Before our Constitution was put into effect in 1789, the taxation power of the United States had been restricted to a Direct tax upon the state, in proportion to the amount of land & improvements that were assessed. This method of taxation was difficult to collect from, due to the lack of urgency to pay by the states themselves. The new Constitution provides for indirect taxation (on consumption) and the same Direct Taxation upon states, but apportioned according to the states only true asset, the people. By the amount of money collected in 2004 after refunds were distributed the average per person contribution is rather low.
$1.7 Trillion ÷ 300 Million = $5666.67/Person in America in 2004
$1.7 Trillion ÷ 220 Million = $7727.27/Person 18+ in America
At a 25% taxation rate (1/4th of annual wages) the average adult population making $24,000 /year (or $11.5/hr) would cover $1.3 Trillion in taxes to the Federal Government before any refunds. $31,000/year (or approx. $14.90/hr) to reach the full $1.7 Trillion in taxes by the adult population. Read More »
We have separation of church and state in the United States of America because the state - all states - exalt themselves above all other groupings of people.
When we ask ourselves, ‘what is the state?’ We quickly realize that we must first ask, ‘ what are people?’ Human beings are individual organisms. Long age, however, these individuals came to realize that they could accomplish a great deal more as members of groups than as individuals.
The individuals formed families, clans, tribes, and eventually states. At first city-states, then groups of city- states which became nation-states. The state is itself, however, a group of people.
So, the answer to our question - ‘What is the state’ - is that the state is an organization - a group of individuals. These individuals may originally be a tribe, a clan, or a family which has become capable of influencing - exerting power over - the other groups within that particular state.
Organizations exercise power through control. To effectively exercise control the state has to be the focus of the individual’s loyalty. The state must, therefore, eliminate the other organizations within the state which are capable of competing with it for the loyalty of the individual.
We can now understand that the chief proponents of the rise of a state are, themselves, a group and that they are the dominant group within the state. It doesn’t matter whether this dominant group is an aristocracy, or a group of businessmen. Whatever it’s composition the group’s continued dominance is dependent upon control. The state must, therefore, eliminate the tribal leader, the clan chief, and the family patriarch through assimilation, or execution.
In the context of a struggle for dominance the priesthood is as great a rival of the state for the loyalty of the individual as are the tribe, the clan, and the family. Like the tribal leader, the clan chief, and the family patriarch the chief of high priest can be assimilated or executed but not the entire priesthood.
Assimilation of the high priesthood is not practical because the head of the state must also become the state religion’s high priest or another individual must be invested with that power. State religions run the risk of undermining the loyalty of those who practice a different faith. Power sharing with a high priest might result in a rivalry for control of the state.
The question then becomes how best to dominate the priesthood without turning them into rivals or martyrs. When the question is posed in this fashion the obvious solution is the "separation" of church and state. Being separate from the state the priesthood can be dominated by the state through the "rule of law" as easily as any other group of individuals within the state.
Separation of church and state is, therefore, a method of control and dominance by the state. That is why the state extends tax free status to those religious organizations which do not meddle in "politics." That is, those religious organizations who do not concern themselves with whether the state is actually managed in a fair and equitable manner.
Required viewing by ALL people.
It deals with the historic anti-semitism in religion and the importance of the separation of church and state. It examines the Catholic Church and it's failures, as well as the rise of evangelical groups, and their influence on governments past and present.
A real 5* documentary. Sarah Palin should see it.
peace to US all,
marsha
By that requirement do we mean that there should not a state church such as the Church of England?
Then yes, we have separation of church and state.
On the other hand, do we mean that there should be no state control of churches? If that is what we mean then I would argue that we do not have separation of church and state.
Why????
Because virtually all churches are IRS Code 501.3.C
entities. That is, they have a not for profit tax exempt status.
So????
To maintain that tax exempt status they must not engage in "politics".
Some of you may recall that a few years ago the pastor of an Episcopal Church in California comdemned the war in Iraq during a sermon. The church later received a letter from the IRS threatening to revoke their tax exempt status.
That didn't happen as far as I know but I never heard anything else about the pastor continuing to preach against the war.
Many dictatorships around the world would like to exercise that kind of control over their churches.
What I find really offensive is that most churches
actually prefer this status.
Why????
Because they don't want to run the risk of offending anyone.
The result is that most churches - and probably synagogues and even mosques - serve up a very diluted theology.
to its "active candidates names list" for the elction.
"this is a spiritual war,and only the one whom God has mentioned by name (daniel 10:21,12:1)can win against the powers,authorities and principalities"
I plead with every born again believer who is seeking the Lord's kingdom to come,to join me by writing my name in on the ballot,by faith alone this election.God will do the rest!
www.hismajesty2008.info and click on the "faith ballot" Read More »
Source: Religioscope
Author: Richard Cimino
While there have been allegations in the past of government investigation of mosques on issues relating to terrorism, the recent report, first featured in the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, is said to be the first confirmation that surveillance is taking place.
An article in the Los Angeles Times (May 29) reports that information about the alleged spying surfaced in a case about classified files concerning terrorism that were stolen from a secure office used by military and civilian law enforcement officials at Camp Pendleton. Some of these classified records referred to the surveillance of Muslim communities in Southern California, specifically, the Islamic Center of San Diego. The records alleged that the mosque had been monitored as part of a federal surveillance program targeting Muslim groups, according to the Union-Tribune article. Read More »
Source: Salon
Author: Juan Cole
The U.S. Justice Department is considering a change in the grounds on which the FBI can investigate citizens and legal residents of the United States. Till now, DOJ guidelines have required the FBI to have some evidence of wrongdoing before it opens an investigation. The impending new rules, which would be implemented later this summer, allow bureau agents to establish a terrorist profile or pattern of behavior and attributes and, on the basis of that profile, start investigating an individual or group. Agents would be permitted to ask "open-ended questions" concerning the activities of Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans. A person's travel and occupation, as well as race or ethnicity, could be grounds for opening a national security investigation.
The rumored changes have provoked protests from Muslim American and Arab-American groups. The Council on American Islamic Relations, among the more effective lobbies for Muslim Americans' civil liberties, immediately denounced the plan, as did James Zogby, the president of the Arab-American Institute. Said Zogby, "There are millions of Americans who, under the reported new parameters, could become subject to arbitrary and subjective ethnic and religious profiling." Zogby, who noted that the Bush administration's history with profiling is not reassuring, warned that all Americans would suffer from a weakening of civil liberties. Read More »
So wisely, our founding fathers did two things regarding religion: Read More »