[Supreme Court upoholds the New Jersey State Constitution which prohibits tax money from being spent on churches]
Kavanaugh said the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling was “in serious tension” with past U.S. Supreme Court decisions. His five-page statement came as the high court declined Monday to hear an appeal in the New Jersey case.
Barring religious organizations because they are religious from a general historic-preservation grants program is pure discrimination against religion
9 comments
Well it's a good thing the constitution that you took an oath of office to uphold and protect states that religion and government are to be separate and that it's not discrimination because no religions can benefit from tax payer money.
These are the fucking idiots we have on the supreme court.
Well, you lot say that yours isn't a 'religion', but is (quote) 'A Personal Relationship With Jesus', do you not? Because if your answer to that theo-financial question which is utterly lethal to the likes of you is the only one possible, I trust we'll hear no more from the likes of you about anything : because as far as you're concerned, so much as thinking of having an 'Opinion' now is a political act. You'd better start a-prayin' really hard for your 'God' to miraculously poof into being untold trillions of dollars: which is right-wing Fundamental ist Christainity's share of the nearly $17 quadrillion in tax owed by Christianity in the US since 1776.
Because the IRS already own your 'God', Berk Krapenough.
I bet you wished they'd owned you in those hearings, eh...?!
Because they're religions , Islam & the Church of $cientology have tax exemption. Unless you want to follow the example of Britain, France, Germany & Russia in denying the latter of their right to be considered a religion, you knock yourself out, Berk.
As of nary 24 hours ago, Islam has mucho sympathy. And support .
Just ask the retard who put you where you are now. Like I say: that hearing previously.
If they own a historic building, they could list their church as a monument. Of course, I don't think funds for the preservation of monuments goes right into a church's coffers, so it can't be spent on frivolous things like jets and private yachts which is apparently the point behind some churches. And of course, monuments are expected to abide by their own set of regulations to make such historical preservation efforts work, which I'm sure it going to put the brakes on some schemes. And of course, many churches in the US cannot claim monument status anyway for being too new, not culturally significant or historical sites and would be denied such funding. So I think the real motive here is that you want to just funnel money into politically active churches to support your party.
Refusing to spend government money on religion isn't restricting or discriminating against a religion but it is in keeping with the constitution which states the government shall not endorse any religion. The American government really need to reread that memo, what with Christianity being partially enshrined in law and refusing to overtly embrace it being politically damaging if not disqualifying to a politician's career, virulent opposition to other major religions commonplace and comfortably tolerated if not actively encouraged, and atheists being outright barred from public office in some states despite Article VI, Clause 3.
The illegitimate justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have just declared their intentions not to uphold the 1st Amendment and the Constitution. This is not a controversial issue its the fundamental law of the land. If they feel like they can't uphold the constitution then they must resign and make want for justices who will.
Revoke their law licenses please.
No taxation without representation was the devise of the Boston Tea Party, wasn't it? Well, it's the other way around too. No representation without taxation either. If you don't participate in the paying of taxes, you can't be participating in the receiving of tax-money grants, either. It's pure logic, not pure discrimination. Why do you hate the US Constitution?
In Sweden, we members of the Swedish Church pay taxes to the church, money that they can use in general historic-preservation programs. If you don't want to pay taxes, you can end your membership. But then you can't vote in church elections either; only members have representation. My church-taxes help with preservation of buildings such as the below (about 10 kilometers from where I live, built in 1306, almost destroyed in a fire in 1718, restored in 1776 and renovated many times since). How much historic value is there in the average US mega-church?
image image image image
Our churches are of course also seen as culturally important, so our regular taxes also go to preservation and restoration.
image
Looks more like a factory than a church, in my eyes...
The New Jersey Constitution specifically says "nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right.” (Article I, Paragraph 3). Part of the problem as well was apparently those churches are still being used to host services and some explicitly sought money to advance their religious missions. So that's why the NJSC halted the payments and why Kauvaungh is full of shit.
pure discrimination against religion
You have the following choices:
1. Uphold your oath and abide by the constitution as written.
2. Strive to change the constitution if you don't like it.
3. Resign.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
