Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LOL. A big part of seeking "Independence" in the first place was escaping state establishment of churches or religions. "State" meaning federal or state. Govts cannot establish religions period.The establishment clause was written to prevent a national religion and to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions which were perfectly constitutional.
We already know that socialist drips like you worship The State.LOL. A big part of seeking "Independence" in the first place was escaping state establishment of churches or religions.The establishment clause was written to prevent a national religion and to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions which were perfectly constitutional.
--hahahahha--ok ....a very mature/etc responseso, you show your immaturity/idiocy by insults...ALL guidebooks/constitutions/laws/etc are just that = GUIDES....they can be interpreted many ways...they can't put everything into them..the bible is irrelevant to it .....if they are helping people without profit , fine--no tax
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Democrats passed the restriction because they hate freedom and religion.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
And you're a moron.
...did the Constitution say anything about the internet? cars? etc?? NO---
Another lesson, moron???
Comin' right up:
Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
Have you ever read a book??????
Start here:
It's the very 1st clause of the 1st sentence....the tax exemption actually seems to violate this sentiment:That was a good catch...So why do churches get a tax break? The OP is correct in that preaching politics from the pulpit violates separation of church and state as was Jefferson's clear intent behind the 1st...the churches are not perfect....they can be wrong also
..they rape children and then the hierarchy tries to cover it up
..they TORTURED people
...they punished Galileo
...they pillaged a CHRISTIAN city for -------------$$$$$
Siege of Zara - Wikipedia
Of course they are not. The church has a long and rich history. And let’s be real, a lot of that history is positively awful and barbaric.
Personal is personal. Not between Man & his govt. Not between Man & his church. Not between govt & churches. Now If churches could prove themselves of net tangible, nondiscriminatory value to the public at large,.. especially contrasted with secular institutions who'd obviously benefit from the tax free status tremendously,..Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship
if the 501c3 is a Law doing something at all...its a Law that recognizes the establishment and its not supposed to do THAT, either.
except for the fact hes full of shit and nothing he said is true,,,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
--hahahahha--ok ....a very mature/etc response.so, you show your immaturity/idiocy by insults...ALL guidebooks/constitutions/laws/etc are just that = GUIDES....they can be interpreted many ways...they can't put everything into themCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Democrats passed the restriction because they hate freedom and religion.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
And you're a moron.
...did the Constitution say anything about the internet? cars? etc?? NO---
Another lesson, moron???
Comin' right up:
Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
Have you ever read a book??????
Start here:
That's a clause that ends in a comma -It's the very 1st clause of the 1st sentence....the tax exemption actually seems to violate this sentiment:That was a good catch...So why do churches get a tax break? The OP is correct in that preaching politics from the pulpit violates separation of church and state as was Jefferson's clear intent behind the 1st.Of course they are not. The church has a long and rich history. And let’s be real, a lot of that history is positively awful and barbaric.
Personal is personal. Not between Man & his govt. Not between Man & his church. Not between govt & churches. Now If churches could prove themselves of net tangible, nondiscriminatory value to the public at large,.. especially contrasted with secular institutions who'd obviously benefit from the tax free status tremendously,..Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship
if the 501c3 is a Law doing something at all...its a Law that recognizes the establishment and its not supposed to do THAT, either.
except for the fact hes full of shit and nothing he said is true,,,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
you cant edit it to make your case,,,
If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?
It’s already been taxed.
That's a clause that ends in a comma -It's the very 1st clause of the 1st sentence....the tax exemption actually seems to violate this sentiment:That was a good catch...So why do churches get a tax break? The OP is correct in that preaching politics from the pulpit violates separation of church and state as was Jefferson's clear intent behind the 1st.
Personal is personal. Not between Man & his govt. Not between Man & his church. Not between govt & churches. Now If churches could prove themselves of net tangible, nondiscriminatory value to the public at large,.. especially contrasted with secular institutions who'd obviously benefit from the tax free status tremendously,..
if the 501c3 is a Law doing something at all...its a Law that recognizes the establishment and its not supposed to do THAT, either.
except for the fact hes full of shit and nothing he said is true,,,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
you cant edit it to make your case,,,
does the rest of it negate that 1st clause? If I thought it did, you coulda had it: here ya go dude...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
factually wrong...from the IRS:If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?
It’s already been taxed.
there is no law/code that says gifts under 10K are tax exempt,,,
all the 10K mark is for is to document anytime more than 10K cash changes hands,,,
what it does says is cash is not considered income,,,
It also respects an establishment of...That's a clause that ends in a comma -It's the very 1st clause of the 1st sentence....the tax exemption actually seems to violate this sentiment:That was a good catch...
if the 501c3 is a Law doing something at all...its a Law that recognizes the establishment and its not supposed to do THAT, either.
except for the fact hes full of shit and nothing he said is true,,,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
you cant edit it to make your case,,,
does the rest of it negate that 1st clause? If I thought it did, you coulda had it: here ya go dude...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
and a 501c3 prohibits the free exercise thereof,,,
factually wrong...from the IRS:If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?
