Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Property-tax battles are rarely sexy. But a case now in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, about whether the 21 religious brothers and sisters who run the Shrine of Our Lady of LaSalette in Attleboro should have to pay taxes, could have huge repercussions. The Court’s decision will be an important part of the ongoing debate in America about who defines religious practice—believers or bureaucrats—and whether religion itself should be afforded a special place under the law.................

On its face, the conflict in Attleboro is about the special status afforded to religious organizations under the law, which is being challenged by those who effectively see tax breaks as government sponsorship of religion. But the deeper issue is about who gets to define religion. Since its founding, Massachusetts has recognized the value religion gives to wider society, which is why the state has given churches certain tax breaks. The meaning of religion has expanded and changed since colonial days, and interpretations of the law should take that into account. In a pluralistic, multicultural country like the United States, believers have to be able to decide for themselves what constitutes their faith; that’s the only way to implement the existing law fairly.

Even the city has praised its value to the community. Jeremy Denlea, a city councilor whose district includes the shrine, called it “a great neighbor.” He said he hopes the shrine’s charitable endeavors, and its light display, will continue regardless of the court’s ruling, which is expected sometime this summer. But it’s fair for the city to try to collect taxes on the property, he said. “I think it’s unfortunate, and kind of uncomfortable right now,” he said. “But this is the cost of doing business in modern-day society.”...............

Cluck U wrote:Tax them all.

89Hen wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Tax them all.

Secular charities too?

Cluck U wrote:

89Hen wrote: Secular charities too?

Yup.

Everyone will adjust.

bandl wrote:Catholics. The answer is catholics.

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

Grizalltheway wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

I'd settle for the government being able to effectively prosecute the perverts within the Church...just like they prosecute perverts everywhere else.

89Hen wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Yup.

Everyone will adjust.

How about your tax deduction for donating?

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

andy7171 wrote:Why do non-believers even care about this shit?

bandl wrote:Catholics. The answer is catholics.

FOR THE fucking WIN!

Cluck U wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

Odd argument...and not a good one.

Do I want the government to own my land? No.

Do I want the government to own the local charity's land? No.

I don't want the government to own anyone's land? No.

So why do some places get exempt, when others do not? And why should I be happy if some person gets his land taxes reduced or eliminated if I don't? All things being equal, that make ME, and others, pay more to make up for the lost revenue.

Let's put it this way...if some church goes down to 3 members, and owns 4 million acres of land, is it fair that they don't pay taxes on all that land?

But, but, but...

"Now that we've established that you're a whore, all we're doing is discussing price."

Sorry, joe...your argument doesn't hold any ground. To be religious, you don't need a big church. I think some guy named Jesus proved that to be true.

Tax everything.

kalm wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

So who gets to define what a religion is?

The Kalm Monastery is a place of worship for those who believe in mother nature, blue winged olve mayfly hatches, and EWU football and it makes regular contributions to various charities the Humane Society, the Cheney Food Bank, Shriners Hospitals for Children, and the Snowden Elementary PTO. Yet it seeks no tax exemption.

Then there's these guys:

http://firstchurchofpolydeism.tumblr.com/

JoltinJoe wrote:

kalm wrote:
So who gets to define what a religion is?

The Kalm Monastery is a place of worship for those who believe in mother nature, blue winged olve mayfly hatches, and EWU football and it makes regular contributions to various charities the Humane Society, the Cheney Food Bank, Shriners Hospitals for Children, and the Snowden Elementary PTO. Yet it seeks no tax exemption.

Then there's these guys:

http://firstchurchofpolydeism.tumblr.com/

I already told you who ultimately decides on what is a religion eligible for tax-exempt status, and how it decides.

You're not a church under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court.

kalm wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

So who gets to define what a religion is?

The Kalm Monastery is a place of worship for those who believe in mother nature, blue winged olve mayfly hatches, and EWU football and it makes regular contributions to various charities the Humane Society, the Cheney Food Bank, Shriners Hospitals for Children, and the Snowden Elementary PTO. Yet it seeks no tax exemption.

Then there's these guys:

http://firstchurchofpolydeism.tumblr.com/

Cluck U wrote:

89Hen wrote: How about your tax deduction for donating?

Never understood that deduction.

Why should I get a tax deduction, essentially taking away money from everyone, to support only things/people/ideas that I specifically want to support?

That makes no sense.

Pwns wrote:Think churches meddle too much in politics today? Just wait until you make them pay taxes.

Pwns wrote:Think churches meddle too much in politics today? Just wait until you make them pay taxes.