It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time to allow Politics from the Pulpit openly as the Left does it anyway

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and to me ...

The loose association of States under the Articles of Confederation was not sufficient to the needs of a NATION.

The PEOPLE sent representatives to create a new NATION.

It is ridiculous to claim that the document that actually CONSTITUTES a government is designed only to LIMIT that government.

The First Ten Amendments, aka, the Bill of Rights was added, immediately to address concerns about "too much central power" and to insure the "rights of the People."

It was sold (and ratified) as a set. It was ratified by the States, and by every State that has joined the Union has known what they were agreeing to.



So that's your foundation of understanding for the COTUS. Got it. And it's totally wrong.

It's ridiculous to think that a group of sovereign states that had just escaped the bonds of one central authority would hand over their autonomy to another. The Constitution was not sold as a nation. It was promoted as a means for the individual states to interact equally with each other and other nations, while still maintaining their internal affairs.

The People sent State representatives to debate the creation of a Union.

The COTUS set forward strict guidelines for that Union. The 9th and 10th Amendments were intended to reinforce that the COTUS spells out specific functions of the federal government, the remaining powers are to the People and States.

Over time, we have forgotten our history. Progressives want us to lose even more historical context.




posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

"COTUS" Article VI, Clause 2


Read it sometime.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity


The Wilson-Gorham Tariff Act of 1894 -- famous for its income tax provisions later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court -- provided an exemption for "corporations, companies, or associations organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious, or educational purposes, including fraternal beneficiary associations."3 Despite its rapid invalidation, the law looms large in the history of exemption provisions. As the IRS has noted, "the exemption language contained in the act would provide the cornerstone for tax legislation involving charitable organizations for the next century."4

As finally enacted, the law exempted "any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual."

www.taxhistory.org...



Churches are only one category of 501(c)(3) organizations.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Churches, as purveyors of RELIGION, are protected under the First Amendment.


The COTUS was not ratified by churches, it was ratified by the People. The first amendment applies to people.

Churches are not the source of religion, and they are not a business. They are incorporated because federal law forces them to be incorporated.

Members of a church are not its employees. They are not stockholders. They are not investors. They are people who congregate to share their lives and trials with each other. They are not on the clock, nor are they salaried. They donate their money to the church, they are under no man-made contract to do so.


They should pay their taxes,


Exactly what taxes should they pay, in your world? What do taxes have to do with any of this, anyway? Why this fixation?


and they should have freedom to preach whatever they wish.


The people already have that right. Churches are composed of people.


Period, end of story, complete argument from me.


I disagree. So does the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

"COTUS" Article VI, Clause 2


Read it sometime.


Trying to say I haven't? Don't make this about me. Stay on topic.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

It's really hard not to say "Duh" sometimes on here.

I never claimed that churches ratified the constitution.

It has long been recognized in American law that legally fictitious entities (like corporations, churches, etc.) are considered under the laws as "artificial persons." Start with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), and go to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886) and heck, even Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014).

Churches are protected because they are religious in nature.

If you think that no church has incorporated, you're simply mistaken.

If you think that no church has employees, you're simply mistaken.

If you think that no members of churches are "stockholders" they're called "members" and they indeed do, for some churches, "hold a stake."

What do taxes have to do with the topic? May I suggest you read the first post?

What taxes do I think they should pay? The same as all of us, persons both natural and artificial, income, property, sales, et. al.

Again, I am tempted to say "duh" ... yes, churches are "made of" people, and they are corporate entities.

This discussion regards their status as corporate entities, the tax codes that limit their freedom, and the removal of same.

In general, you're mistaken, and the Constitution disagrees with you.




edit on 12Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:43:48 -050015p122015866 by Gryphon66 because: edit



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Physician, heal thyself.

You brought up nonsense about the Constitution, I corrected you from the text of same.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Okay. Well then none of them should play politics. But I reckon religious organization and churches are the issue here.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Back to the OP, and drop all the misinterpretations of the COTUS by social-progressive, historical illiterates.


originally posted by: infolurker

Time for the BS to stop. Allow churches to openly preach what they want.



Absolutely. 100% agree. There is no 'allow' needed. Clergy, preach it.

If you don't like it, don't go to that church. You tax dollars aren't subsidizing it.

What's more of a problem I'm seeing from this thread is the educational malpractice that some people took for truth, that my tax dollars *did* pay for. But that is for another thread.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Okay. Well then none of them should play politics. But I reckon religious organization and churches are the issue here.


I think no one should play politics. No politics at all, or at least no professional politicians.

Economics, reputation, and notarized records. No State needed.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So, you realize that you have no basis for anything that you were claiming except your own opinion?

You've apparently swallowed the right-winger BS about the Constitution AND American history hook line and sinker.

So much for your dictum to "stay on topic" and "avoid personal comments" eh?

Typical Republican control freak, do as you say, not as you do?

Here's a link if you really want to start learning about what the US Constitution is and how it was arrived at: Records of the Federal Convention, 1787, Vol. 1.