It’s already been taxed.
there is no law/code that says gifts under 10K are tax exempt,,,
all the 10K mark is for is to document anytime more than 10K cash changes hands,,,
what it does says is cash is not considered income,,,
GIFT GIVINGIf you give any one person gifts valued at more than $10,000 in a year, it is necessary to report the total gift to the Internal Revenue Service. You may even have to pay tax on the gift. The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value.
ohhh fuckin god dude, you're one of those huh?factually wrong...from the IRS:If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?
It’s already been taxed.
there is no law/code that says gifts under 10K are tax exempt,,,
all the 10K mark is for is to document anytime more than 10K cash changes hands,,,
what it does says is cash is not considered income,,,
GIFT GIVINGIf you give any one person gifts valued at more than $10,000 in a year, it is necessary to report the total gift to the Internal Revenue Service. You may even have to pay tax on the gift. The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value.
your comment lacks a link or tax code number to back it up,,,
It also respects an establishment of...That's a clause that ends in a comma -It's the very 1st clause of the 1st sentence....the tax exemption actually seems to violate this sentiment:except for the fact hes full of shit and nothing he said is true,,,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
you cant edit it to make your case,,,
does the rest of it negate that 1st clause? If I thought it did, you coulda had it: here ya go dude...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
and a 501c3 prohibits the free exercise thereof,,,
double banger! No more tax exempt status!
That's nice - but you said congress creating laws are restricted by the 1st amendment...It also respects an establishment of...That's a clause that ends in a comma -It's the very 1st clause of the 1st sentence....the tax exemption actually seems to violate this sentiment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
you cant edit it to make your case,,,
does the rest of it negate that 1st clause? If I thought it did, you coulda had it: here ya go dude...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
and a 501c3 prohibits the free exercise thereof,,,
double banger! No more tax exempt status!
sorry but taxs cause restrictions of a religion and prohibit it from exercising their rights
ohhh fuckin god dude, you're one of those huh?factually wrong...from the IRS:If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?
It’s already been taxed.
there is no law/code that says gifts under 10K are tax exempt,,,
all the 10K mark is for is to document anytime more than 10K cash changes hands,,,
what it does says is cash is not considered income,,,
GIFT GIVINGIf you give any one person gifts valued at more than $10,000 in a year, it is necessary to report the total gift to the Internal Revenue Service. You may even have to pay tax on the gift. The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value.
your comment lacks a link or tax code number to back it up,,,
Frequently Asked Questions on Gift Taxes | Internal Revenue Service
ok youngster--hahahahha--ok ....a very mature/etc response.so, you show your immaturity/idiocy by insults...ALL guidebooks/constitutions/laws/etc are just that = GUIDES....they can be interpreted many ways...they can't put everything into them
The Constitution is the law of the land.
And you're a moron.
...did the Constitution say anything about the internet? cars? etc?? NO---
Another lesson, moron???
Comin' right up:
Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
Have you ever read a book??????
Start here:
Am I supposed to pretend that someone with no education....you.....has a valid opinion?????
Guess again.
Remember the last time you were right about anything?
Me neither.
The Laws are referenced in the link...why are you just being a dick as opposed to having a discussion? Take a break if you get so triggeredohhh fuckin god dude, you're one of those huh?factually wrong...from the IRS:If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?
It’s already been taxed.
there is no law/code that says gifts under 10K are tax exempt,,,
all the 10K mark is for is to document anytime more than 10K cash changes hands,,,
what it does says is cash is not considered income,,,
GIFT GIVINGIf you give any one person gifts valued at more than $10,000 in a year, it is necessary to report the total gift to the Internal Revenue Service. You may even have to pay tax on the gift. The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value.
your comment lacks a link or tax code number to back it up,,,
Frequently Asked Questions on Gift Taxes | Internal Revenue Service
sorry jr but IRS publications are not law,, a law is backed up by a number,,,
ok youngster--hahahahha--ok ....a very mature/etc response.so, you show your immaturity/idiocy by insultsThe Constitution is the law of the land.
And you're a moron.
...did the Constitution say anything about the internet? cars? etc?? NO---
Another lesson, moron???
Comin' right up:
Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
Have you ever read a book??????
Start here:
Am I supposed to pretend that someone with no education....you.....has a valid opinion?????
Guess again.
Remember the last time you were right about anything?
Me neither.
Madison attempted to include states in the establishment clause but was defeated in the senate. Later the Blaine amendment tried to include states in the establishment clause which was also defeated. It is important to note that the Blaine amendment was defeated by the same authors of the 14th amendment. The reason it is important is because the 14th amendment was later used (Gitlow v. New York (1925)) to include states in the establishment clause. The 14th was also used to include states in the 2nd amendment. Both "judgements" were blatantly unconstitutional.LOL. A big part of seeking "Independence" in the first place was escaping state establishment of churches or religions. "State" meaning federal or state. Govts cannot establish religions period.The establishment clause was written to prevent a national religion and to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions which were perfectly constitutional.
Inheritance tax being the most blatant.there's a lot of double, triple sometimes quadruple tax fuckery going on. its grossIf you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?
It’s already been taxed.
