IRS Threatens Episcopal Church for Antiwar Sermon:

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien I think your 60% figure comes from ALL taxes paid in America today. Income tax is much less than that total. The total taxes include income, sales, property, capital gains taxes, etc are all lumped into together. Consumption tax proposals estimate only 24%. to do the job. I said nothing of a VAT tax. Therefore your 60% figure is skewed if you are writing that is ONLY the consumption tax. Also there are several states that do not have a state sales tax. New Hampshire, ALaska, and Nevada to name three. Other states should follow their example. Furthermore, state and federal gasoline taxes could be eliminated while the politicians are carping about the high cost of gasoline. They should lead by example before calling upon the oil companies to "give back" their profits. "Do as I say, not as I do", comes to mind here. So, in summary, I admire you concern for the elderly, of which I am almost one, but your sense of fairness in taxation is perhaps somewhat misguided considering the tax codes in the American economy today. Furthermore, a 60% tax rate on ALL taxes paid to the government is OUTRAGEOUS. When citizens work their fingers to the bone everyday just to have the government CONFISGATE 60 cents of every dollar is a national crime and a national shame. It is living proof that we, in America require true tax reform, NOW. Robin Hood where are you now when we need you the most?

Did you even read the link I provided? It's not "my" 60% figure. "William Gale is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. And Len Burman is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. They're the co-directors of the institutes' Joint Tax Policy Center, which is non-partisan"

And while I provided a link to some supporting evidence, you provided none for your claim of "Consumption tax proposals estimate only 24%. to do the job". You also failed to address the issue of how to transition to a national sales tax and be fair to the people that have been saving all their lives for retirement. We have planned to be in a lower tax bracket now that retirement is nearer, now you want to change the rules and hit us with big taxes when we can least afford it.

[brien]

Quote by: Zeebadee Did you even read the link I provided? It's not "my" 60% figure. "William Gale is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. And Len Burman is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. They're the co-directors of the institutes' Joint Tax Policy Center, which is non-partisan" And while I provided a link to some supporting evidence, you provided none for your claim of "Consumption tax proposals estimate only 24%. to do the job". You also failed to address the issue of how to transition to a national sales tax and be fair to the people that have been saving all their lives for retirement. We have planned to be in a lower tax bracket now that retirement is nearer, now you want to change the rules and hit us with big taxes when we can least afford it.

Ok I read the link. It is utter Republicrat double speak. More expert elites pretending to know what is better for than the average citizen than they themselves know. These "Insitutes" are loaded with elites who go back and forth with their so called expert advice. It is a spin, on both of their efforts. Neither one mentioned or discussed in depth "payroll" taxes. I never mentioned VAT taxes as they do. Their 60% figure is NOT supported by real evidence, but rather speculation.

What this comes down to is a fundemental question of how to fairly collect taxes to fund the government.

I didn't read anywhere that either of these two "experts" mentioned TAX REDUCTIONS or GOVERNMENT DOWNSIZING. They continue to push for more and more taxes to fund a government that continues to grow on an annual basis.

They did make one thing clear in their implications, with the amount of people retiring in the next 20 years, the next generation is going to have to continually increase their share of earnings to "support" the government entitlements that go hand and hand with that retirement.

The Brookings Insititute and the Urban Insititute indeed. Just what we need, more "institutes" trying to run a government that is already so over bloated that it will bust under the financial needs of the retiring generation. You mentioned "senior citizens". Well what happens when the government goes broke, as it already really is, and can't afford to live up to the promised benefits from politicians who mortgage the futures of our GRANDCHILREN, to support the current wave of senior citizens?

The PBS interview you cite does very little to enlighten the consumption tax issue. It rather clouds the issue with irrelevant programs like VAT taxes and what happens in Europe which is mostly socialistic in its approach to their economies. It ignores the issue of payroll taxes and does not fully explore the consumption tax. It is a typical made for TV debate that does nothing to educate anyone with real life situations.

