Separation of Church and State

[ecoli]

making churches tax exempt would be the opposite. that would be the govt, in effect, supporting that religion. govt needs to not recognize religion in any of its dealings. so its not that they are charging the church property taxes, they are merely charging people property taxes for a building they own.

 

I see it more as the Churches supporting the government. The Churches are then supporting a government that are not allowed to participate in government.

 

how would you go about deciding what is tax exempt and what isnt? if i put a shrine in my house do i no longer have to pay taxes? the govt. needs to just ignore that factor completely.

 

That's the main problem with that.

 

The IRS is taking a dim view of churches which endorse candidates.

 

I don't think this is an issue of Constitutional law but instead is a result of a 1954 law reflected in the tax code:

 

Why shouldn't it be considered as part of the Bill of Rights? Why is "Separation of Church and State" only intepreted as "separation of Chuch from state"?

[Jim]

Why shouldn't it be considered as part of the Bill of Rights? Why is "Separation of Church and State" only interpreted as "separation of Chuch from state"?

 

 

Although Thomas Jefferson wrote of a wall separating church and state, that language is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment says:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

On its face, this language prohibits the government from establishing state religions, not religions from attempting to influence government. While case law has broadened the meaning of this language, I do not recall any cases which would suggest religions are prohibited from influencing government as a constitutional matter.

 

OTOH, as I recall it, the Supreme Court has held that tax-exempt status is a privilege, not a right.

[bascule]

This now becomes easy because all I need is a statement unprovable by science. "We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men were created equal." will do nicely.

 

Fallacy: False dichotomy

[Severian]

Fallacy: False dichotomy

 

Nope. A dichotomy is when their are only two alternatives. So, a false dichotomy is when there are a number of alternatives different from two.

 

Either a statement is provable by science or it is not. That is two alternatives (go ahead, count them) - there is no third option.

 

Please try again.

[padren]

This now becomes easy because all I need is a statement unprovable by science. "We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men were created equal." will do nicely.

 

By all appearances where and how anyone is born is a complete lottery. To say science cannot prove this is like saying science can't prove that oranges don't dance when unobserved.

 

 

I mean think about it:

The statement "all men were created equal" refers to no one has any inherent rights that others do not, ie, no divine right etc.

 

If you examine history, every case of a claim to Divine Right has been pretty clear cut and nothing more than an agreement between the people involved to act as if that were so. In other words, only when people treated a king like a king, did kings ever have power. Only when people would treat his son as an heir by divine right would he benefit from divine right.

 

When people decided it was bunk...their heads were as easy to chop off as anyone elses.

 

 

 

And with all that aside, it could also read: "We hold this truth to be self evident, that listening to music at least once a week is good for any person's mental well being," which could not be scientifically proven and may ignore entire populations of deaf people. It doesn't even have to be true. It just has to be something "we" hold to be self evident, rightly, wrongly, logically, emotionally, intuitively, whatever...there are tons of other ways to hold a conviction that have absolutely nothing to do with any type of spiritual faith.

[Sisyphus]

This now becomes easy because all I need is a statement unprovable by science. "We hold this truth to be self-evident' date=' that all men were created equal." will do nicely.[/quote']

 

 

Well, for one thing, "that all men are created equal" was considered to be demonstrated by reason. The idea is that (from Locke) we see nothing in any man that gives him more inherent rights than any other; "right of might" is really nonexistant, because no man is so powerful that he has nothing to fear from his fellows, and the "divine right" of kings, based on religion, doesn't appear to based on anything real at all. These being removed, all that is left is equality. Rousseau added that rational beings recognize the sameness of other rational beings, and so a reasonable person who is paying attention would see the "equality" (that is, the shared capacity for reason) between himself and another, and thus no difference between harming oneself and the other.

 

THAT is what is meant by "self evident" in this context.

[bascule]

Nope. A dichotomy is when their are only two alternatives. So, a false dichotomy is when there are a number of alternatives different from two.

 

You're saying knowledge is either scientific or religious in nature.

 

Either a statement is provable by science or it is not.

 

You claim religious knowledge encompasses the latter case. To review your previous statements:

 

Even the constitution itself is a religious document because it expresses opinions about the nature of existence which cannot be proven.

 

This now becomes easy because all I need is a statement unprovable by science. "We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men were created equal." will do nicely.

 

Therefore, by your false dichotomy, the Constitution is a religious document. QED!

 

Oh wait...

[Severian]

Well, for one thing, "that all men are created equal" was considered to be demonstrated by reason.

 

That is really the fallacy here. It is not demonstrated by reason. It is simply an assertion.

 

But the context you put it in is interesting. By placing the emphasis on 'divine right', as in whether or not one should have a King, are you claiming that it was never intended as a statement of 'lower' social equality? This is interesting because it seems much more in keeping with how the founding fathers behaved. Many of them kept slaves for example, and most were not squeamish about regarding themselves as superior to commoners.

 

Although it is not very consistant with them offering Washington the position of King after the revolution.

[Sisyphus]

They thought of themselves as superior to the vulgar masses, yeah. And they were. But not "unequal," in the way they meant. The equality necessarily extends to all social classes. Basically, no man had the inherent right to the property of another, which included life and labor. Slavery, clearly, was a problem, but in the end it was a pragmatic decision, because they needed the South.

[Severian]

Slavery, clearly, was a problem, but in the end it was a pragmatic decision, because they needed the South.

 

There is a difference between pragmatically tolerating slavery for the good of the nation as a whole, and keeping slaves yourself.

[Callipygous]

There is a difference between pragmatically tolerating slavery for the good of the nation as a whole, and keeping slaves yourself.

 

 

different times, slaves werent considered people. they did consider all men to be equal. slaves just werent men.

 

id blame this more on the culture and their upbringing, than their ethics, but i suppose you could argue it either way.