IF a religion said: "thy shall not pay taxes"

sry mods if this is in the wrong place, please move it if it is...

what IF a religion said: "thy shall not pay taxes" OR "thy shall not pay for things" OR examples of this nature...

here comes the question and political part...

how would america react to this religion and this rule, after all america was founded on freedom of religion right???

would the government say: "no way" or would "they" actualy think about it???

please dont say: "there is no such a religion and there will never be such a religion"

this is a hypothetical question...

I may be a devout Catholic but get me on that religion's waiting list .

Since we are used to capitalism and the tax system we could never accept such a religion. While I am a hater of taxes and would love to see income tax banned, something like that oculd'nt exist in America.

Originally posted by JediMaster
I may be a devout Catholic but get me on that religion's waiting list

.

Since we are used to capitalism and the tax system we could never accept such a religion. While I am a hater of taxes and would love to see income tax banned, something like that oculd'nt exist in America.

so even though our "founding fathers" fought so hard for freedom of religion way back then, we (american people) CANNOT have this freedom because we are "used to capitalism and the tax system"???

hmmmm...

You'd be told that you'd forgotten the Bible... "Render unto Caesar...."

Religion may not form an important part of YOUR life, but I assure you that every religious priest of ALL affiliations (except, perhaps, the Pagans) would come down in favor of a tax.... for tithes are taxes and they do need your tithes to support them.

"priest", there is used in the anthropological sense and should loosely be translated as "priest/minister/guru/whatever." The minute that a religious group gets large enough to support a full-time minister, Tithing And Taxes Happen. Fact of life... political and economic.


(I know I said I had quit doing Anthro 101 lectures tonight... but... I just couldn't help myself this time...)

So if pay no taxes, that also means pay no taxes, oops donations, to the church. It seems they charge taxes to be part of the church, or your out in the hot (hell). Please note this is a personal opinion!

Originally posted by Byrd
You'd be told that you'd forgotten the Bible... "Render unto Caesar...."

Religion may not form an important part of YOUR life, but I assure you that every religious priest of ALL affiliations (except, perhaps, the Pagans) would come down in favor of a tax.... for tithes are taxes and they do need your tithes to support them.

"priest", there is used in the anthropological sense and should loosely be translated as "priest/minister/guru/whatever." The minute that a religious group gets large enough to support a full-time minister, Tithing And Taxes Happen. Fact of life... political and economic.


(I know I said I had quit doing Anthro 101 lectures tonight... but... I just couldn't help myself this time...)

i actualy WAS thinking about "Render unto Caesar...." (what is due to him) when i was typing this, and this is why i posted: "please dont say: "there is no such a religion and there will never be such a religion"

REMEMBER this is a "what IF question"...

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
So if pay no taxes, that also means pay no taxes, oops donations, to the church. It seems they charge taxes to be part of the church, or your out in the hot (hell). Please note this is a personal opinion!

it seems EVERY one in this thread is being limited to the CATHOLIC religion or "the church"

NO DONT DO THIS!!!

the CATHOLIC religion ALREADY says that it is "ok" to pay taxes so this means that the CATHOLIC religion is OUT of this discussion...

Actually a church already tried this tact.

For 16 years the leaders of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple refused to withhold federal taxes from their employees' paychecks or to pay federal taxes as an employer. The protest came to an end Feb. 13, 2001, when federal marshals seized the church building to pay taxes and fines totalling $6 million.

Didn't work out too well. IRS seizes church

Originally posted by Bleys
Actually a church already tried this tact.

For 16 years the leaders of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple refused to withhold federal taxes from their employees' paychecks or to pay federal taxes as an employer. The protest came to an end Feb. 13, 2001, when federal marshals seized the church building to pay taxes and fines totalling $6 million.

Didn't work out too well. IRS seizes church

was this america denying freedom of religion OR when the article says "refused to withhold federal taxes from their employees' paychecks or to pay federal taxes as an employer" it means they did not want to, and this was NOT a belief in their religion???

good (and funny) read that works well with this thread

Just because you asked...

The Dixons based their legal defense on the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion, arguing that Jesus Christ is the only authority over the church and that withholding taxes would impose a secular authority over the church, thereby violating its core belief.

Indianapolis Baptist Temple also argued that the tax laws imposed on churches violate the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause" which is the basis for separation of church and state

It would appear that freedom of religon was their whole argument.

Originally posted by they see ALL
i actualy WAS thinking about "Render unto Caesar...." (what is due to him) when i was typing this, and this is why i posted: "please dont say: "there is no such a religion and there will never be such a religion"

REMEMBER this is a "what IF question"...

Right. And my point was that you haven't taken into account the anthropology of religion.

Religions can exist as inefficient small groups, but the minute they become a part of a larger group, they develop political power and a "big man" and cohorts (priests/ministers/etc.) In order to make sure the religion stays on track 24/7, they have formal leaders.

These formal leaders need a means of support. So you would end up paying taxes/tithes to them.

Without it, you're as coherent a religion as the Pagan movements (I'm a Pagan, myself, and we've got about every imaginable twist on theology that you can count.) You couldn't enforce the "religion of no taxes" simply because the first religion that came along and financially supported its religious officials (ministers/flamen/priests/gurus) would overwhelm the No Resources Religion and it would be gone.

Pronto.

Originally posted by they see ALL
was this america denying freedom of religion OR when the article says "refused to withhold federal taxes from their employees' paychecks or to pay federal taxes as an employer" it means they did not want to, and this was NOT a belief in their religion???

As I recall, they made it a point of theology in some way. It was laughed out of the courts.

Your religion can't supersede the laws of any nation, otherwise it would be illegal in that nation. Remember that the nation holds the ultimate contol over laws and resources.

Let's take a more clear-cut example... suppose your religion practiced human sacrifice as part of its worship (like the Aztecs did.) In an Absolute Freedom Of Religion area, you should be able to capture and sacrifice as many slaves as you like to keep the gods happy. In real life, no nation permits this sort of thing and your religion would quickly be squashed out of existance.

So too with any religious practice that violates the laws of the nation where it resides.

[edit on 27-7-2004 by Byrd]

I have just converted.

This is a ridiculous discussion. Suppose a religion requires its members to perform ritual sacrifice by murdering human beings. Or to have sex with underage children. Are we going to allow them to do these things in the name of freedom of religion?

There is at least one example to the contrary. Members of native Indian religions are allowed to use peyote cactus in their religious rituals.

Still, in general, we cannot allow people to violate the law in the name of freedom of religion. Otherwise, every criminal defendant would claim that his religion required him to do whatever crime he was charged with.

Why do you people sit around dreaming up ridiculous hypothetical questions? There are plenty of real questions about the real world that need to be answered.


[edit on 7/28/2004 by donguillermo]

No religion would ever tell their people not to pay taxes. How else do you think the churches get their money?

Originally posted by Byrd

Right. And my point was that you haven't taken into account the anthropology of religion.

Religions can exist as inefficient small groups, but the minute they become a part of a larger group, they develop political power and a "big man" and cohorts (priests/ministers/etc.) In order to make sure the religion stays on track 24/7, they have formal leaders.

These formal leaders need a means of support. So you would end up paying taxes/tithes to them.

Without it, you're as coherent a religion as the Pagan movements (I'm a Pagan, myself, and we've got about every imaginable twist on theology that you can count.) You couldn't enforce the "religion of no taxes" simply because the first religion that came along and financially supported its religious officials (ministers/flamen/priests/gurus) would overwhelm the No Resources Religion and it would be gone.

Pronto.

what IF this church of no taxes was only made up of one group of 20 people who met in the woods (just the woods and NO house or ANYTHING) once every week???

this church does NOT need money from the state or government to get support because they meet in the woods...

they believed in "thy shall not pay taxes"...

would it work now???

The Amish are about as close as you could possibly get to the religion you are talking about, and they stick to themselves.

they see all - the awnser is no. Mormons believe that polygamy is proscribed by thier religon but polygamy is illegal in The U.S. so they cannot have multiple marriages. The supreme court ruled on this a long time ago.

Originally posted by mwm1331
they see all - the awnser is no. Mormons believe that polygamy is proscribed by thier religon but polygamy is illegal in The U.S. so they cannot have multiple marriages. The supreme court ruled on this a long time ago.

thanks but i dont know what the heck you are talking about...

this is NOT a "yes" or "no" question and we are not talking about marriages...

Doesn't matter the legal principle is the same. If a given religons precepts violate U.S. law then freedom of religon des not apply. The only reason an exception was made for the Native American church on the issue of peyote is that Native American tribes are independant nations. Also the only people who can take advantage of the peyote exemption are those who are at least 1/4 native American and the worshp must tke place on a reservation. The rastfarians believe that smoking marijuana is thier religons proscribed way of worship but there is no marijuana exemption for rasta's. The mormons believe in polygamy but there is no exemption for mormons. If a religon says "pay no taxes" the U.S. gov will say "You have the right to worship any god you wish but you as an American citizen still have to pay."

So yes it is a yes or no awnser and the awnser is no, you will always have to pay taxes.