Why not let the people decide in a National Referendum? I'll tell you why. Because the elites in DC who all think they know better than the average citizen want to keep their stranglehold on the income of the country. Income taxes are paramount to control. For proof, one only has to look at the shamful and UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions of the IRS. They are the modern day Gestapo in an American society that is morphing into a modern day totalitarian state.

My God, if there was ever one IMPORTANT reason to eliminate taxation of income, it is the ABOLISHMENT of the IRS.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Any church that does not preach an anti war message should be shut down immediately as heretics. If not voluntarily, then by God.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Once the preacher has uttered the words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!'; He has married his church to the state.
The War Prayer by Mark Twain, points out that those words are only the first part, the spoken part of a 2 part prayer. The unspoken part of the (pregnant) prayer goes like this:

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. (*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If this statement is true:
(link) "The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as requiring a complete separation of church and state"
....then, it would follow that any church which supports a philosophy of "Thou shalt kill", can and should be taxed and should be removed from 501c3 status. They are no better than a travelling carnival.

Perhaps it would be more prudent for churches to just pay the damned taxes, in order to remove the gag order of the state.

LINK "Take the last presidential election. There were numbers of things that I knew that I was never able to say from the pulpit because if you advance the cause of one candidate or impede the cause of the other you can lose your tax exemption. That would have been disastrous not only for the church, but for our school and our seminary, everything. So you are gagged. You cannot do that. The IRS, a branch of our government, has succeeded in gagging Christians."

Consider the taxation an expense in the business of truth.

Why was the pope allowed to deny Kerry the communion during his campaign for the presidency, and why is the idiot (Kerry) still a Catholic? Where is the separation of church and state? If a 'priest' impregnates a preteen child, should she not be allowed to abort the demon seed? Is there NEVER good reason for abortion? If there is ever evn just one acceptable reason, no matter how rare, then the Catholic cult should be revoked from exempt status. They are profiteers and should not only pay back taxes for hundreds of years, but should do serious time in prison for running such a huge scam, and be charged with all the murders that happened in the commission of the scam as well.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien Why not let the people decide in a National Referendum? I'll tell you why. Because the elites in DC who all think they know better than the average citizen want to keep their stranglehold on the income of the country. Income taxes are paramount to control. For proof, one only has to look at the shamful and UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions of the IRS. They are the modern day Gestapo in an American society that is morphing into a modern day totalitarian state. My God, if there was ever one IMPORTANT reason to eliminate taxation of income, it is the ABOLISHMENT of the IRS.

I think you're wrong about what the people would decide. The senior voting bloc is one of the largest and most powerful blocs in this country. Just as messing with Social Security is considered poitical suicide, coming up with a plan to re-tax the same money that seniors have managed to save over the years in spite of thieving politicians would almost certainly guarantee that the instigator of such a plan would be out of a job very quickly.

If you're serious about switching over to a national sales tax, you're gonna have to figure out a way to protect the money we've already paid taxes on. When you do, you'll have 100% support from me.

[Boetie]

Wasn't there a church just a short while ago that got into the news because the minister announced that any members that didn't support Bush Jr can leave the church and never come back. Why isn't that church being hounded by the IRS?

Sounds like Bush Jr is using the IRS to silence any dissent, a tactic commonly used.

The IRS loyal to Bush Jr, disloyal to the United States.

[brien]

Quote by: Zeebadee I think you're wrong about what the people would decide. The senior voting bloc is one of the largest and most powerful blocs in this country. Just as messing with Social Security is considered poitical suicide, coming up with a plan to re-tax the same money that seniors have managed to save over the years in spite of thieving politicians would almost certainly guarantee that the instigator of such a plan would be out of a job very quickly. If you're serious about switching over to a national sales tax, you're gonna have to figure out a way to protect the money we've already paid taxes on. When you do, you'll have 100% support from me.

