jaf2, you wrongly quoted me as saying:

"the establishment of religion"

I only said your words mean:

"the establishment of a religion" (note the word "a" before the word "religion.")

It is wrong for you to misleadingly quote only part of what I said for the purpose of making it appear that I said something I didn't say.

just wondering where I said "the" establishment without quoting one of your own posts.

Pastafarian, if churches were taxed "out of existence," their religiosity could still exist in the way that christianity originally existed. Like that stuff in the bible which was never condemned by any christians in the bible -including Jesus himself, nor by christianity's subsequent theologicians. Problem solved.

My pet rock died for the sins of all pet rocks, yet it lives still in that large quarry in the sky.

I've always thought that tax exempt status for churches was there so they could not be taxed out of existence. If the powers that be didn't like them that is.

jaf2, my 8:01am comment was in response to your last comment.

Yes, prounion, but I'm pretty sure Religious Right won't allow the government to worship a pet rock. They already got their pet dead human.

Pet rocks are animals if you believe enough and are blessed with faith.

As you read this comment while already committed to not responding to it, know this:

You said "the establishment of religion" I didn't. I said that your meaning amounts to "the establishment of a religion." Focus on your own words. You are bogging down on this.

And recognizing churches as legitimate businesses only recognizes them as profit generating entities (e.g. the splendor of the Vatican and its inhabitants). Such recognition pays no mind to the authenticity of the "supernatural" any more than the sale of pet rocks recognizes pet rocks as animals.

One more then I will consider it time to move on. "An" means "an", and "the" means "the". You have said yourself that "an establishment of religion" could just as easily have been written as "the establishment of religion". You are the one doing what you have just claimed that I have done: "presenting it as 'the establishment of a religion.'" (your words). You say that I am presenting "an" as "the establishment of religion". Sir, that is precisely what you have been trying to convince me of, that THE establishment of religion is what was meant by AN establishment of religion. In no way, shape or form is that what I was trying to convey. By not respecting an establishment of religion, (The Catholic Church, Baptist Church, 7th Day Adventist, Islam, etc are all establishments of religion), neither is to be respected above any of the others as "the Church of the USA." The primary purpose for the migration across the pond was to escape the boundary of the Church of England, and the privilege to worship as they chose (free exercise thereof) without fear of retribution for violating law. The two clauses are different. If, however, laws were written as to your definition of this part of the First Amendment, then the free exercise clause would be irrelevant because religion would be banned. I have no issue with anybody who chooses to, or not to, believe in God or practice their beliefs however they choose. If you don't like a display, don't look at it. Nobody's forcing anything on you.

In the end, this article is about whether to tax a church. Would that not then be stirring yet another pot by the federal government now recognizing said church(es) as legitimate business? You sure you want to go there given your atheistic view?

jaf2, it is your misunderstanding of the words "an (also "a")," and "the" that's the problem. You describe "an" as a definite article though it is an indefinite article e.g. "an establishment of religion" is a non specific reference to religion in general. Contrary to how the Clause is written you are presenting it as "the establishment of a religion." Get a grip on the difference between definite and indefinite articles.

And, in your attempted "establishment" simile, you use the word "establishment" in a different form than how it was used in the Establishment Clause. Your alcohol establishment" is one place or status. "Establishment" in the Clause is an action word, as in "being established" or "establishing." (An establishment of baseball is not the establishing of one team.)

It's crucial for you to understand that the word "establishment" has more than one form. Otherwise, the comma and the word "or" in the Clause have no purpose. The two parts of the Clause say two non-identical things.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

And by the way...I am not trumpeting a pro religion stance...I took an oath many years ago to support and defend the Constitution. You sir, in your statements are clearly one whom I am defending it from. I am certain you believe that what you say and write is your understanding, and yes, I understand about the letter to the Danbury Baptists and other communications. However, the literal wording is the only wording. Your statements are contrary to the literal wording of the Constitution. Therefore I must speak up against that which you (and others with your same sentiment) write. Particularly your previous response is not at all accurate in what you try to define "an establishment" meaning "religion, period".

So, using your wonderful command of the English language, to revoke the license to an establishment to serve alcohol is to ban the service of alcohol, in any bar, period. You must be one of the folks suggesting the need for us to learn Spanish, because clearly even the simplest forms of the English language (articles--a, an, and the) are quite difficult for your comprehension.

jaf2, "...an establishment of religion..." means religion period. If that weren't the meaning, then, what follows ..."or prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof..." wouldn't be necessary.

The way you explain the establishment cause makes the religion reference in the First Amendment redundant. Also, factor in that the Founding Fathers rejected any semblance of a state religion. Don't do to the First Amendment what you believers do to the bible in order to rationalize its violence and horror.

Why is it that if you edit your own post it is npt simply an edit but a duplicate of a previous post with changes included?

