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.

 

With Trump Pick Aboard, Supreme Court Tackles Religious Rights

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So you think the churches should pay taxes? If so then I am in agreement.


The congregation already does.




posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




I didn't say children, you did.

Did I msread that? Comprehension problem? You are implying that only the adults use the playgrounds.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Who claimed they dont pay taxes?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Who claimed they dont pay taxes?


No one. But what is there to tax at a church? The money that churches get has already been taxed. Tithes are not tax exempt.
edit on 22-4-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

I've covered that already and you chose to ignore me in the last thread. Why?


The argument here is that if the playground gets its mats (and this is a very specific program for this purpose hence the tire fees we all pay), then suddenly religious schools all over will be getting money from the government for all kinds of actual religious purposes. So we have to deny this playground at a church from getting mats from this mat-specific program.

The inverse of this argument, and a SCOTUS justice made this point so it is not ridiculous, is that if we are now denying all secular programs to facilities for secular use because the sites happen to be religious facilities, then what stops the argument that separation of church and state could be argued to cover all public monies and services that also cover religious facilities and persons - police, fire, ambuluance, utilities, etc.?
edit on 22-4-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Trust me. Even "believers",..pay "taxes". We/you,.. want/expect a something in, return,... You want to fight over that?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So you are willing to pay Mosques for the sake for children? After all it's for the safety for children, no matter the indoctrination that happens there?
Awaiting your answer.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko




I didn't say children, you did.

Did I msread that? Comprehension problem? You are implying that only the adults use the playgrounds.


No, I said playgrounds. This program is specifically for using recycled tires to upgrade playgrounds with rubber mats.

In Missouri, when we buy tires, we all pay fees specifically so the recycled tires can be made into mats and certain types of facilities can apply for grants to upgrade their playgrounds with the rubber mats. There is nothing in the grant that would bar the preschool from doing this. They qualify in every way.

A playground is a playground.

This particular playground is open to the public, so it is not only for the patrons of the preschool, and only 50% of the kids in the preschool are members of the church. It sounds to me like this is a small town church, likely one of the few preschool/daycare facilities and maybe one of the few playgrounds. It's also likely not a wealthy place.

So I am asking: Is this playground less worthy than other playgrounds only because it is located on church grounds? Why?

Has nothing to do with kids.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

So you are willing to pay Mosques for the sake for children? After all it's for the safety for children, no matter the indoctrination that happens there?
Awaiting your answer.


Their parents buy tires.

If they have a playground, the way the grant is written, they can apply.

If you think I hate Muslims, you are mistaken.

You seem to have an axe to grind against playgrounds though.
edit on 22-4-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Tires? I apologize if I missed something?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Just wanted to point out that the first amendment wasn't intended only to protect the government from religion but religion from government. Churches take up offerings every week to pay for the cost of being open and whatever outreach programs they provide. Their congregations support them. In exchange, they are largely free from government involvement in their business and they pay no taxes. It works well for all involved. Once the government starts providing funding of ANY kind, they have a foot in the door to start dictating church policy.

Get government money...better let women or gays be pastors... better not discriminate against gay weddings...better let the transgenders use the bathroom they choose. How is this outcome NOT painfully obvious to any church-going proponents of this? I realize that the almighty GOD, in whom we trust, is on the line, but step back and look at what you are really asking for. You are not just asking for tax-money (to which churches are not entitled, BTW). You are asking for funding that gives the government you all hate soooo much leverage to use over the church and it's behavior.

You mean to tell me that when the gay couple wants to enroll their kid in the Lutheran daycare and the government steps in and tells the church, "we paid for the rubber mats with tax dollars, so you must allow all people to enroll. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are." you are gonna be totally cool with that? You won't be on here screaming that the government has no right to dictate church behavior? Yeah, right!

The government stays out of church because the church stays out of government. Both institutions benefit from this arrangement. Once you start mixing the two AT ALL, it's a matter of time till they are both FUBAR.

Be careful what you wish for....you might get it.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko

Tires? I apologize if I missed something?


The specific Missouri state program in question recycles used tires into rubber mats. Everyone who buys a tire in MO pays the tax that funds the program. That includes Christians, Muslims, racists and atheists.
edit on 22-4-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ok. How does that change anything? As one poster pointed out its bad for the children because chemicals and fumes. Still doesn't answer why we should pay the churches as per the First Amendment.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

That's an interesting way to interpret the Constitution, considering the playground is not a place of worship...



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

LOL where is the playground located?
I know you are smarter than that.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ok. How does that change anything? As one poster pointed out its bad for the children because chemicals and fumes. Still doesn't answer why we should pay the churches as per the First Amendment.


Who is paying the churches? What does that have to do with respecting an establishment of religion? As in establishing a federally-endorsed religion. NOT as in an actual physical establishment/location of religion.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

LOL where is the playground located?
I know you are smarter than that.


My IQ is for another thread.

The playground is not located inside the church, and as my wife has pointed out it is open for use by non-parishioners. So what is the problem?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The point is should we be forced to pay the churches? After all they don't pay taxes. And why should we be responsible for their children?

First Amendment guarantees separation of state and church.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Not inside the property? Then what's the problem?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The point is should we be forced to pay the churches? After all they don't pay taxes. And why should we be responsible for their children?


It's a state program for playgrounds. No one is 'paying the churches.' The congregation pays the taxes that fund the program.

Government has an interest in protecting children (ie future taxpayers.) Location has nothing to do with it.


First Amendment guarantees separation of state and church.


No, it doesn't.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join