Well Zeebadee, I can't protect anything from anyone, in the sense that you ask me to here. The politicians can come up with viable answers, if they wish to, concerning the tax overhaul. But do they really want to do this? I, personally don't think so for the reasons of control that I pointed out earlier. Like I wrote, I am fast approaching the Senior Citizen block, and I don't see anything out there for me but shrinking benefits, and empty promises. And anyone who thinks they can live on Social Security,( btw is there anyone?), is sadly mistaken. Those who have to live on SS, are unfortunate that they didn't better prepare themselves for their "golden years." These are the issues that will confront our children and grandchildren so they will require hard answers to tough questions that demand even more diffcult solutions.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Once the preacher has uttered the words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!'; He has married his church to the state. The War Prayer by Mark Twain, points out that those words are only the first part, the spoken part of a 2 part prayer. The unspoken part of the (pregnant) prayer goes like this: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If this statement is true: (link) "The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as requiring a complete separation of church and state" ....then, it would follow that any church which supports a philosophy of "Thou shalt kill", can and should be taxed and should be removed from 501c3 status. They are no better than a travelling carnival. Perhaps it would be more prudent for churches to just pay the damned taxes, in order to remove the gag order of the state. Consider the taxation an expense in the business of truth. Why was the pope allowed to deny Kerry the communion during his campaign for the presidency, and why is the idiot (Kerry) still a Catholic? Where is the separation of church and state? If a 'priest' impregnates a preteen child, should she not be allowed to abort the demon seed? Is there NEVER good reason for abortion? If there is ever evn just one acceptable reason, no matter how rare, then the Catholic cult should be revoked from exempt status. They are profiteers and should not only pay back taxes for hundreds of years, but should do serious time in prison for running such a huge scam, and be charged with all the murders that happened in the commission of the scam as well.

I asked this question a while back but no one seems to have answered it, unless I missed it. It was Jefferson who was almost SOLELY responsible for the separation of the Church and State phase in the 1st Amendment. What I would like to know is did he mean that the State should NOT meddle in the affairs of the Church, or should the CHURCH stay out of the affairs of the GOVERNMENT? And why?

Answer this question, and I think you have made some progress of the meaning of the phrase.

Oh and btw, Mark Twain also wrote: Peace by persuasion has a pleasant sound, but I think we should not be able to work it. We should have to tame the human race first, and history seems to show that that cannot be done.

[shield772]

Quote by: brien What I would like to know is did he mean that the State should NOT meddle in the affairs of the Church, or should the CHURCH stay out of the affairs of the GOVERNMENT? And why? Answer this question, and I think you have made some progress of the meaning of the phrase.

If you read the Amendment and don't try to interpret what it means you will understand what it says "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 peacebly to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien What I would like to know is did he mean that the State should NOT meddle in the affairs of the Church, or should the CHURCH stay out of the affairs of the GOVERNMENT? And why?

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel If this statement is true: (link) "The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as requiring a complete separation of church and state"

Notice the words COMPLETE SEPERATION? To me that means neither should meddle in the affairs of the other.

The reason why?
Because they mix like oil and water. If you try to legislate the bible everybody in the world would soon be dead. The penalty for sin is death. There is nobody who has not sinned. Who would decide which religion would be enforced? I guarantee it wont be you or me. It would be some fundamentalist fascist like those hypocrites who are in charge right now, or worse.

Quote by: brien It was Jefferson who was almost SOLELY responsible for the separation of the Church and State phase in the 1st Amendment.

Actually I think Madison should get more credit for the 1st Ammendment: LINK

James Madison (1751-1836) is popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. His understanding of federalism is the theoretical basis of our Constitution. He served as President of the United States between 1809-1817. Madison's most famous statement on behalf of religious liberty was his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, which he wrote to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia. Other sources for Madison's beliefs are his letter to Jasper Adams, where he argues on behalf of letting religion survive on its own merits, and a 1792 article in which he suggests that there is no specific religious sanction for American government. Finally, a good deal of Madision's Detached Memoranda concerns the issue of religious liberty. This material is particularly important in that it gives Madision's views of a number of events that are sometimes disputed by accomodationists (eg., congressional chaplains, days of prayer, etc.).

Madison's summary of the First Amendment: Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Let me know if you find any fault with this source, I dont usually link to tripod pages but this seems right on.

[northtexan]

Quote by: brien I asked this question a while back but no one seems to have answered it, unless I missed it. It was Jefferson who was almost SOLELY responsible for the separation of the Church and State phase in the 1st Amendment. What I would like to know is did he mean that the State should NOT meddle in the affairs of the Church, or should the CHURCH stay out of the affairs of the GOVERNMENT? And why? Answer this question, and I think you have made some progress of the meaning of the phrase. Oh and btw, Mark Twain also wrote: Peace by persuasion has a pleasant sound, but I think we should not be able to work it. We should have to tame the human race first, and history seems to show that that cannot be done.

Both. Jefferson was concerned with keeping the church out of government (as were Madison and Adams and others) because he had seen what sectarian strife could do and how repressive it could become when a religion captured the government. But he was also concerned with freedom to practice religion, because he had seen how one religion would often try to suppress another, and could do this somewhat effectively through the state. Note that Jefferson was a freethinker who rewrote the Bible to suit himself -- he sure didn't want the government passing on what was true religion and a true Bible. It was Jefferson's political enemy, John Adams, who as president wrote into a treaty (with Tripoli, a Muslim country) that the U.S. is not a Christian nation.

[grandpa]

Quote by: northtexan Both. Jefferson was concerned with keeping the church out of government (as were Madison and Adams and others) because he had seen what sectarian strife could do and how repressive it could become when a religion captured the government.

That vision simply makes sense. It's about protecting religion and others from religion.
It's not about abolishing religion as a whole as some mistakenly claim it is--but it's about ridding government of all religious considerations.
Why should the government tell us God does or does not exist?

Grandpa h.

[brien]

Quote by: northtexan Both. Jefferson was concerned with keeping the church out of government (as were Madison and Adams and others) because he had seen what sectarian strife could do and how repressive it could become when a religion captured the government. But he was also concerned with freedom to practice religion, because he had seen how one religion would often try to suppress another, and could do this somewhat effectively through the state. Note that Jefferson was a freethinker who rewrote the Bible to suit himself -- he sure didn't want the government passing on what was true religion and a true Bible. It was Jefferson's political enemy, John Adams, who as president wrote into a treaty (with Tripoli, a Muslim country) that the U.S. is not a Christian nation.

Correct. BOTH Ding ding ding ding ding........But for very different reasons.

Actually, Jefferson was in the minority about keeping the Church out of the Affairs of State*. Most signors of the the Declaration felt that Religion had a place in local affairs because society generally revolved around the local village in which the church played an important role.. For example, the clergy taught in what schools there were, and most people attended church where they came away with their moral and civil instructions from the pulpit. Therefore, the Clergy had a great influence upon people and their everyday lives, and Jefferson knew this. He himself, was not really a "Sunday" man but we have evidence that he was religious. He was well studied in Hebrew and the Koran. But he rarely attended church. I am not sure about him "rewriting the Bible". He wrote almost constantly, but not much on religion for religious sake, at least not that I am aware of in his writings. Nevertheless, he was dead set against the Clergy influencing the affairs of state.

And you probably are correct in stating that he didn't care for the state meddling into the affairs of the church. However, this was probably born out of more from compromise than from his ideological initiatives. His primary concern was traced back to Church appointed judges in the British legal system. He knew of their corruption and he couldn't stand their influence over civil law. The last thing he wanted to see was this practice transplanted into the new American society. Remember, it was already here under British rule for one hundred fifty years before the "rebellion".

When the House of Delegates convened in October of 1776, it faced a 10,000 name petition circulated by the Baptists demanding equal liberty from the attendees of the Convention. They chaffed under the burden of the ecclesiastical establishment of the Church of England and begged the delegates to set them free. The dissenters demanded a law granting them full equality with the Church of England. Jefferson had his work cut out for him. He then found aid in a 25 year old James Madison. As for Adams, the Federalist, he was from Massachussetts and had to be more careful about religion.

All of the religious factions were jockeying for power in the framework for a new government, so Jefferson and Madison had to craft a statement into the framework of the government that would bring everyone into the fold. This was the reason for Jefferon's support for the "dissenters" and not allowing the government to meddle in the afffairs of religion. Quite different in reasoning from the Church influencing itself into the affairs of the state, at least as Jefferson viewed it..

The battle for the very first phrase of the very first Amendment was not as popular and as easy to get passed as most might think today. They did it in part by proposing an exemption of the "dissenter" from having to pay taxes that supported the Church of England Clergy. Even though you may be thinking the famous phrase: "No taxation without representation." there were still many people, mostly former Loyalists, who paid taxes to the Church of England to support the Clergy. The Baptists wanted an iron clad guarantee that they would not have to any pay tax to the Church of England to support THEIR Clergy.. In one fell swoop, Jefferson brought under his influence, anyone that hated the idea of paying taxes that contributed to the support of the Church of England Clergy. Therefore, if the Church of England could no longer tax its members, the Baptists would be on equal footing with the Church of England. VICTORY. This is how he came to implement his notion that the state should neither support or oppose any religion. So it was more of a compromise in realpolitik on his behalf rather than him sitting down and just penning the phrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...." He and Madison had to work at it, twist arms, cajole, compromise and generally convince a majority of their fellow statesmen that it belonged in the framework of the Constitution in the New Government.

* See Jeffersons writing: "The SIx Resolutions" to carry out the disestablishment and religious freedom late in 1776.

[brien]

Quote by: grandpa That vision simply makes sense. It's about protecting religion and others from religion. It's not about abolishing religion as a whole as some mistakenly claim it is--but it's about ridding government of all religious considerations. Why should the government tell us God does or does not exist? Grandpa h.

Gramps: There are actually two sides to this. Please see my post above.

[brien]

[quote=gr8fuldaniel]Notice the words COMPLETE SEPERATION? To me that means neither should meddle in the affairs of the other.


You wrote:Actually I think Madison should get more credit for the 1st Ammendment: LINK

Nahhhh, I would disagree. He may get the credit from some but he was a 25 years old protege of Jefferson when the issue arose during the Convention. Jefferson was the one who supplied the philosophy and the kinetics for the Amendment. Madison was advised by Jefferson. Madison certainly was instrumental in his influence, but Jefferson was the "man". He and Madison then pulled it off. Forget Adams, the Federalist he was. Too religious being from Massachusetts. Please see my post to northtexan. #53

Remember, Jefferson was already writing about Church and State before Madison wrote what you have cited in your link. Madison and Jefferson's shared ideas. Madison expanded upon them and generally made them popular after Jefferson left the domestic political scene. Remember also, Jefferson spent a great deal of time in France during the War. IMO

[shield772]

IRS Probes Political Sermon at Calif. Church
LOS ANGELES — All-Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif., touts itself as having an all-inclusive congregation. But it's newest member is not so welcome.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177651,00.html

[shield772]

Complaint Asks IRS to Probe Conservative Christian Group
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177087,00.html

DENVER — A Washington-based group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether Focus on the Family or its founder James Dobson violated IRS rules by electioneering.

[shield772]

Lawmaker Hopes to Open Churches to Political Speech
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156264,00.html

WASHINGTON — As one pastor resigned this week amid a firestorm over the role of politics in his Baptist church, a U.S. congressman continues to try to make it easier for religious leaders and their congregations to engage in partisan political activity on the church's time and dime.

[shield772]

IRS to Investigate Tax-Exempt Groups
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123385,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service (search) plans to investigate the "seemingly high compensation" paid to leaders of some tax-exempt and charitable organizations, the agency's commissioner said Tuesday.