/= bible.
-
Yes it does, it's a sin to commit homosexual acts and they know it better than anyone.
why they do it is another story.
-
No it isn't.
The Catholic Church doesn't follow any other tenants of Leviticus, and Leviticus is generally not a part of dogma within the priesthood.
If you have ever touched a football, then what leviticus says does not matter to your beliefs. The act of touching the impure skin of swine is a sin equal to homosexual conduct according to leviticus.
-
How can you tell me that my own church doesn't know what is wrong and what is right?
-
You mean like the source Wikipedia links to?
http://www.bishop-accountability.org...hnJay_revised/
Thats the John Jay study mentioned in the Wiki entry
This is the page with the 4% figure.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org.../2_2_prev2.pdf
There obviously has to be a reason why Catholic priests molest children at a much higher rate than the general population.
-
Have you ever touched a football?
Leviticus 11:8 on pigs:
"You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
-
They also believe in the new testament which amends a lot of things in the OT. I could go into how Jesus did that and why he did that but basically, he had authority to amend it.
I'm having a hard time grasping why you believe that their religion teaches them to molest kids. You could find nothing in the Bible, nothing in any other texts the Catholic church holds and nothing is going to point towards "GO MOLEST CHILDREN FOR GOD"
-
You are obviously an absolute moron who will not and cannot understand anything about the case you are trying to argue with me about. There is literally no hope for me trying to argue with you since you are so far up your militant atheist ass you couldn't provide an actual valid argument on the subject of religion if you tried your best to.
(User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of perma'd user Vladimir Puta etc" - Orkel))
-
Actually jesus says both "the OT is out" and "the OT still applies fully" multiple times, because Jesus was a crazy person.
-
And it's kind of obvious, their lifestyle. Pent up sexual frustration.
Everybody on Facepunch is so quick to put the blame on the RELIGION and not the stupid law and crap within the religion that wasn't established by the Bible.
-
Dude, that's Old Testament. That all went away when the New Testament was written.
And not to mention, that is part of old jewish law, the same law that Jesus came down to fulfill because we simply cannot.
-
You seriously should not have graduated Law school and i am insanely surprised you would ever be able to do anything related to Law professionally.
-
Clearly you know a lot about it because you've decided to stop talking about it and just insult me.
-
I see you're a Bible scholar too on top of a Law student/graduate. Nice to know!
-
There is nothing about homosexual conduct in the New Testament.
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say "don't fuck dudes or children."
-
I'm gonna insult you while losing in the actual argument we are having.
-
Hey tell me more about how one case overrules another case which supported its decision.
-
It's kinda hard to have a real argument with someone who isn't having a real argument.
-
Let me tell you about a place in the bible called Sodom.
Basically it was San Fransisco's Castro district x100, homosexuality everywhere. And what happened to it? It was burnt to the ground by God because of the sinfullness of the people, most specifically, their homosexuality.
-
Do you even know what an amendment is? A change? FT was wrong. It wasn't thrown away. The OT still stood but what wasn't talked about or "Changed" in the NT, was still valid from the OT.
It's like when legislature uses a line-item veto.
-
I'm fairly sure that was the old testament, and I'm pretty sure those rule aren't followed, and if they are then they aren't universally followed.
-
Sodom is Old Testament.
What the fuck?
Ten seconds ago you said "the Old Testament doesn't apply anymore," and now you're citing it again. Neither the Old Testament story of Sodom and Gommorah nor the references in the New Testament once mention homosexual conduct.
Make up your god damn mind.
-
Yeah sorry about that, I meant to say the OT law went away.
I already have, and it's my fault that I had a poor choice of words when I should have said the OT law.
But still, why else would that city have been destroyed? Because God didn't like the way it looked?
-
So then why are you allowed to touch the skin of a pig, shave your facial hair and have bowl-shaped-haircuts without burning in hell forever?
Edited:
Homosexuality is only explicitly mentioned once in the bible, and that is in Leviticus.
If OT law no longer applies, then homosexuality is as much a sin as shaving and touching a football.
Or would you care to explain to me how the entirety of Leviticus is invalid save for that ONE line which justifies homophobia.
Dumb x 2
Zing x 3
Funny x 1
Agree x 2
Disagree x 1