If you bother to educate yourself, (which I'm fairly sure you won't as you already know everything) you will find that, indeed, the fundamental question the delegates were debating was the central authority of the US Government versus the authority of the several States. The compromises they reached literally constitute our government. Have you ever actually read the Articles of Confederation? Do you need me to provide you a link to that document as well? Here you go: Articles of Confederation. You will find that the body of the document is a description of what the several States covenanted with each other NOT to do, i.e. the Articles were a limitation on State power, not the central government's ... and the Articles were rejected because they were impotent to the needs of a growing NATION i.e. a NATIONAL authority.

Either debate the facts, and give backup for your "position" as I have (like, say, quoting FROM the Constitution itself and other primary documents), or keep babbling the nonsense you learned from Glenn Beck's online "University" or "Liberty University" or whatever Tea Party comic books you acquired your "knowledge" from. Put up your tricorn hat and bell for a second and actually learn something.

K?

The issue is simple. Some of us are arguing for the removal of an unfair tax law and the restoration of religious freedom.

You're arguing for ... something else ... your own fantasy where churches are elevated above anyone else in society.

That's not in any way what "no establishment" and/or "free exercise" actually mean. (FYI, that's a reference to the First Amendment, for those ignorant of what the Constitution actually says).
edit on 1Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:36:32 -050015p012015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Okay. Well then none of them should play politics. But I reckon religious organization and churches are the issue here.


I think no one should play politics. No politics at all, or at least no professional politicians.

Economics, reputation, and notarized records. No State needed.


So ... you're in favor of continuing to throttle churches' rights to speak out, politically?

Just some vague allusions to some imaginary fantasy land with no viable examples of actual success either in the modern world or from history?

Perfect. Yeah, that's just what's needed at this point.
edit on 1Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:33:49 -050015p012015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They can play the religion game or they can play the government game but not both. There's your fuzzy line, your slippery slope, your dilemma.

Why should an organization that doesn't pay taxes get a say in what the government in the role of the guardian of those taxes does or does not do with them? Why should a religious organization have the power to influence politics?
edit on 8/18/2015 by ~Lucidity because: typo



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Back to the OP, and drop all the misinterpretations of the COTUS by social-progressive, historical illiterates.


originally posted by: infolurker

Time for the BS to stop. Allow churches to openly preach what they want.



Absolutely. 100% agree. There is no 'allow' needed. Clergy, preach it.

If you don't like it, don't go to that church. You tax dollars aren't subsidizing it.


Ah, but your tax dollars are subsidizing the police protection that keeps the collection from being stolen;
your tax dollars are subsidizing the fire protection that keeps the church from burning down; your tax dollars are subsidizing the streets that bring the sheeple to the steeple; your tax dollars are subsidizing the sanitary and storm sewers that keep the church from being really stinky and wet. Shall I continue?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Gryphon66

They can play the religion game or they can play the government game but not both. There's your fuzzy line, your slippery slope, your dilemma.

Why should an organization that doesn't pay taxes get a say in what the government in the role of the guardian of those taxes does or does not do with them? Why should a religious organization have the power to influence politics?


Trust me, the logic of the situation is not lost on me. However, despite the usual cries of victimization and unfair treatment, churches (and that does include the megachurch/TV evangelism sideshows regardless of whether these folks want to exclude those or not) are basically given free-rein. The IRS doesn't even try to apply it's own very loose "rules" to what does constitute a church, and further, do you know how many churches were audited in the last 2 years? Three. Before that, there was a moratorium on auditing churches. Why?

Well, because churches are "special." And they are. Oddly enough, that is what I'm arguing for here, even though I personally feel that most churches are nothing more than hotbeds of hate and ignorance, the Constitution is clear.

Religion is given a "special" place in America ... but that place should not allow churches to be scofflaws.

Time after time, poll after poll, associations of ministers have maintained that their pulpits are NOT the place for politics. You saw earlier the typical saw that "all social movements began in churches" well ... not only is that not true, but, there is a difference between preaching that it is "unchristian to keep other people as slaves" and telling your congregation to vote for "the Mormon over the Muslim."



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Isn't it funny how right-wingers can justify imagining that they can trace their "taxdollars" all the way through the vast system of government spending to determine that they paid for someone elses medical procedure or supplies, but suddenly, completely lose that preternatural (i.e. non-existent) ability to scry where dollars go when it comes to churches?

As they would (rightly) point out in every other situation, nothing is free. Giving a tax credit means that the rest of us, proportionally, have to pay more taxes. Forget the fact that these churches (including the obvious con games run in the megachurch and TV evangelist groups) own millions if not billions of dollars of property that is also, unlike the rest of us, untaxed, that they never pay a penny on goods that they purchase (even 65 million dollar personal jets), etc.

There is no free lunch. Churches should face that fact.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and to me ...

The loose association of States under the Articles of Confederation was not sufficient to the needs of a NATION.

