Quantcast

Taxes and Tithes: Is Government Replacing the Church?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2013/02/04 23:07:43
The government is properly taking charity over from the church.
The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
The government is NOT taking charity over from the church.
I can't figure out what the government is doing.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
If you click through to the article, you can compare directly the powers and duties of the government and the church (or "temple").

On one side you have the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. (In addition to those named, Congress is granted the power:

To enforce voting rights for all adult citizens (18 and older), male and female, of all races (Amendments XV, XIX, and XXVI),

To lay and collect taxes on incomes (XVI),

To support the enforcement of state liquor laws (XXI), and

To forbid any State to enact a poll tax for Presidential elections (and primaries) and Senate and congressional elections (XXIV).

On the other side you have a very short list of things that church tithes are to pay for.

Here's the deal: the church was supposed to handle charity. Why did they give this up to the government (or let the government take it away)?

So: is the government replacing the church? And if so, is that constitutional?

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2013/02/04...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2013/02/04 23:10:51
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +14
    The Constitution grants certain enumerated powers to Congress.

    Several Amendments have granted additional powers. ("Congress shall have the power to enforce this Article through appropriate legislation.")

    There's nothing in there about creating or supporting public charities.

    That used to be the church's job.

    So what happened?

    And how has that worked out?

    I'll tell you how. We have a permanent underclass, dependent on the government, which has no incentive to help people out of poverty.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • texasred 2013/02/08 03:09:54
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    texasred
    +1
    They're sure trying to. And way too many in this nation like that.
  • G.J. the time has come to s... 2013/02/07 14:46:33
    The government is NOT taking charity over from the church.
    G.J. the time has come to switch
    +1
    their form of charity is to take away ones self worth through stripping people of their dignity in order to buy votes a system set up by LBJ in the 60's take away a mans self worth you have a nation of idiots that will buy anything. hence we have an actor in the White House who only knows how to read a teleprompter with ideas of his handlers. no leadership elected by people on welfare and overly extended unemployment.












    i
  • jeane 2013/02/06 02:34:47
    I can't figure out what the government is doing.
    jeane
    +1
    But I know that it is detrimental to us all!
  • PetrifiedElephantPoop 2013/02/05 18:31:19
    The government is NOT taking charity over from the church.
    PetrifiedElephantPoop
    I am of the opinion...if you are using religion as a device to run a business....like Joel Osteen or Robert Schuler.....Those churches should pay the government taxes.
  • Hamilton Petrifi... 2013/02/05 22:27:48
    Hamilton
    +3
    The power to tax is the power to destroy, as long as we have a constitution that we are even pretending to use (I know, that may not be too much longer) that will never happen.
  • Petrifi... Hamilton 2013/02/05 22:28:47
    PetrifiedElephantPoop
    I love rethuglican hyperbole...it makes me laugh.
  • Hamilton Petrifi... 2013/02/07 01:44:15
    Hamilton
    +1
    I am quoting John Marshall.
  • texasred Petrifi... 2013/02/08 03:12:16
    texasred
    I have to wonder if you're a real Texan or if you're a transplant. I'm hoping you're a transplant. I would hate to think the progressives have managed to twist the minds of some native Texans.
  • Petrifi... texasred 2013/02/09 03:32:51
    PetrifiedElephantPoop
    Molly Ivins was a liberal Texan. What does it really matter....Texas will be blue in about a decade.

    We had a liberal Texan president as well....He wanted to see that everyone could exercise their right to vote. The key element that you need to know is, I am an American first and foremost. I have lived everywhere all over the country under many differenr political situations...I'll take well rounded over myopic anyday.
  • Jrogers 2013/02/05 17:17:44
    I can't figure out what the government is doing.
    Jrogers
    As long as their has been organized religion - there has been a government in the shadows....working together to keep the people in line
  • Broken 2013/02/05 16:32:21
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    Broken
    +4
    They want the people to worship their secular humanist philosophies.
  • mk, Smartass Oracle 2013/02/05 16:15:03
  • whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2013/02/05 16:12:32
  • Mary Mary 2013/02/05 10:00:04
    The government is NOT taking charity over from the church.
    Mary Mary
    Australia’s national system of social security reached its centenary in June 2008.1 One hundred years before then, the Parliament of the newly created Commonwealth of Australia2 enacted legislation establishing an “old-age” pension to take effect the following year. The pension replaced similar provi- sions that had been implemented in three states.
    The social security system has grown since then to be integral to the welfare of Australian individuals and families. It is timely to reflect on how the sys- tem has come to be as it is now.
    These days, of course, social security is wide-ranging and complex. It directly affects a large majority of Australians at any given time and nearly every Aus- tralian at some point in his or her life. It has substantial impacts on the economy; expenditure on what is conventionally regarded as social security in Australia (a narrow definition by international stan- dards) represents something like six per cent of gross domestic product and accounts for between one-fifth and one-quarter of the Commonwealth’s budget (the exact figure depending on the definition of Common- wealth expenditure).
    These expenditure figures do not tell the full story. Among other things, they exclude:
    employment injury benefits, which are known in Australia as workers’...