Your post represents exactly the misconception I was talking about... “AN” establishment of religion is "a" church or denomination. (and by church i am referring to the body not the building.) the two do not mean the same thing..."THE" establishment of religion refers to foundation of new religion(s). ”Respecting” means giving preferenterial treatment to. “With respect to” has come to be a substitute phrase for “anything dealing with”. Again Respecting and With respect to do not mean the same thing.

The two do not mean the same thing...one recognizes the possibility for all religions to exist without giving preferential treatment (respecting) any. The later disavows any recognition of any religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion......"

.....could have just as easily been written....

"Congress shall make no law in respect to establishing religion......"

Just because the wording of the First Amendment is a little outdated doesn't mean it's unclear or ambivalent. It's obvious what it means. Especially in light of the Founding Fathers' negative view of religion.

As Constitutional arguments go, I believe the biggest misconceptions are with the words "respecting" and "an" (as opposed to "the"). I have often stated that if a group doesn't like the wording, then they should go about the processes of further amendment. That process is in fact what makes the Constitution a "living, breathing document". Not interpretations. That said...I will offer my interpretation. By "respecting" I believe the authors meant that no one religios denomination (i.e., Catholic vs. Baptist, Lutheran, or any other--and not necessarily even Christian--will be made a defacto "national religion") Additionally, by "an" the Constitution is referring to "a" church as far as being a preferred establishment of religion, not rejecting religion as a whole (that would be implied by using "THE establishment of religion").

Nitpicking at words, maybe. But they argued long and hard in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in an attempt to remove vague language. Apparently, they were not very successful or these arguments would have ended long ago.

The words "Congress shall make no law" however, are not very vague. Yet we constantly have people and groups requesting that laws be made. Any law regarding such would be unconstitutional.

Kettleblack: I can assure you that you already have freedom from the FFRF. You probably just heard of them today. Can you say the same for the religious fanatics that dominate our media and culture, who treat you as though you're crazy if you don't believe in the supernatural?

I believe the problem is that we have stop doing what our founding fathers built this country on. Everybody is sue happy now a days. Stop it and live life to the fullest

Yes--> JJBROWN - It was the "BUSH POLICIES" - You are correct in ALL you are saying. Let us not also forget the Bush war policies. All the lies about WMD. Koch and the others mentioned are also part of the problem and like the Re-FIB-licans - DON'T care about the working class people.

Churches are NOT the problem. For centuries they gave, and continue to give, generously back to people in real need. It was the BUSH Policies that drove the USA into a depression. Millions of people are still trying yo recover from the blow. The Churches have done their part to help...We cannot say the same for Grover Norquist and Koch Industries now can we?? Don’t you wonder just who is this Grover Norquist who has such a maniacal hold on the Republican Party?? In an interview in "60 minutes" it exposes the rank hypocrisy in the world in which Norquist inhabits. He terrifies Republican politicians into signing his tax pledge and then promises a swift death for their political career if they renounce it or vote for any type of measure that includes revenue increases of any measure by the federal government even if they have nothing to do with taxes...We are in BIG trouble with the GOP afraid to vote...to prevent the Fiscal Cliff... Now Grover is the proxy for the powerful interest groups that finance him. So, not only does the Norquist Pledge symbolize a "political system short on legitimacy.... it isn’t even about principle or ideology. Conservatism my foot, it’s all about the money.

these people need to be sued out of every thing they got, and stay out of every elses buisness, who are these dumb f--ks anyway

I'm forming an organization called, Freedom From The Freedom of Religion Foundation.

The trouble with a kitten is that, eventually it becomes a cat...Ogden Nash

This is more than a constitutional issue. Churches should lose their tax exempt status because they engage in political activity, in many cases actually telling their congregations who to vote for.

Since we are free to practice our own religion...of whatever we want, I want to worship cars. So can I get a tax break on cars?
It should be my right....right?

@tikiman - Speaking of weak minded, it's awfully egotistical to attribute your own insults, particularly if the quote isn't all that original anyway.

frankthetank04- Believing in something in case you may be wrong is pathetic. I quit believing in fairy tales around the age of 7.

nemesis-It's not about instituting their own religion. It's about removing a practice that violates the very core of our Constitution.

I wish these opinionated groups with alot of time to waste would say what they really mean. They would rather institute their own religion instead of the christian one. At the same time I hope you know what the definition of discrimination is.

usaret, there is no Constitutional separation of non-profit and state. But there is a Constitutional separation of church and state:

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ......"

That means Congress will do nothing to governmentally support, endorse, or establish a religion. A tax exemption for religion constitutes governmental endorsement and support for religion and therefore establishment of religion; therefore tax exemption for any religion is unConstitutional.

The Founding Fathers decided this because they lived in a world where religions were treating their members, other religions, and non-believers viciously. They intelligently concluded that a government religion or a government supported religion would wreak havoc on a free society. Think of the world of islam.

It's about time this is done.

Now we need to remove the "In God We Trust" label from our currency and we'll be all good.

"Religion is a disease of the weak minded."
-Me, 2012

Church's survive on donations. They have no fixed price for sermans, etc. To take away the tax exemption from them then you may as well eliminate tax exemptions for all. Goodwill, Salvation Army, USO, USOC, United Way, Veterans Organizations, Wounded Warriors. Yes you can say they aren't religious organizations but still they give favoritism over others and we can't have that in this day an age of enlightment, care, and compassion for our follow man.

You might as well save your breath if they're the same prayers you use to "save" the thousands of lost children who die each day from dirty water and starvation.

I'll pray for these lost people.

If you really think about the way the pope and his posse live (bejeweled clothing in a weird castle -at the cost of billions of dollars over the centuries- very unlike Jesus of Nazareth), you would be hard pressed to think of the whole shebang as non-profit.

The tax exempt status is especially abused with christianity's institutionalization of its child rape. The money the church saves by not paying taxes created, fostered, and justified its rape of children. If christinity had to depend solely on christians for money to make up for an absence the tax exemption, it might be kinder to the christians' children.

A church is no different than any other non-profit entity. I agree that they could file some of the paperwork, but the outcome would be no different. I think there are many other "real business entities" being run as non or not for profit entities that we should be more concerned about.

Btw:freedom OF religion...not FROM!

I have been in business for almost thirty years. I have dealt with churches many times. I can say for a fact the tax exempt status is abused by churches. I can also say tax exempt status is abused by all that have it. So many want me to not charge sales tax on personal services.

Got to agree with the FFRF on this one.

Jefferson made the wall of 'separation statement', Eyler only quoted him.

To say it's Eyler's statement and not Jefferson's reveals the cognitive impairment involved in skimming the internet with selective perception and confirmation bias.

This country was formed, at least in part, to get rid of government supported religious horror. Thus the establishment clause in the First Amendment. Tax exemptions for religious enterprises are a violation of that clause. The time has come to get rid of those exemptions.

This is one of three lawsuits the FFRF has with the IRS. The other two are removing tax exempt status for clegy that electioneer for politicians, and the parish exemption that gives unfair tax breaks to church leaders on their homes.
Given the FFRF's huge string of court victories in the past, I'd be surprised if they lost all three, but then again, they're tenacious.
I find the hate mail they publish in their Free Thought Today newspaper interesting. I can't imagine what runs through people's heads sometimes. You'd think the people of the FFRF were every evil ever imagined, but they're really just people that want the government to follow it's own laws Some are even from Janesville.
https://ffrf.org/publications/freethough...

Keep Saturn in Saturnalia!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...

I still have yet to see anyone make an argument why the church should be tax exempt, not even close.
Those trying to make the argument that the intent of the constitution to NOT separate the two is a silly one. Allowing churches to continue to collect large sums of money and operate tax free is ridiculous.
Too much time? Nah just easy to go out and find Thomas Jefferson quotes that apply to this. Its called google.

Feardummies, looks like you have too much time on your hands. Get a hobby.

@fear - You cheapen your argument when you include in your defense of making the churches "pay their fair share" an attack on Christianity itself. It just shows you to be just as small minded as those you rail against.

And FINALLY:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Any questions about who made these Quotes? Thank you!

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

The 'quote' from Thomas Jefferson isn't his, it's from Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.

Its about time someone addressed this.

Theres three guys who either contributed to or worte the constitution and I would say they are pretty clear on where they stand, not as "bastardized" as one would think

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it's a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."- Benjamin Franklin

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
― James Madison

Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
― Thomas Jefferson

That is your "bastardized opinion"

Not everyone believes in God, churches push a social agenda in politics. Man of them take positions and spend money in the political arena. They should not be tax exempt, NO WAY!!
BTW, the churches do a fine job ruining themselves. Case in point:
The Catholic Church has spent their entire existance opposing any type of homosexuality, and at the same time protecting their own priests whom are some of the worst sex abusers of children , out there!! And they should be tax exempt?
Dont give me this bland pointless argument about "ruining the church", tell me why a church should get tax exempt status? They get government services, they should pay their fair share. Remember just because YOU have faith in God doesnt mean that everyone does. Why should all taxpayers contribute to the church and their services? Remember these are the same people pissing and moaning about schools bc they are empty nesters and dont want to contribute to society, so why should non-believers have to contribute to faith based organizations? Directly or indirectly? Remember there is no known truth one way or another, so there is no moral high ground for the Bible thumpers here, NONE.

I wish these atheist would stop destroying the church. I never met an atheist in a foxhole and if they don't believe in God, stop using our money because it says In God weTrust on it. Leave the church a lone