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: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
This was among the cases decided today by the Supreme Court, so I thought I'd update the thread with the result.

The decision was 7-2 in favor of the church operated daycare.




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: fatkid

It makes perfect sense. Who elected Congress? Who elected the President, who appointed the Supreme Court? Who elects the governors? Mayors?

Every one of these people making policy are able to make policy because they (or in some cases those who appointed them) were elected by the people.

The advantage of democracy is that the people get the government they deserve. The disadvantage of democracy is that the people get the government they deserve.

In other news, the Supreme Court just ruled against those trying to discriminate against religion. MAGA!

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm all for it. Now we can openly discriminate against anyone we don't like. That would be Christians for me.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They also PREACH POLITICS from the pulpit.

If they don't get TAXED ... they they should stick to religion.

Keep politics out of their mouths.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: ketsuko

They also PREACH POLITICS from the pulpit.

If they don't get TAXED ... they they should stick to religion.

Keep politics out of their mouths.


You made a thought come to me. This may set the precedent for taxing the churches like any other business. I think a really good constitutional attorney could make a good argument after this law.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,


But...ISNT there a law on the BOOKS to keep them "tax-free"?

HMMMM



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Even if we ignore separation of church and state there's also the fact that churches don't pay taxes. Why should they be eligible to receive taxpayer money why they don't contribute any money in the first place?



Whilst I don't necessarily support funding any religious organisation with tax payer money, the reason you state would not be one of them. I am quite sure you don't want a system where you only get access to tax payer funds if you paid tax. Think about the implications of that.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Good point! If you don't pay taxes to begin with then you have no authority to be seeking money from the state.


Interesting on so many levels, and something I don't think you have thought through.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
This is a good thread with some valid concerns.

Seperation of church and state, taxes, status and incentives.

I agree, this could set a precendent for others to jump in and take advantage of the system.

But...the soft and sweet side of me is, what about the smaller churches?

I mean, Joel Osteen meag church VS a small one story in a ghetto neighborhood....



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

You seem confused. Discrimination occurs when one is denied the ability to do something based on some arbitrary characteristic. In our present society, that characteristic is typically skin color, gender, sexual preference, or yes, religion.

In this case, a church was denied funds for a playground upgrade simply because it was a church. It was discriminated against and the Supreme Court said it could not be discriminated against because it was a church. This decision stopped discrimination.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: windword

What do Federal guidelines have to do with Missouri funding?

They should be held to the same state guidelines. Missouri cannot approve nor deny funding based on religious affiliation or practice.

TheRedneck


really?....can't wait for your support for taxpayer dollars to pay for Muslim schools...that would be a great way to show your religious tolerance



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Apparently they want to stop all welfare. Recipients don't pay tax because they are too poor, so they shouldn't receive any benefits.

I don't agree with that. I like having some kind of welfare programs.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

It is an exemption given by a law, which can be changed:

"Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business."



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's a business like other businesses and should be treated with the same laws.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

If there is a Muslim church eligible for these funds, they should get it.

If there is a synagogue eligible for these funds, they should get it.

If there is a Buddhist temple eligible for these funds, they should get it.

Religion cannot be considered. Why is that so hard to understand?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3


It's a business like other businesses and should be treated with the same laws.

Assuming the playground and associated daycare charges for services rendered, absolutely. It's a business attached to a church and should be taxed, regulated, and afforded benefits like any other daycare.

A church itself is a congregation which assembles for the mutual religious benefit of its members. It does not charge for access or participation and does not exist to make a profit. Therefore the church should be exempt from taxation IMO. A daycare operating for pay attached to the church is a business and should not be exempt.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Everyone who makes $10,500 per year has to file with the IRS. Everyone that gets a paycheck pays into social security and workmans comp. Should be the same for churches just like everyone else. They are very active and vocal and powerful in the US politics. The White House is full of evangelicals.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

They are no longer the churches that our founding fathers knew. They have become a political party with one mind.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UKTruth

Apparently they want to stop all welfare. Recipients don't pay tax because they are too poor, so they shouldn't receive any benefits.

I don't agree with that. I like having some kind of welfare programs.

TheRedneck


Yeah exactly - I found the argument they are making to be very strange. Not sure how anyone could think that AND be for welfare, free tuition etc...pretty erratic thinking.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
According to the CONSTITUTION there should be zero law, statute or code regarding religious institutions.

The GOV is supposed to MAKE NO LAW with respect to them.

A truly "hands off" thing.

That's if we want to be LITERAL. . .







 
8
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join