    Australia’s national system of social security reached its centenary in June 2008.1 One hundred years before then, the Parliament of the newly created Commonwealth of Australia2 enacted legislation establishing an “old-age” pension to take effect the following year. The pension replaced similar provi- sions that had been implemented in three states.
    The social security system has grown since then to be integral to the welfare of Australian individuals and families. It is timely to reflect on how the sys- tem has come to be as it is now.
    These days, of course, social security is wide-ranging and complex. It directly affects a large majority of Australians at any given time and nearly every Aus- tralian at some point in his or her life. It has substantial impacts on the economy; expenditure on what is conventionally regarded as social security in Australia (a narrow definition by international stan- dards) represents something like six per cent of gross domestic product and accounts for between one-fifth and one-quarter of the Commonwealth’s budget (the exact figure depending on the definition of Common- wealth expenditure).
    These expenditure figures do not tell the full story. Among other things, they exclude:
    employment injury benefits, which are known in Australia as workers’ compensation and (with
    the exception of provisions for Commonwealth employees) are generally administered by state and territory governments;
    health benefits, an area of major expenditure and policy interest;
    veterans’ pensions, which for many people wholly or partly replace what would otherwise be payable via social security; and
    retirement benefits paid by superannuation funds, which (as with veterans’ pensions) wholly or partly displace social security for many people.
    They also exclude “tax expenditures”—the very large amounts of revenue that the Commonwealth loses through the generous concessions it allows in the tax system for purposes related to social security.
    A framework for analysis
    Here are four propositions to consider about the Aus- tralian model of social security and its evolution:
    It differs markedly from the international norm.
    It has proven to be remarkably resilient since its inception a century ago.
    Arrangements akin to social insurance (the usual model elsewhere) have, as a result, developed in the private sector, usually under the direction of legislation and with financial support from government.
    (more)
  • Katherine 2013/02/05 09:58:45
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    Katherine
    +3
    I don't think I trust that website.
  • XZQZQ 2013/02/05 09:50:30
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    XZQZQ
    +6
    God only wants 10% of your income. Government wants the other 90% PLUS your soul. Faith-based charities are about helping the needy. Government programs, on the other hand, are primarily about growing government, and buying Democrat votes.
  • Cat 2013/02/05 09:00:26
    I can't figure out what the government is doing.
    Cat
    I am on the church council here in PA and I tithe..
    Nearly 90% of what my church takes in goes to paying its bills.
    The other 10% or more goes to charity including feeding the poor and homeless at our soup kitchen.
    In addition we collect food and clothing to give directly to the hungry and homeless.
    Do Christians in NJ tithe? What is the money used for there?
  • Stratweenie57 2013/02/05 05:51:35
    I can't figure out what the government is doing.
    Stratweenie57
    +1
    ....but to the proglodytes,the government IS religion.
  • chucky 2013/02/05 05:22:54
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    chucky
    +2
    The government is acting in a unconstitutional way.After reading the article. It is obvious that what they are doing is also not legal.
  • emily 2013/02/05 04:58:24
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    emily
    +2
    I personally think the government is over stepping their boundaries in this area as well as many others.
  • Gid 2013/02/05 04:20:44
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    Gid
    +3
    I've been arguing this for awhile. Most of the "separation of church and State folks" really mean total take over of church by State.
  • dominic garcia 2013/02/05 04:12:06
    I can't figure out what the government is doing.
    dominic garcia
    +1
    The government is both, stealing from the church and the hard working people!
  • Frank Stephens 2013/02/05 04:02:14 (edited)
    I can't figure out what the government is doing.
    Frank Stephens
    Yeah, but I did figure out what Obama is doing. It began before Obama, but Obama has accelerated governments attempt to take over all welfare, hunger feeding and homeless sheltering programs.

    It’s economically impossible for government to replace the church in feeding the poor and taking on other essential issues.

    Government spends nearly $60000 per household in welfare costs. Our churches can deliver the same or better services for about half that cost.

