Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (70087)	1/9/2003 11:41:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There is a difference between not taking money from churches and giving money to churches (subsidizing them). The others are degrees of 6. They are entirely separate definitions not relevant to this case either as a matter of constitutional law, or for the most part as a description of what not taxing churches amounts to. Oh I suppose the lack of taxes on churches makes them more secure, but so does the police preventing members of a competing sect from burning the church down. Its preposterous to claim that is unconstitutional. Tim

To: cosmicforce who wrote (70087)	1/10/2003 5:10:03 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I'm pretty sure the founders didn't anticipate tax-subsidy of churches The founders didn't anticipate federal income or property taxes, period, so they couldn't have anticipated tax subsidies or otherwise. The founders also never anticipated the Bill of Rights applying to the states, so up to the passage and interpretation of the 14th amendment the states were free to establish religions if they wanted to. All this jurisprudence is contrary to the founders intentions anyhow.