Originally Posted by jones
This is just getting to be a bit silly, to be frank. And you certainly are not keeping this in the realm of sound logical reasoning, so lets not pretend that you are.
actually, I'm the one using the logic concerning separation of church and state. my belief on this subject is the law, so I'm really the one that's being logical here.
Originally Posted by jones
As far as parents being given a small break to help raise their kids. You've got to be kidding me if you tell me that you can't see how encouraging a little help to raise a child helps society as a whole. And you really don't see how society is better off if more people can afford to actually own their own home, and that a little help there might encourage this a bit?
is this official or unofficial? I don't know of any written law that says that bearing a child is a socially responsible thing to do. if anything, this country is already becoming very overcrowded and one of the things that suck your taxes dry more than any religious donations are the handouts that parents get for their children. ever heard of welfare?
Originally Posted by jones
As far as the "official" and "unofficial" logic is concerned, read your own posts here, you're the one who kept bringing that up. Your logic, not mine. Remember? You were trying to argue that a taxed church should get the same concessions that a corporation gets, your argument was that even if corporations weren't "officially" "endorsed" by the government that they "unofficially" are supported and "respected" by the government, and that if a church were taxed then they would be "endorsed" or at least "respected" by the government and should get the same "official" or "unofficial" treatment or they could revolt and declare themselves a seperate entity from the United States due to taxation without representation. Please don't pass your crazy, backward, false logic off on me.
If you tax a church, then they become a corporation no different than Walmart or GM. the "official" or "unofficial" concessions make no difference, just know that these concessions can be proven in court. example: I live about as far east as you can get in this country. the only industry here is tourism. now, there is an interstate connector coming here that is going to cost millions and millions of dollars. why would the federal and state government build such a road that leads to a large body of water and nothing else? answer: they are making a concession to the growing tourist industry. so all the church has to do is prove in court that they are taxed like any other corporation, but are not receiving the benefits that other corporations receive. and they CAN'T because there is a Constitutional amendment that outlaws it. so taxing the church is a constitutional catch 22 that cannot work.
as far as my crazy, backward, false logic concerning taxation without representation, I think you're the one the needs to read up on American history and how we actually came to revolt again Britain. you're the one here using crazy logic, not me.
the $50,000 you're talking about (which I'd say is pretty insignificant considering the billions that churches bring in each year), is this money being used for political donations, or paid to church members to do it? there's a difference there. but either way, it's not illegal. and either way, the church isn't seeking any financial gain off what they're doing, which is what most lobbyist groups seek to do.