    Also, government doesn’t have the ability to transform individuals’ lives and to create the lasting change that is needed to lift people out of poverty.
  • Cliff 2013/02/05 03:08:08
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    Cliff
    +3
    There is nothing in the Constitution about spreading the wealth.
  • Leslie Goudy 2013/02/05 01:29:50
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    Leslie Goudy
    +3
    The government has progressively become more unconstitutional the key word being progessive
  • Beccy 2013/02/05 01:28:35
    I can't figure out what the government is doing.
    Beccy
    +2
    Great post thanks for sharing. The welfare programs were very much needed when they were put in place. ADC was for the widowed and the abandoned. At the time it was put in place only 1.5 of all births were born out of wedlock now the figure is almost 50%. It is the break down of our soceity. After people pay taxes there is not much left to give the church.
  • srini 2013/02/05 01:24:45
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    srini
    And has been doing that since NLT Woody's time!
  • Chi~Cat 2013/02/05 01:19:23
    The government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking charity over from the church.
    Chi~Cat
    +3
    The government are snarflers and can't help themselves when in the troughs of dough re mi. Just ask if they represent their constituents without personal gain.

    politicians pork barrels
  • Chokmah Chi~Cat 2013/02/05 05:35:28
    Chokmah
    +1
    I thought this kind of puts things in perspective. In 2010, the US government collected $898 billion in federal income tax revenues. The same year, we spent $847 billion on useless wars and national defense. That means that 94% of all federal income tax revenue is equivalent to what we spend on the Pentagon. Who out there thinks it was money well spent?

    Also, just to piss you off a little bit more – defense spending is equivalent to 443% of what we collect in total corporate taxes.
  • Chi~Cat Chokmah 2013/02/05 05:46:28 (edited)
    Chi~Cat
    +2
    Your comment is without merit. Sorry to piss you off loser in life.

    Not for nothing, where are your facts? Do you live in Chi?

    I am all for building up defense and if you don't like or concur with what I believe, libbietarianski, take a shovel and dig your own grave, wanker, just to get your ire.

    Now, have a nice night and try to stay pure as DRIVEN slush, LIBERAL (that's what you really are, wad).

    What are YOU going to do? What have you done? F*ck You. POS. You are nothing more than a loser OWSer poseur. Jagoff. Typical BS swing by the Libertarian numbskulls.

    Oh, I am so scared of your *ucking lazy ass. pffftttt...take a hike, dork.

    go wipe your ass.
  • Chokmah Chi~Cat 2013/02/05 06:07:09
    Chokmah
    Now that you've had your hissy fit, why don't you go and take a nice, long, hot bath? I think you'll sleep better tonite and feel a whole lot better in the mornin.
  • Chi~Cat Chokmah 2013/02/05 06:21:55
    Chi~Cat
    +1
    LOL...You make me laugh! Thank you. hissy fit? Well, you better change your undies, pallie, cuz you are stinking up the site with your skidmarks on the brain.

    Awwww....your perdy fweellings hurt,, chump?
  • Chokmah Chi~Cat 2013/02/05 16:45:37 (edited)
    Chokmah
    Yuk, yuk.... yo certainly are a class act sweetheart.. No Class!!! LOL... drag a ten dollar bill thru a trailer park and no tellin what ur gonna cum up with... throw a little red meat out to a bimbo on SH and watch 'em bark and snarl, show ur fangs buttercup... I luv it...
  • Chi~Cat Chokmah 2013/02/05 17:30:36
    Chi~Cat
    +2
    Ooooh, I just love your way with words, Buttercup. I know you like me~ ; )

    Of course you had to edit this one, moronski: LMAO! Tool. Yeah, YOU!

    "A man at twenty who is not liberal has no heart. A man at forty who is not conservative has no head" ~ a favorite quote, from Winston Churchill.

    Had to wiki that one eh? LMAO!!!!
  • Hamilton Chi~Cat 2013/02/05 22:34:34
    Hamilton
    +1
    The old "Robber Barons" of yesteryear were nothing even closely resembling the greedsters of government. Nothing is as rapacious as government bureaucrat.
  • Daniel 2013/02/05 01:13:53
    I can't figure out what the government is doing.
    Daniel
    +1
    The Government should let the church do it's job. Last Sunday I realized the value of my dollar is shrinking making it harder to give to those who really need. Our government gives to those who want taking from those who need.
  • Idiot repubs 2013/02/05 00:57:00
    The government is NOT taking charity over from the church.
    Idiot repubs
    +1
    The church gives to itself, any charity given is certainly a mistake.
  • Magus BN-0 2013/02/05 00:49:30
    The government is NOT taking charity over from the church.
    Magus BN-0
    +3
    Since when did the Constitution ever say that "the church was supposed to handle charity"? That's right, it never said that. The Constitution doesn't give the church any role at all.
  • Gid Magus BN-0 2013/02/05 04:21:42
    Gid
    +2
    True, but it does forbid the Feds from doing anything beyond their specific scope and charity is not there.
  • Magus BN-0 Gid 2013/02/05 04:56:49
    Magus BN-0
    +1
    It does say "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/01 14:23:43

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals