Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
What they're saying is;
"Certain speech is permissible within the context of religion. Certain speech is not. We will decide which is which, and if impermissible speech is spoken we will penalise the speaker (or their org.) by imposing penalties upon it/them which we will refrain from imposing upon those who speak only permissible speech."
Kiss the Gov't ass (or at least refrain from biting it too hard), and you're a Religion which gets left alone. Refuse to kiss aforementioned ass, or bite in ways it does not appreciate, and you're just another company or Corporation, no different from McDonalds. Which do you think will have an easier time staying open; a church which has to pay all the usual Corporate taxes (2nd highest in the world after Japan, BTW) because it speaks to specific political issues which the leaders of that faith community find relevant in a spiritual sense, or the Church which makes like a good lil' fiel'hand and keep'is mouth shut, thereby -avoiding- those taxes?
Correct, the Church which kisses the correct asses and pays no taxes will have a much easier time staying open than the one which refuses to kiss ass and pays taxes.
If you think any of this is accidental, you must not have been paying attention for the last decade or so. -Nothing- these jerkoffs do is accidental.
|
But again, that's a different issue. Tax exemption is not a right granted by the Constitution. If the Government has decided it will give certain churches tax exemptions, why shouldn't it be able to dictate the parameters that qualify one for said exemption?
No freedom of religion has been infringed whatsoever