You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Created4 again.Originally Posted by Created4
http://www.citizensgrandjury.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_grand_jury
Last edited by Pauls' Revere; 05-25-2020 at 08:56 AM.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
This from an article dated in 2018 but relevant:
https://www.newsmax.com/larryklayman.../24/id/856407/
There is only one way that the nation will restore itself to equal justice under the law, as it was designed on July 4, 1776, in my birthplace of Philadelphia. In this regard, We the People must now take a page from the “Old West,” before there was any U.S. Department of Justice, and implement citizens’ grand juries, citizens’ trials, and legal citizens law enforcement. In this regard, our venerable and regrettably now deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the landmark case of United States v. Williams, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1992), that the grand jury under our Constitution does not belong to any of the three branches of government, but instead to We the People. As a result, the citizenry are empowered to empanel grand juries, indict, try, convict and mete out sentences for those accused of crimes.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
Nope. The framers of our Constitution were fleeing England and the tyrannical Church of England and their intent is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
No special status for "the church." They experienced first hand in England how tyrannical a church institution with special status can be.
Remember, this is how the First Amendment starts: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." So when you say a church business has special status ("respect") over other businesses, you actually violate this part of the First Amendment.
The practice of religion is not dependent on keeping a business open.
Your views are better discussed on a forum that debates theocracy and other theological issues.
Last edited by Created4; 05-25-2020 at 09:15 AM.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
Amen!
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
You know, perhaps we might have greater influence if we all served on Citizen Grand Juries?
Congress is hopeless and we sure as hell aren't going to get the presidency.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
There was a group a few years back I knew of who was trying to do this. But I don't think they had any success, and in fact I think some of them were prosecuted and suffered harm (don't quote me on this, I am relying on memory and it was some years ago.)
It's a very corrupt and powerful system (the judiciary), and it would probably take someone very high up on the political ladder to step forward and endorse the practice and offer protection for those exercising their Constitutional freedoms like this.
Not to mention that you would have to educate and wake up the sheeple, a mammoth task, but COVID has opened up some new doors of understanding, for sure.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
@realDonaldTrump Sir, please write an Executive Order that establishes the formation of Citizen Grand Juries in every state and territory.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
Religions are NOT technically a "business". And, therefore the gov shall make NO LAW. Period. The 1st Amendment was specifically "1st" because of the colonies fear of religious persecution.
And, yes, it's wrong for the gov to shut down businesses but it does it all the time with regulations, stuff like FDA standards, etc. People are now just starting to notice.
There is no spoon.
Then they were unaffected by the lockdowns, because only 501c3 non-profit corporations called "churches," licensed by the state, were shut down.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
One of the biggest ruses the gov ever pulled was convincing many churches to be 501c3s. A church is already legally a non-profit & does not have to be a 501c3 corp. A lot of churches are starting to wake up to that.
There is no spoon.
the 9th circuit court has been the enemy of Americans for decades. COMMUNIST CALIFORNIA PUPPET COURT
Perhaps they should be listed as an entity with individual status and be taxed like a person.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
Let me help you with the English...
Part of the practice of religion is peaceably assembling together in worship. Since the gov can't interfere in that assembly, they can't prevent the church from meeting together.
It's not an Establishment, it's Free Exercise that is at issue here. The 1st Amendment SPECIFICALLY prohibits government from preventing the church from meeting, both from a Practice standpoint AND an Assembly standpoint.
Now, let's see where in the Constitution business is so protected, and then you can put them on an equivalent footing.
You're command of the English language is outstanding. Almost as good as your interpretation of the Constitution....
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
Churches should never be taxed.
There is no spoon.
I'll respectfully disagree with you on that one.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
You are allowed. LOL- but churches should always be tax-free- otherwise they are under the dictates of the gov. And most taxes are unconstitutional anyway.
There is no spoon.
See, [sigh] i"m under government dictates as well.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
Isn't a private business owner protected based on property rights?
All depends on whether or not they are involved in Interstate Commerce in any way, or other considerations. Society has foolishly given governments the authority to regulate business, and that opened door could be used to tell them to shut down. Private individuals and churchgoers are outside of that sphere.
Why should a preacher's income be treated differently than anyone else's income?
Because it is a) part of separation of church & state and b) most pastor's "incomes" are from donations- AND, again- most taxes are unconstitutional.
There is no spoon.
It shouldn't. If the income tax is unfair, it is unfair to all.
The people here arguing that the Christian Churches have special status under the 1st Amendment are grossly mistaken, and they seem to ignore the very first part of the amendment which clearly states the intent of the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Not one person in this thread claiming that the 1st Amendment gives special status to churches has dealt with this opening phrase.
This was written because the Church of England was a tyrannical institution that forced people to do its will through government (King of England), and this Amendment was to PREVENT any church or religious institution from having "special status" to force people by decree of government to participate in tyranny.
The right to "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was because people in England (similar to people in Italy with the Pope and Roman Catholicism) had no choice but to recognize the Church of England as the only official church, and they were prevented from forming or following other religious institutions.
It is a PERSONAL right (Freedom of Religion), NOT a "special class" right to Christian Churches, which is such a perversion of what was intended in the First Amendment.
