Isn't it about time that we ended the anything- goes-in-the name-of-religion thing in this country?

Does this define religious freedom?

We need to tax so called religious property with perhaps an exception for the land the actual church sits on. That might help eliminate the fringe nutcase religions.

I agree, although I'd like to see the land taxed as well.

There are religious organizations out on the prairies (at least there are in Canada) who can run gigantic farms and not pay taxes because they're "religious." Perhaps there could be a size cap on church land that could be taxed. I'm all for revoking any tax exemptions to religious organizations.

I'm also all for busting these polygamous colonies. I don't really have a problem with polygamy itself, but I have a big problem with people who brainwash their offspring with religious POV's and I have a huge problem if part of that includes marrying teenagers off to old men.

Why exactly are they tax free? I just don't get the concept.

Because many people put them on the same level as a charity... Since back in the day many churches acted like one.

Because they provide a service, just like schools and non profit organizations.

Yes, scientology provides a valuable service to the community.

It doesn't have to be valuable, it just has to be a non profit service.

And scientology provides a church for its followers, and services as well.

We all know scientology doesn't count. A real church doesn't charge you a hundred thousand dollars before telling you that everything they used to recruit you was a lie.

Again, I'm stumped, what service is that?

I'm too lazy to look it up, and I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was Marx that said that Religion is the opiate of the masses.

It provides comfort, it provides socialization, it gives people a chance to 'join something' greater than themselves.

When a family member dies, it's often the 'church' who steps in and provides for the family in ways that no government could.

Originally, the churches themselves were 'tax free' land. They were only there as places of worship and the government has held a long standing policy of the 'separation of church and state' even though it's nowhere to be found in the constitution. Church property, church income, church workers were all 'hands off' from taxes and regulations.

People have exploited it. Churches ran Bingo nights because it was a 'CHURCH' function, not a profit one. This allowed gambling in areas where it was forbidden. Churches ran Ranches. No need to tax those. Their intent was to have a place to practice their own worship and style of life (Amish?) not to merely dodge taxes (we hope).

The moment you begin stepping into the state with your church, I think the state should step back. Any case in which a single man has two 'wives' collecting welfare, it's welfare fraud. Any case where a man has underaged marriages, or inbred marriages, the state should step in.

America is about freedom, and when basic freedoms are denied to children and women, we have the duty to protect them.

I'm not anti-polygamy. It's weird yes, but if two women and a man are Happy living together, and they make that choice, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. The churches tell them they're wrong, the government tells them they're wrong, but I'm more laid back. As long as all participants are free to do what they want.

Does that answer the question? :)

Well, yes and no. They are for profit. They don't actually step in to help the families as much as they encourage their parishners to do that and most have political motivations.

Since they aren't providing the actual service, merely encouraging parishners to do so, they should be taxed.

As for the counseling part, saying "God has a plan" or "Trust in God" or "It's God's will" cannot be considered counseling in any way, shape or form. It's a pacifier at the best and a cop-out at the least.

But yeah, I get your point, I was being facetious with my questions.

While the first amendment does not specifically use those words President Thomas Jefferson did use them in his understanding of the first amendment in his letter to a Baptist Minister in 1802:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

His interpretation has ever since been accepted as definitive.

You are correct, however many people misunderstand what is meant by the separation of church and state.

It is not a separation of the church from the state, NOR is it a separation of the state from the church. The separation of the church and state Jefferson is talking about is one where the state is not the Church and where the state does not have a religion.

Many people believe that this means you can't bring any religious ideas into the government, but in reality it's only protecting against an established religion.

Yes, many people believe that because that is exactly what it means.

The STATE is the government in it's entirety and not just a branch.

It's a protection from any religious ideas being entwined with government even those under the guise of majority belief. That sort of encroachment could be the beginnings of a state sponsored/approved religion.

In it's simplest form, it means that the taxpayers will/should be free from any religious intrusion regardless of whether it's an established or marginal religion. Unfortunately that idea has already been corrupted with symbolic displays in our schools, courtrooms, public parks, our money and other taxpayer funded entities.
Prayers before congessional business etc. etc. etc. You all know the drill.

Yes, I understand that, I'm a political science major and have been interested in government/politics since the third grade.

Very, VERY incorrect. It's a protection from a state (meaning national) church or religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This means that there shall be no law made with the establishment of a national church or religion. In fact, when the Constitution was signed in, and for quite a while afterwards, many states had their own religions that eventually faded off as people got less interested in it. Thus, a national sponsored religion is unconstitutional.

However, that does not mean that the state must be an atheistic entity (and by that I mean a government free from religion), it just means that the government cannot force religion.

Again, incorrect. The taxpayers are not free from religion. That is not the intent of the first amendment; in fact it's going directly against the first amendment.

If someone doesn't want to participate in the religion, they don't have to. They're not being forced to recognize Jesus as Savior or Muhammed as a prophet.

Does that mean that they should continue this stuff? Not in the least. But it is most certainly not unconstitutional.

Sorry 13, you have so many incorrect and confused interpretations in your response I just can't be bothered doing all the work of responding.

Good luck with your political science studies....um, wasn't it economics last week?

If there's one person that has so many incorrect and confused interpretations, it would be you. I have taken classes specifically on the First Amendment, and am taking another currently on the Constitution as a whole, where we have read and discussed Jefferson's letter. The Constitution is probably my most fully studied government document. But that's fine, I don't think we're ever going to agree.

However, I WOULD appreciate you actually reading the Constitution for what it says, and not for what you want it to say. It's pretty straight forward when it comes to religion and free speech.

Economics was my minor BTW, not my major.

You're right 13, we're not going to agree.
End of story.

But it might be of some help to you if you tried harder to understand the things that you read and not try to force your interpretation on them.