The PEOPLE sent representatives to create a new NATION.

It is ridiculous to claim that the document that actually CONSTITUTES a government is designed only to LIMIT that government.

The First Ten Amendments, aka, the Bill of Rights was added, immediately to address concerns about "too much central power" and to insure the "rights of the People."

It was sold (and ratified) as a set. It was ratified by the States, and by every State that has joined the Union has known what they were agreeing to.



So that's your foundation of understanding for the COTUS. Got it. And it's totally wrong.

It's ridiculous to think that a group of sovereign states that had just escaped the bonds of one central authority would hand over their autonomy to another. The Constitution was not sold as a nation. It was promoted as a means for the individual states to interact equally with each other and other nations, while still maintaining their internal affairs.


Actually that's not true. That fits the Articles of Confederation far more than it does the Constitution. But the Articles of Confederation failed miserably because the "central" government was simply too weak. So the "founding fathers" created the Constitution specifically to create a stronger central/federal government. You've got it backwards.



The People sent State representatives to debate the creation of a Union.

What people sent them? Even most white male citizens didn't have the right to vote at that time, much less the other citizens. So where are you getting this information?



Over time, we have forgotten our history. Progressives want us to lose even more historical context.

Just the opposite. We're making sure the entire history is told, not just the whitewashed & overly simplified version of history.

For example, does your "history" even talk about the "Fire-Eaters", White League, Emmett Till, or the "Massive Resistance"? Or about how the Puritans weren't an oppressed religious minority at all; they were zealots who started & won the English Civil War, killed the king, ruled England, then got kicked out in the "Great Ejection". Then they ruled their colonies as religious police states, like the Taliban.

See, the truth is much more interesting than that fantasy bs they taught in grade school, isn't it?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and to me ...

The loose association of States under the Articles of Confederation was not sufficient to the needs of a NATION.

The PEOPLE sent representatives to create a new NATION.

It is ridiculous to claim that the document that actually CONSTITUTES a government is designed only to LIMIT that government.

The First Ten Amendments, aka, the Bill of Rights was added, immediately to address concerns about "too much central power" and to insure the "rights of the People."

It was sold (and ratified) as a set. It was ratified by the States, and by every State that has joined the Union has known what they were agreeing to.



So that's your foundation of understanding for the COTUS. Got it. And it's totally wrong.

It's ridiculous to think that a group of sovereign states that had just escaped the bonds of one central authority would hand over their autonomy to another. The Constitution was not sold as a nation. It was promoted as a means for the individual states to interact equally with each other and other nations, while still maintaining their internal affairs.


Actually that's not true. That fits the Articles of Confederation far more than it does the Constitution. But the Articles of Confederation failed miserably because the "central" government was simply too weak. So the "founding fathers" created the Constitution specifically to create a stronger central/federal government. You've got it backwards.



The People sent State representatives to debate the creation of a Union.

What people sent them? Even most white male citizens didn't have the right to vote at that time, much less the other citizens. So where are you getting this information?



Over time, we have forgotten our history. Progressives want us to lose even more historical context.

Just the opposite. We're making sure the entire history is told, not just the whitewashed & overly simplified version of history.

For example, does your "history" even talk about the "Fire-Eaters", White League, Emmett Till, or the "Massive Resistance"? Or about how the Puritans weren't an oppressed religious minority at all; they were zealots who started & won the English Civil War, killed the king, ruled England, then got kicked out in the "Great Ejection". Then they ruled their colonies as religious police states, like the Taliban.

See, the truth is much more interesting than that fantasy bs they taught in grade school, isn't it?


The truth is that power is taken, never given.

"The whitewashed and overly simplified version of history" is that the Throne and the Altar are always right. In this case the Throne is the central government and the Altar is collectivism.

The Articles of Confederation won the Revolutionary War and that is the best and only reason for a government, i.e. to deal with other governments. No other government was needed.

The deciding vote for the COTUS was gained from the confiscation of all free frontier land to the Federal Government, (instead of directly to settlers) and the assumption of State war debts by a national ( crony ) bank. The New England states opposed the COTUS but had the highest war debt-- as merchants the war interrupted their business for several years, and most state governments wanted a way to keep their citizens at home, i.e. stop citizens from going west and depleting the state population.

Churches can say whatever they want to.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Gross generalizations and vague philosophical statements are fine, but they aren't factual, they are at best opinions.

Here are the facts: nine States ratified the Constitution, and the rest ratified it in time.

Every State that has joined the Union has agreed to the terms of the Constitution.

The Constitution creates the government we've had for well over two centuries, and that government has grown, organically, to deal with the changing times, situations and circumstances.

Claiming that blatant oversimplifications such as you've presented just above are the only facts of the matter, is just ... incorrect.

Factually incorrect; you can have your opinion all day long.

Does every party to a contract get everything they want in every situation?

No, that's why it's called COMPROMISE.

The Constitution is one of the best examples of American compromise in action.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Constitution died in 1861.

No compromise there.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join