Of course I have explained all this previously in this thread, and it will not sway "the believers."
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
Nope.https://www.frc.org/taxexemptionchurches
The Purpose of the Exemption
Tax exemption for churches protects religious entities from the state. Giving government authority to tax religious entities not only breaches the protective wall of separation that guards the church from the state, but effectively knocks that wall down.
Religious values have long infused American public life and law, yet as institutions, church and state are distinct institutionally. Giving any government, whether federal, state, or local, the legal authority to tax property belonging to religious entities is only a first step toward making churches institutionally subservient to that government. This is a dramatic departure from the very foundation of our country, one informed by the belief that religious liberty is pre-governmental and removed from the management of the state.
In addition to its protective role, tax exemption for churches brings great and often ignored benefit to society. To tax churches would be to diminish that benefit so substantially as to cripple it, thus adversely affecting the common good of innumerable communities and, in aggregate, the nation.
Erik Stanley of the Alliance Defending Freedom suggests three ways in which tax exemptions for churches provide inestimable social benefit:
First, there is the "social benefit" theory of tax exemption. This recognizes the fact that churches provide great benefits to society by their good works. Churches minister to the poor and needy in the community, provide numerous social services for the downtrodden among us, and reach out to the "least of these" in thousands of different ways. The social benefit theory justifies tax exemption for churches as a kind of bargain -- churches provide needed services, so they are entitled to tax exemption ...
(Second) ... is what I have termed the "intangible benefit" theory of tax exemption. This highlights the intangible and often unseen benefits provided by churches to the community. Things like reduced crime rates resulting from transformed lives, suicides prevented when people surrender to Christ, and people with destructive behavioral patterns that harm the community changing into hard-working and virtuous citizens who contribute to the well-being of the community. It is difficult to put a price tag on these types of intangible benefits provided by churches, but there is no question they exist.
(Third) ... there is also a constitutional reason why churches are tax exempt. Our history is one of an unbroken practice of exempting churches from taxation. Churches were exempt from the very first time the tax code was passed at the federal level, and have remained exempt in every iteration of the tax code ever since. Every state in America also exempts churches from property taxes. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case regarding the property tax exemption of churches, called Walz v. Tax Commission, it stated that providing a tax exemption for churches was a less intrusive option under the Constitution than requiring churches to pay taxes.
There is a final reason why churches are not taxed: As noted above, by providing both immediate practical benefits to their communities and intangible benefits related to healthy families and a more civil society, the church relieves government of a significant part of its public duties. Yet there are those who would like that relief voided for the sake of government usurping, much more actively, the social ministries of the churches.
There is no spoon.
Sorry Ender, this is nothing but an appeal to authority (FRC), as all this is is their opinion, and none of it is based on the First Amendment.
Most of it is all based on "theory"
I am very very familiar with these arguments over the years, and I really am not interested in debating them.First, there is the "social benefit" theory...
(Second) ... is what I have termed the "intangible benefit" theory
The whole point here in this thread, is that the lockdowns were NOT based on refusing religious rights, and this was the WRONG thing to litigate.
The lockdowns applied to more than just religious businesses, and what should have been debated in the judicial system is the Constitutional authority to use a FAKE pandemic to lock down ANYTHING.
That's where the debate needs to be, and I am not interested in debating Christian views on church and state.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
(1 John 4:18)
I agree totally about the lockdowns - no problem, my friend. As a Minister under a Vow of Poverty, I DO have my particular POVs that have come from heavy research. That said, we do NOT have to agree.
It's always a pleasure to converse with a kind and intelligent human being, whether we agree or not.
Thank You!
There is no spoon.
I can't write this enough:
PEOPLE WHO "REGISTER" THEIR BUSINESSES WITH THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS ARE LEGALLY TURNING OVER OWNERSHIP OF THE BUSINESS, WHETHER A CHURCH OR A LAUNDROMAT MATTERS NOT, TO THE GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION IT WAS REGISTERED WITH. THIS SINGLE ACT OF REGISTRATION AND THE SUBSEQUENT ISSUANCE OF A "BUSINESS LICENSE" IS WHERE THE GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION DERIVES THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ABRIDGE THE CONSTITUTION UNDER THIS CURRENT CORPORATE LEGAL SYSTEM. IOW, THE GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION IS SHUTTING DOWN ITS OWN PROPERTY, NOT INFRINGING ON YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. STOP SIGNING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS PEOPLE!
The Bible does not say, "Wherever you find two or more people gathered in my name, you will find me, as long as you applied for a TAX ID first and a license."
The courts will never outright explain this justification for their (government as a whole) jurisdiction in the first place since that gives away the secret keys to the kingdom, so to speak, but it is true.
Last edited by devil21; 05-26-2020 at 03:43 PM.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
a) What separation of church and state? That phrase is nowhere in the constitution.
b) Okay? An ACLU employee's income comes from donations, and they get taxed.
c) Whether most taxes are unconstitutional or not is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the level of taxes. All I asked is if preachers' income should be treated differently. If a certain set of taxes is applied, whatever those taxes are, they should be the same.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us